You don't even need polls to see who won.
Wow, et tu Murdoch?
You don't even need polls to see who won.
NY Post???
Wow
CBS was +8 Democrat so I ignored that flawed poll.
So, a +8 Democrat poll is flawed and should be ignored, while a +8 Republican poll is worthy enough to use as evidence for your argument. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
She didnt do anything special
she ....moderated the debate, she did her best to keep these two on the issues and the question asked, asked them to expand on answers... you know, moderate a debate.
I love Leher, he's a great journalist, NewsHour on PBS is the best, last week wasnt his best.
Someone should start a GafPoll to see who really won. Then we can stop arguing about pointless polls.
Someone should start a GafPoll to see who really won. Then we can stop arguing about pointless polls.
97% Biden 3% Ryan
In all fairness though, GAF was more than capable of admitting their guy lost the last one.
You don't even need polls to see who won.
Man, Joe was fired up last night. I thought he made a lot of good points and he really took it to Romney-Ryan on the controversial issues, but he really came off looking like an idiot while Ryan was talking...
That being said, I thought that Ryan came off as very likable and well-rounded on the issues...
Moderator did a better job than Lehrer. I thought that at times she didn't know what to do about Biden's constant interruptions so she used it as a chance to ask him a question...
Anyway, Biden definitely won on substance, but I think people will just remember that Biden was a jerk and Ryan was a "nice guy."
i dont think biden considers what he's doing is interrupting.
he's treating certain areas of it as a discussion between the moderator, himself and ryan.
and since ryan is delivering rehearsed rhetoric and doesn't respond directly to things biden is saying or asking, it comes off as rude on biden's part.
the fact that it's not agreed upon by everyone that Biden won is insane. pure insanity.
I jut watched the debate, and Joe owned him. Paul did not even answer the questions with what he and Romney intended to do.
BTW, all these crap personal stories during debates are getting on my nerves since they don´t represent the reality of the situation.
I thought that Ryan came off as very likable and well-rounded on the issues. He didn't seem to be overly rattled by the VP's "play-by-play commentary." I hated that he talked around the questions instead of directly answering them. I really believe the reason that he doesn't go into specifics on the tax plans is because he doesn't know.
the fact that it's not agreed upon by everyone that Biden won is insane. pure insanity.
There is a deeply held Beltway myth of Paul Ryan, Man of Big Ideas, and it dies hard. But, if there is a just god in the universe, on Thursday night, it died a bloody death, was hurled into a pit, doused with quicklime, buried without ceremony, and the ground above it salted and strewn with garlic so that it never rises again.
My favorite take so far...
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-debate-joe-biden-13626962
Ryan had zero substance and 100% sob stories and zingers.
the atlantic said:Congressman Paul Ryan made three good points Thursday during foreign policy portions of the VP debate. He's correct that the Obama Administration shamefully misled Americans about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Security there was insufficient. And it is hypocritical when Team Obama criticizes Team Romney for wanting to extend the presence of American troops in Iraq. President Obama himself pressed Iraqi officials to permit American troops to stay longer.
Unfortunately, Ryan failed to call the Obama Administration on any of the most egregious flaws in its foreign policy, because Republicans agree with most of them. Instead, he talked a lot of nonsense. During the broadcast, it passed by too quickly to attract much notice. His delivery is much smoother than Sarah Palin managed four years back. But he doesn't know any more than she did...
Here's the difference between Biden and Ryan: whereas Biden has been studying foreign policy for many decades (over which he's made his share of mistakes), everything Ryan knows about foreign policy, or at least everything he's shown us he knows, comes from interventionist ideologues with talking points that test well among the base and bear little resemblance to reality. I didn't quite realize how awful Ryan's performance was until I read the transcript of the debate. Biden did smile too much. It distracted me from Ryan's apparent unfitness to be commander-in-chief.
He just isn't a credible steward of U.S. foreign policy.
For some odd reason, Esquire is blocked at work...can you post the article?
VP Debate 2012: The Real Paul Ryan Is Bad for America
By Charles P. Pierce
at 12:43AM
For the second time in as many presidential elections, Joseph Biden got to debate a young, attractive Republican candidate who was demonstrably less qualified to to be president than I am to be chairman of the World Bank. Joseph Biden is a very lucky man. The Great Political Matchmaker in the Sky keeps handing him people who are trying — and failing — to fight above their weight class, and he keeps blowing through what can now legitimately be called the Bum of the Quadrennium Club.
There is a deeply held Beltway myth of Paul Ryan, Man of Big Ideas, and it dies hard. But, if there is a just god in the universe, on Thursday night, it died a bloody death, was hurled into a pit, doused with quicklime, buried without ceremony, and the ground above it salted and strewn with garlic so that it never rises again. On foreign policy, Ryan occasionally rose, gasping, to the level of obvious neophyte. (He was more lost in Afghanistan than the Russian army ever was.) On domestic policy, his alleged wheelhouse, he was vague, untruthful, and he walked right into a haymaker he should have seen coming from a mile off, when he started bloviating about Biden's role in the "failed" stimulus program, only to have Biden slap him around with Ryan's own requests for stimulus money for his home district back in Wisconsin. He also made it quite clear that a Romney-Ryan White House will do everything it can to eliminate a woman's right to choose. This should make for some fine television commercials over the next few weeks.
(A brief note here about Martha Raddatz, who's an old pal from our baby journo days in Boston. She did a fine job holding feet to the fire until her last three questions. She asked the two men to define their Catholicism only through the issue of abortion, which is not only insulting, but also limited a more interesting line of inquiry, given the open opposition of the Catholic bishops to the zombie-eyed granny-starving that is the hallmark of Ryan's career. And that closing if-you-were-a-tree question was simply embarrassing.)
Moreover, the battering that Biden gave Ryan brought something into sharp relief that the Republican party has been fudging ever since Romney put the zombie-eyed granny-starver on the ticket — that, for his entire political career up to that point, on critical economic issues, Paul Ryan was an extremist even by the standards of the modern Republican party, which are considerably high indeed. He was for full privatization of Social Security. He was for the absolute elimination of the defined-benefit Medicare and Medicaid programs. Since being selected, it has become clear that the Romney people have forced him to soften these positions. (His stance on Medicare, for example, has evolved from Kill It Now to Arrange for Its Slow Death Later.) On Thursday night, Biden dragged out the old Paul Ryan — and, I would argue, the real Paul Ryan — and put him on display, and he made the new Paul Ryan own him. For one brief moment, he almost got Ryan to commit to Social Security privatization again. You could hear the screams from Romney headquarters all the way up the Charles to where I was watching.
Ryan got hit on the stimulus. He looked ridiculous trying to defend his refusal to specify what "loopholes" he and Romney plan to close to make the magic arithmetic in their tax plan work; Raddatz treed him completely on the mortgage-interest deduction, on the elimination of which neither Ryan nor his running mate will commit to a position. He looked even more ridiculous when Biden started pounding him on his career-long quest to end Medicare and throw old people onto the tender mercies of large insurance companies. Biden kept saying "vouchers" until Ryan, at one point, said, "It's not a voucher. A voucher is a check you get in your mailbox."
Wait. So if Paul Ryan gets his way, and Medicare as we know it gets eviscerated in favor of a pot full of offal on which Paul Ryan has slapped a label reading "Medicare," and my inadequate health-insurance allowance comes by e-mail, then it's not a "voucher" because it wasn't a check I got in the mail? And this is the issue on which Paul Ryan is supposed to be Genius on roller skates. This was humiliating enough, but when they started talking about war and peace, specifically in Afghanistan, Ryan looked like a toddler trying to cross the Hindu Kush.
He stammered. He vanished into his syntax. He gave Biden the chance to ask him if he preferred that American soldiers carry the fighting in the worst parts of the country rather than Afghan troops, a devastating comeback for which Ryan had no answer. He kept rambling about maintaining the country's "credibility" until, if you closed your eyes, he started to sound like Robert McNamara in 1965. And when Raddatz asked him, deftly, what would be worse, another war in the Middle East or Iran with a nuclear bomb, he leaped in precipitously with the latter, while about 75 percent of the country, including the two other people on stage with him, looked at Ryan as though he'd lost his mind. He did, however, demonstrate a certain talent for pronouncing long foreign words that his briefers had taught him on Tuesday. Also, he explained winter.
For years, Paul Ryan has been the shining champion of some really terrible ideas, and of a dystopian vision of the political commonwealth in which the poor starve and the elderly die ghastly, impoverished deaths, while all the essential elements of a permanent American oligarchy were put in place. This has garnered him loving notices from a lot of people who should have known better. The ideas he could explain were bad enough, but the profound ignorance he displayed on Thursday night on a number of important questions, including when and where the United States might wind up going to war next, and his blithe dismissal of any demand that he be specific about where he and his running mate are planning to take the country generally, was so positively terrifying that it calls into question Romney's judgment for putting this unqualified greenhorn on the ticket at all. Joe Biden laughed at him? Of course, he did. The only other option was to hand him a participation ribbon and take him to Burger King for lunch.
You know what's the difference between Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan?
Lipstick.
You can say what you want about taxcut plan bullshit. I put as much in my post. Ryan was able to talk knowledgeably about foreign policy, the economy, and healthcare. Just because you don't agree with his stance on the issues doesn't make him clueless.How does someone come off as "well-rounded" on issues and is unable to discuss specifics?
You can say what you want about taxcut plan bullshit. I put as much in my post. Ryan was able to talk knowledgeably about foreign policy, the economy, and healthcare. Just because you don't agree with his stance on the issues doesn't make him clueless.
My favorite take so far...
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-debate-joe-biden-13626962
Joe Biden laughed at him? Of course, he did. The only other option was to hand him a participation ribbon and take him to Burger King for lunch.
Supposedly. Breh needs to work on dem legs tho.
P90x. You're not getting huge on p90x.
Here's the difference between Biden and Ryan: whereas Biden has been studying foreign policy for many decades (over which he's made his share of mistakes), everything Ryan knows about foreign policy, or at least everything he's shown us he knows, comes from interventionist ideologues with talking points that test well among the base and bear little resemblance to reality. I didn't quite realize how awful Ryan's performance was until I read the transcript of the debate. Biden did smile too much. It distracted me from Ryan's apparent unfitness to be commander-in-chief.
He just isn't a credible steward of U.S. foreign policy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...an-is-unqualified-to-step-in-as-potus/263531/
Perhaps "better prepared than I expected" would be a better descriptor for his foreign policy segments.It's interesting that you state that Ryan was able to come across as knowledgeable about foreign policy.
How so?
(Not going to debate you on the subject, but I am curious to hear your thoughts.)
You can say what you want about taxcut plan bullshit. I put as much in my post. Ryan was able to talk knowledgeably about foreign policy, the economy, and healthcare. Just because you don't agree with his stance on the issues doesn't make him clueless.
Perhaps "better prepared than I expected" would be a better descriptor for his foreign policy segments.
I thought that he was able to speak in detail about all of the conflict areas that were brought up in the debate. Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, UN politics, etc. He could comment on the situations and how they could be handled. I don't think he laid out the foundation for world peace, but he wasn't like "I can see Canada from my backyard!" either.
Perhaps "better prepared than I expected" would be a better descriptor for his foreign policy segments.
I thought that he was able to speak in detail about all of the conflict areas that were brought up in the debate. Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, UN politics, etc. He could comment on the situations and how they could be handled. I don't think he laid out the foundation for world peace, but he wasn't like "I can see Canada from my backyard!" either.
Ryan was able to talk knowledgeably about foreign policy, the economy, and healthcare. Just because you don't agree with his stance on the issues doesn't make him clueless.
Here's the difference between Biden and Ryan: whereas Biden has been studying foreign policy for many decades (over which he's made his share of mistakes), everything Ryan knows about foreign policy, or at least everything he's shown us he knows, comes from interventionist ideologues with talking points that test well among the base and bear little resemblance to reality.
Perhaps "better prepared than I expected" would be a better descriptor for his foreign policy segments.
Perhaps "better prepared than I expected" would be a better descriptor for his foreign policy segments.
I thought that he was able to speak in detail about all of the conflict areas that were brought up in the debate. Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, UN politics, etc. He could comment on the situations and how they could be handled. I don't think he laid out the foundation for world peace, but he wasn't like "I can see Canada from my backyard!" either.
Complete sentences was a high bar for past VP candidates.So you are impressed he spoke in complete sentences? Shouldn't we expect more? I mean Biden made him look like a joke on the subject.
So you are impressed he spoke in complete sentences? Shouldn't we expect more? I mean Biden made him look like a joke on the subject.
Biden was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for nearly 40 years, there's no way Ryan was going to touch him on the subject.
Brb...