Founder of RW site admits Obama won debate, slams McCain

[ProSense]

RedState Founder Admits Obama Won Debate, Lashes McCain:

<...>

Josh goes on to say that the key turning point in the debate was Obama's verbal excoriation of McCain for being wrong on Iraq from the beginning. Not only did McCain set himself up for the hit by claiming to have superior judgment on the surge, he also had no ready comeback for what should have been an obvious line of attack from Obama. Says Josh:

In one swoop, the superiority of John McCain on foreign affairs was laid waste. An effective debater would have responded with a series of his foe’s own grievous errors in the same sphere — and despite his thin public record, Barack Obama has several. Instead, McCain lamely replied, "I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," and segued into a non sequitur about General Petraeus. To paraphrase Tallyrand, this was worse than a crime — it was a mistake. Assaulted on the very pillar of his candiacy, John McCain yielded.

<...>

Of course, McCain's debate failure wouldn't have been such a big deal if it hadn't come in the wake of at least two weeks of bad press and even worse polling numbers for his campaign. Instead, McCain looked nasty and testy at a time when he could least afford to. After a couple of weeks marked by erratic inconsistency, McCain needed to show a warm and steady hand. Instead, he appeared snarly, off-center, angry and unable to look his opponent in the eye. It reinforced the image of McCain as an unpredictable loose cannon set to go off at any moment, without respect for either friends or opponents. Josh ends his post thus:

The larger story here is not the debate. Rather, it is the story of which the debate is merely the culminating chapter: the three-week-long implosion of the McCain campaign itself. At the end of the first week of September, that campaign boasted its first lead in the national polls, a surprisingly successful convention, and an energizing vice-presidential nominee. At the end of the last week of September, the lead is gone, the convention is forgotten, and Sarah Palin is more disaster than delight. How this happened demands exploration, and we’ll get to it next.

I'm looking forward to reading what he says next. His analysis of how Republicans got themselves into this mess is bound to be an eye-opener, and I'll be very interested to see what he has to say.

In the meantime, progressives can take heart: honest conservatives know who won this debate, and it wasn't McCain. Conservatives, too, should take heart that they still have guys like Joshua Trevino around to let them know when they're in trouble, and what they should do about it. If the Republicans had more like him and less like Krauthammer or Bill Kristol, they'd be in much better shape than they are today--and so would America.

-more-

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Complacency could be fatal.

[jeff30997]

2. I totally agree.

I have a bad feeling about all this.

[ProSense]

5. Stop it.

What does a Wingnut saying Obama won the debate and attacking McCain have to do with complacency? Who are you claiming is being complacent?

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Complacency is the evil twin brother of over-confidence.

If the win looks assured, there are those who will not even bother to vote.
There was no accusation, merely an observation.

[Starlight]

3. I agree that McCain's "tactic vs strategy" comment was a mistake. He sounded both petty & arrogant.

[1Hippiechick]

19. Worse. He thought he had outstmarted Obama on a 'nuance' - fatal mistake on HIS part - Obama is

light-years ahead of McCain in intelligence. He's a constitutional LAW professor, for Chrissake.

[PerfectSage]

4. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee This election is becoming fun. Soon goppers will be killing eachother.

The larger story here is not the debate. Rather, it is the story of which the debate is merely the culminating chapter: the three-week-long implosion of the McCain campaign itself.

If politics is the continuation of warfare by non violent means? Obama is going to kick gop ass off the battlefield.

[izquierdista]

6. Erratic inconsistency

That's the definition of "maverick". Fire - ready - aim!

[mitchum]

11. I thought that "lost, wandering, and confused calf"

was the definition of maverick.
Actually, both of our definitons would suffice for McCain :)

[Cirque du So-What]

8. Is there any point on the polling scale

at which everyone is happy with the results? I think not. If our candidate is too far ahead, we may become complacent and actually forget to go out and vote. If our candidate is statistically tied with his opponent, it means the polls are rigged to make it easier for the Repugs to steal the election. If our candidate is behind, well, then, we're all doomed! Doomed, I tells ya! Doomed!

[BumRushDaShow]

13. LOL

So true! :rofl:

[Cirque du So-What]

14. Sad thing is...

it's occasionally the same individuals who sound the klaxon whenever our candidate is ahead, tied or behind :silly: :wtf: :shrug:

I guess everyone needs a hobby :eyes:

[OwnedByFerrets]

9. K and R

[Hope And Change]

10. K & R!

[sufrommich]

12. Here comes the GOP implosion. nt

[Adelante]

15. The most interesting debate focus group of all

is one Josh Trevino links to, in his piece on his own site, which was done for Democracy Corps. Most of the participants were Bush voters, both Republicans and Democrats.

During and after the debate, Democracy Corps conducted a set of dial and focus groups among 45 undecided voters in St. Louis, Missouri. These voters had an unmistakably Republican tilt, voting for President Bush by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004 and self-identifying as 33 percent Republican and 27 percent Democrat. But playing on his perceived strength of national security and before a friendly audience, McCain could only manage a draw among this group. Of our 45 initial undecided voters, a quarter moved to Obama and a quarter to McCain after the debate with the rest remaining undecided. Moreover, by a 38 to 27 percent margin these voters said that Obama won this debate.

A look at the underlying numbers shows that Obama made important gains that could endure through Election Day. These undecided voters had a strong positive reaction to Obama on a personal level. Before the debate, just 40 percent viewed Obama positively, but this skyrocketed to 69 percent after the debate – a remarkable 29-point gain that left him more personally popular than McCain despite this group’s conservative leanings. He also made large strides on being seen as independent, from 44 percent to 65 percent. And in head-to-head matchups against McCain, Obama made significant gains on who “shares your values” and is “on your side."

-snip

The bigger story was the change on security issues. Obama entered at a severe disadvantage on national security with these undecided but Republican-leaning voters, losing the initial matchup on this issue by a 63-point margin, but he managed to close this gap by 20 points over the course of the debate. He also made significant gains on who would do better on foreign policy (closing the gap with McCain by 8 points) and on the war on terrorism (cutting a 40-point McCain lead to 24 points). Obama’s repeated focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan was likely a main driver of this improvement, as his dial reading spiked when outlining his aggressive policy on taking on al Qaeda and the Taliban. On Iraq, Obama made significant progress in reassuring voters that he will not take precipitous action in withdrawing from Iraq with the percentage saying that he “will leave Iraq too quickly” does not describe him well increasing from 33 percent to 47 percent. On one of the most important issues to these voters – who will do a better job achieving energy independence – Obama strongly outperformed McCain, more than doubling an already impressive 20-point lead on the issue to 44 points. Obama scored some of his highest marks on our dials when talking about the need to make America energy independent. Even those who felt McCain won the debate agreed in our follow-up focus groups that Obama was the more persuasive candidate on energy independence.

In the end, Obama’s primary imperative tonight was to pass the commander-in-chief test. He achieved that with many of these voters. Before the debate, only 40 percent agreed that Obama “has what it takes” to be president, but this number increased to a majority of 51 percent by the end of the night.

It's worth reading the whole thing:

http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2008/09/first-presidential-debate-obama-makes-important-personal-and-national-security-gains/

[Cha]

16. norah o'donnell needs to see this..

"Of course, McCain's debate failure wouldn't have been such a big deal if it hadn't come in the wake of at least two weeks of bad press and even worse polling numbers for his campaign. Instead, McCain looked nasty and testy at a time when he could least afford to. After a couple of weeks marked by erratic inconsistency, McCain needed to show a warm and steady hand. Instead, he appeared snarly, off-center, angry and unable to look his opponent in the eye. It reinforced the image of McCain as an unpredictable loose cannon set to go off at any moment, without respect for either friends or opponents."


jenmito (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-27-08 11:42 AM
Original message

"Norah O'Donnell said McCain had to do well in tone and temperament, & McCain had a very strong night."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7219556

[DoctorMyEyes]

17. How you can tell he's a genuine republican?

To paraphrase Tallyrand, this was worse than a crime — it was a mistake.

I don't know who he's paraphrasing, but I recognize the right wingedness of believing a mistake is worse than a crime.

[moriah]

18. I actually post on Redstate sometimes.

Why?

Because most of the contributors and moderators there are intelligent.

Yes, that may seem like an oxymoron, but it's true. I can't stand reading at Freeperville because the ignorance astounds me. I am an admitted liberal when I post there, and I don't let myself get into debates trying to convert me -- when they try, I go on a short liberal rant and then say "Better shut up now" or something like that.

But they tolerate my presence since I don't troll, since I admit to be liberal, and because I'm willing to admit when our guy makes a mistake. Most of the time, they're willing to admit their guy made a mistake, too. Like in this instance. They really don't like McCain much, but he's all they have.

It may also be because I am very much "libertarian" insofar as the government staying out of private affairs on "wedge issues" like abortion, and many people there have a libertarian streak. I do not believe the libertarian view of government when it comes to the economic side, as social programs are essential IMHO and healthcare is a basic human right -- and that side of "libertarian" is why many libertarians go with the Republicans.

I also don't bother trying to convert them. They're pretty stuck where they are. But reading and debating there give a bit of perspective, and help me hone my own arguments for talking with Republicans who are not as committed as they are. And it's hard to examine your viewpoints critically when all you do is preach to the choir.

[1Hippiechick]

20. The most exciting post I've read post-debate. So glad others saw McCain as the 'loose cannon' he is

As I stated earlier - how would that behavior (controlled raged, no eye-contact) play out with foreign leaders with whom we need to negotiate? This dumbshit "mavrick" (republican convention spelling) is itching for a gunfight, if you ask me, and just LOVES to throw his weight around. And there is plenty of it to throw with his egotistical, over-inflated ego. Someone needs to stick a pin in him and deflate him, and I think Obama made significant strides in that arena in the debate. I don't think we have to worry about complacency. I think Obama is starting to smell victory, and that will feed upon itself and only cause him to build steam, imo.

[democracy1st]

21. K & R