Does Palin win the VP debate if...

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 1, 2008, 1:33 am

I mean this woman is so stupid that even I feel the urge to defend her from these judgmental bastards! So the bar is set at knee level for this debate. I have a feeling no matter what comes out of her mouth, right wingers will gallantly rush to her defense. Then will she be judged as competent to be president just by showing up to the debate?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 1, 2008, 2:25 am

Redemption! Woohoo!

Signed,

Dan Quayle

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 1, 2008, 7:59 am

This debate is going to be so painful to watch.

I'm desensitized to the fact that Palin is attractive. She's gonna have to come out with a sex tape or something.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » October 1, 2008, 9:50 am

Dems think we have it in the bag but I'm not inclined to believe that. I think we'd be better off not having the debate at all. As it is, people on both sides know who the better VP pick is. This debate is Palin's to lose. All she has to do is not be a complete idiot and she's won it. Biden is going to have to be much more careful, else he'll come off sounding like a condescending, sexist, yaddy ya. I've never been so excited for a VP debate in my life. In fact, I don't know that I've ever willingly watched one.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2008, 10:01 am

This is a pretty defeatist way of looking at the debate. Don't underestimate Palin's utter idiocy. It is worth having this debate, more than worth it.

Biden has nothing to worry about.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 1, 2008, 10:21 am

Nick wrote:This is a pretty defeatist way of looking at the debate. Don't underestimate Palin's utter idiocy. It is worth having this debate, more than worth it.

Biden has nothing to worry about.

I don't know...Bush got elected twice, and Palin's only on the ticket as Vice President.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 1, 2008, 12:40 pm

I'd give her the win straight out the gate if she did it topless.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » October 1, 2008, 1:09 pm

Nick wrote:This is a pretty defeatist way of looking at the debate. Don't underestimate Palin's utter idiocy. It is worth having this debate, more than worth it.

Biden has nothing to worry about.

I don't know that I'm being a defeatist. I'm just telling you how I think people will perceive it. As far as I'm concerned nothing Biden could say or do would lose him this debate. Unfortunately, expectations of Palin have been set so low that if she forms coherent sentences, it'll be such an improvement to the last couple of interviews that it'll seem a victory.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 1, 2008, 1:53 pm

laneela wrote:
Nick wrote:This is a pretty defeatist way of looking at the debate. Don't underestimate Palin's utter idiocy. It is worth having this debate, more than worth it.

Biden has nothing to worry about.
I don't know that I'm being a defeatist. I'm just telling you how I think people will perceive it. As far as I'm concerned nothing Biden could say or do would lose him this debate. Unfortunately, expectations of Palin have been set so low that if she forms coherent sentences, it'll be such an improvement to the last couple of interviews that it'll seem a victory.

Not to mention that Biden has a history of having to retract "insensitive" statements. That is one of the things that made me uncomfortable with him being on the ticket in the beginning.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2008, 3:34 pm

Palin's going to do much better than most of you think.

Biden's going to come off as an ass if he starts ranting and raving. Palin won't play victim but she will be perceived as one depending on Biden. No win situation for democrats.

Even after you libs start tearing into her responses...it won't matter if she says the sky is green if asked, she'll still help the Republicans.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 1, 2008, 3:41 pm

Winnow wrote:Palin's going to do much better than most of you think.

No. No she's not. She is going to write this weekend's Saturday Night Live.

Palin is lose/lose for the country.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 1, 2008, 3:43 pm

Winnow wrote:Biden's going to come off as an ass if he starts ranting and raving.

Like McCain did in the first debate?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2008, 3:44 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote: Palin is lose/lose for the country.

Don't make the mistake of considering what's best for the country. That's what you liberals do all the time and lose elections. She'll do well in the eyes of the people that aren't balls out already for Obama.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 3:45 pm

I think it ends up being less interesting and consequential than we imagine. The candidates don't get much chance to interact, Biden will shut up and fade into the background and generally seem like a smart white guy afterthought. Palin will talk in platitudes, deliver rehearsed anecdotes and personal stories, and avoid delving into in-depth policy discussion at all costs. When it's over, we'll be exactly where we were before it began.

Winnow, there aren't a whole lot of people who haven't made up their minds and are going to be swayed by the VP debate. Obama has won the election unless there's a game-changing surprise between now and November. Sarah Palin's debate performance will not be it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2008, 3:50 pm

Sueven wrote: Winnow, there aren't a whole lot of people who haven't made up their minds and are going to be swayed by the VP debate. Obama has won the election unless there's a game-changing surprise between now and November. Sarah Palin's debate performance will not be it.

I don't disagree with that. Democrats better win this presidential election or they may ever win another one. This should have been a cakewalk.

Game changing surprises definitely work in the Republican's favor though. Maybe Putin will do something stupid.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 3:57 pm

It is a cakewalk dude.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Obama win percentage: 85.4
Average electoral vote projection margin: 336-202

This is not currently a close election campaign.

Also, when everyone talks about all the advantages Obama has, remember this: HE'S BLACK. He's black he's black he's black he's black. And he's STILL kicking McCain's ass.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2008, 4:00 pm

Sueven wrote:It is a cakewalk dude.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Obama win percentage: 85.4
Average electoral vote projection margin: 336-202

This is not currently a close election campaign.

Also, when everyone talks about all the advantages Obama has, remember this: HE'S BLACK. He's black he's black he's black he's black. And he's STILL kicking McCain's ass.

Got any non partisan stats?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2008, 4:36 pm

Specifically which parts of his methodology do you object to as partisan?

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » October 1, 2008, 4:43 pm

Sueven wrote:Specifically which parts of his methodology do you object to as partisan?

It doesn't support what he thinks is actually happening.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 1, 2008, 4:55 pm

My prediction:

Whoever talks the least, wins.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2008, 5:06 pm

Palin can also see Canada from her bedroom! As a canuck, I'd be wanting Palin in the White House with her first hand knowledge of cold climates. She's the only one that can relate to having to live above the 49th parallel.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2008, 6:07 pm

Rasmussen good enough for you?

Gallup?

What exactly is wrong with 538? You are aware its used all the time along with other such polls to gauge reaction?

Or is it just because you don't like what you see?

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 1, 2008, 6:20 pm

Palin can't handle an interview with Katie Couric...hwo the hell is she going to handle a debate? Couric wasn't even asking her that tough of questions and she stumbled over most of them. I hope the debate doesn't ask what her last book was.

Biden did very well during the democratic debates. His off the cuff remarks were made outside of the debate format. He won't have any trouble handling Palin. The only people that are going to view him as a bully are those people who are already voting for McPain.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 1, 2008, 7:22 pm

You can be assured that Palin has been non-stop coached since that interview. She'll do better at the debate than we're expecting I think. Not great mind you, but she's probably been coached in a dozen different ways to try to make Biden look like he's against women, against babies and against guns.. true or not.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2008, 7:33 pm

Well the gun issue would fall flat on its face? Isn't Biden a gun owner?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 1, 2008, 7:44 pm

Oh, I doubt we will see much debate over guns, at least this early.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 2, 2008, 4:34 am

Deward wrote:Palin can't handle an interview with Katie Couric...hwo the hell is she going to handle a debate? Couric wasn't even asking her that tough of questions and she stumbled over most of them. I hope the debate doesn't ask what her last book was.

I know the answer to that. Bush lend her "My Pet Goat"

laneela · Post by **laneela** » October 2, 2008, 9:54 am

Deward wrote:Palin can't handle an interview with Katie Couric...hwo the hell is she going to handle a debate? Couric wasn't even asking her that tough of questions and she stumbled over most of them. I hope the debate doesn't ask what her last book was.

Whatever! That Couric interview was nothing more than "gotcha journalism" and you know it. And Palin reads a lot of books. She's read all of them, any of them that have been in front of her all these years.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 2, 2008, 1:36 pm

Canelek wrote:Oh, I doubt we will see much debate over guns, at least this early.

I am predicting this will be a late October issue as a final push to elminate Nobama. The NRA has been pretty quiet publicly so far....but with a shitheel like Nobama having publicly stated his views about wanting to ban personal ownership of most types of firearms and institute a national police force, I would expect a bloodbath (politically speaking of course).

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 2, 2008, 2:00 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Canelek wrote:Oh, I doubt we will see much debate over guns, at least this early.
I am predicting this will be a late October issue as a final push to elminate Nobama. The NRA has been pretty quiet publicly so far....but with a shitheel like Nobama having publicly stated his views about wanting to ban personal ownership of most types of firearms and institute a national police force, I would expect a bloodbath (politically speaking of course).

I think it's because even the gun nuts are starting to realize there are worse alternatives than someone in the White House who does not like guns. After all, what good is having a gun if you can't afford bullets to put in them?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 2, 2008, 2:12 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote: I think it's because even the gun nuts are starting to realize there are worse alternatives than someone in the White House who does not like guns. After all, what good is having a gun if you can't afford bullets to put in them?

You could club someone with it or fake like there's a bullet! Is a burglar going to risk his life based on their analysis of the economy, concluding that the owner of weapon has a gun but no ammo? Maybe we'll have more burglars with financial backgrounds considering all the layoffs.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 2:29 pm

Obama is not going to take our guns.

That whole thing is more of a talking point to rally gun owners against him.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2008, 2:32 pm

Canelek wrote:Obama is not going to take our guns.

That whole thing is more of a talking point to rally gun owners against him.

I'd say the same thing about McCain/Palin and abortion. It will never happen, yet a good number of the people that are actually able to articulate a reason to me that they don't like them mention that as one of their few points.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 2, 2008, 2:35 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Canelek wrote:Obama is not going to take our guns.

That whole thing is more of a talking point to rally gun owners against him.
I'd say the same thing about McCain/Palin and abortion. It will never happen, yet a good number of the people that are actually able to articulate a reason to me that they don't like them mention that as one of their few points.

With them able to appoint jesus-freak judges to the Supreme Court what makes you think it will (could) never happen? At the moment Roe v Wade is probably holding on by a vote or two. If it gets any more conservative I'm sure that would more than tip the balance in favor of it being overturned.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 2:38 pm

I agree for the most part (re: guns/abortion). However, that particular topic, as well as many others are enough for me to "fundamentally" disagree with McCain/Palin.

(that fundamental topic was particularly amusing in the last debate)

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 2, 2008, 2:38 pm

Asslana wrote:With them able to appoint jesus-freak judges to the Supreme Court what makes you think it will (could) never happen? At the moment Roe v Wade is probably holding on by a vote or two. If it gets any more conservative I'm sure that would more than tip the balance in favor of it being overturned.

Take that argument, apply it to guns.... omg!!!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 2, 2008, 2:39 pm

Fash wrote:
Asslana wrote:With them able to appoint jesus-freak judges to the Supreme Court what makes you think it will (could) never happen? At the moment Roe v Wade is probably holding on by a vote or two. If it gets any more conservative I'm sure that would more than tip the balance in favor of it being overturned.
Take that argument, apply it to guns.... omg!!!

... and find that it doesn't apply? Got it. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2008, 2:42 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Canelek wrote:Obama is not going to take our guns.

That whole thing is more of a talking point to rally gun owners against him.
I'd say the same thing about McCain/Palin and abortion. It will never happen, yet a good number of the people that are actually able to articulate a reason to me that they don't like them mention that as one of their few points.
With them able to appoint jesus-freak judges to the Supreme Court what makes you think it will (could) never happen? At the moment Roe v Wade is probably holding on by a vote or two. If it gets any more conservative I'm sure that would more than tip the balance in favor of it being overturned.

I just don't see it as something that will ever happen. I'd guess there are quite a few more politicians (Republican and Democrat) that oppose the idea than support it. It's something that would get the majority of people pissed at them and I just don't think they'd do it.

I could also pose that same question back at you about the guns thing, though. It most certainly does apply, Aslanna.. You're talking about a right that would have to be taken away by a judge appointed by the president in either case. Yes, I realize the issues aren't exactly comparable, but the situation is.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 2:45 pm

Let me clarify a bit on the abortion bit...

This pretty much goes hand in hand with stem cell research. Although the chances of R v W getting overturned are low within 4 years. How about funding for stem cell research? Is it worth it to ignore this science and leave policy in the hands of people who are morally opposed?

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » October 2, 2008, 2:48 pm

Don't make the mistake of considering what's best for the country. That's what you liberals do all the time and lose elections. She'll do well in the eyes of the people that aren't balls out already for Obama.

For some reason this statement struck me as ludicrous. maybe winnow was just cracking a joke (I can't tell when you're serious or acting snarky sometimes.)

That being said, the idiots who voted for Bush are the ones that should not make the mistake of considering what's best for the country. Look where it got us; 2 seemingly never ending wars, economic meltdown, erosion of civil rights, era of zero accountability, opaque government, gimmick politics.

If anyone should be gloating right now, it's the Gore/Kerry voter who can say with the utmost confidence "I told you so."

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 2:52 pm

Considering both Gore and Kerry are assclowns...

They still would have done better than W, imo.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2008, 2:52 pm

Canelek wrote:Let me clarify a bit on the abortion bit...

This pretty much goes hand in hand with stem cell research. Although the chances of R v W getting overturned are low within 4 years. How about funding for stem cell research? Is it worth it to ignore this science and leave policy in the hands of people who are morally opposed?

I think the big problem with stem cell research, is that much like abortion, there is a lot of grey area on stances. I think that is what holds these things up, moreso than the people who are 100% for or against it.

I'm fine with stem cell research as long as it isn't fetal. I don't have a long drawn out reason to give you as to why, it just doesn't sit right with me, much like cloning doesn't sit right with me either.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 2, 2008, 3:26 pm

The difference between guns and abortion when it comes to the supreme court is that the former is guaranteed by the constitution while the latter is merely a court case decision from the 70's that could easily be overturned. Obama is not a serious threat to gun rights, while McCain is a serious threat to abortion rights. For this reason alone, Obama's lead among women will be so overwhelming that there is simply no way McCain can overcome it, despite the Palin factor.

Also, Winnow, I'm curious exactly what it is about 538's methodology you disagree with. I will freely admit that the blogging on the site has a slight liberal bias, but the statistics do not unless like Stephen Colbert, you believe truth has a liberal bias.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2008, 3:30 pm

Xyun wrote:The difference between guns and abortion when it comes to the supreme court is that the former is guaranteed by the constitution while the latter is merely a court case decision from the 70's that could easily be overturned. Obama is not a serious threat to gun rights, while McCain is a serious threat to abortion rights. For this reason alone, Obama's lead among women will be so overwhelming that there is simply no way McCain can overcome it, despite the Palin factor.

Also, Winnow, I'm curious exactly what it is about 538's methodology you disagree with. I will freely admit that the blogging on the site has a slight liberal bias, but the statistics do not.

True, however that doesn't change the fact that all it will take to get rid of either of them is a judge. I just think these are all the panic issues that people care about, and seem to think there is a chance of anything actually happening, but it just won't.

While they do care about it, I'm sure, the abortion issue and the stance the republicans state publicly seems to me to probably be more to keep the bible belt on their side.

I could be wrong, I'm just not real worried that the way any of these issues are handled is going to change anytime soon.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 2, 2008, 7:14 pm

Funkmasterr wrote: True, however that doesn't change the fact that all it will take to get rid of either of them is a judge.

Perhaps you need to go read what's required to amend the consititution, then shut the fuck up.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 2, 2008, 7:20 pm

http://www.236.com/news/2008/10/01/deba ... 1_9211.php

Scroll down to the slideshow. It's really a riot. Biden seems like an overzealous quarterback.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 2, 2008, 7:39 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote: True, however that doesn't change the fact that all it will take to get rid of either of them is a judge.
Perhaps you need to go read what's required to amend the consititution, then shut the fuck up.

Yeah I kicked myself for saying that right after I posted it and got too busy this afternoon to come back and correct myself.

Either way, my point is still relevant. Worrying about either of those issues seeing any big changes anytime soon is retarded.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 2, 2008, 7:45 pm

Speaking of fetus-chuckers like Palin, I need to re-read Insomnia (Stephen King). Good shit!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 2, 2008, 8:25 pm

Funk wrote:Worrying about either of those issues seeing any big changes anytime soon is retarded.

This is really just not true.

The right to an abortion is guaranteed by virtue of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. We already know that two justices-- Scalia and Thomas-- think that those decisions are wrong and are eager to overturn them. It's assumed, almost certainly correctly, that Alito and Roberts agree. The other five justices are in support of abortion rights.

Neither the President nor the Congress have any say in what cases the Supreme Court hears. The Supreme Court hears cases appealed from lower courts based on any four justices voting to accept the case. Pro-life advocates have never had any trouble finding a compliant state to pass abortion restrictions in order to force a Supreme Court decision. This has happened in South Dakota, Nebraska and Pennsylvania, and I'm probably forgetting some. Once a state passes abortion restrictions, those restrictions have to be challenged in court in order to be overturned. Once they're challenged in court, they're on their way to the Supreme Court, and nobody can do anything about it so long as four justices want to hear the case.

What this means is that if another justice is appointed to the court who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case will without a doubt be overturned. Some state will pass a restriction, someone will challenge it in court, it'll wind it's way up through the appeals process, and four justices, knowing that they have a majority, will decide to hear the case. If another pro-life justice winds up on the court, Roe v. Wade is gone. Period.

The next president will almost certainly get to replace Ginsburg and Stevens. McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionists" (code for "opposed to Roe v. Wade"). Therefore, if he is president, Roe v. Wade is very likely to fall. I'd say the odds are about 75%.

You're absolutely right that Congress would likely not pass a federal abortion ban. Many states, however, almost certainly would. That's a big deal to a lot of people, and if you have strong views on abortion, it's certainly reason enough to consider that belief strongly when deciding who to vote for.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 2, 2008, 8:35 pm

Canelek wrote:Speaking of fetus-chuckers like Palin, I need to re-read Insomnia (Stephen King). Good shit!

Thought you said fetus fucker for some reason. Peculiar.

Does Palin win the debate if she manages not to curse, throw up, or fall down?