Survey: Californians Say Obama Won 2nd Debate 2 to 1
Senators Obama and McCain at a Town Hall styled debate in Nashville, Tennessee on October 7, 2008.
The Issue: According to a poll conducted immediately after the second debate with California voters, Obama is considered to have been the “clear winner” by a margin of 2 to 1.
SurveyUSA is “an independent, non-partisan, full-service opinion research firm that conducts scientific research for media, government, and private-sector clients. By many measures, SurveyUSA is the nation’s largest public opinion polling firm. As of 2002, 19 of the nation’s then 25 largest media companies had contracted with SurveyUSA to conduct opinion research.”
After the Town Hall Debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, SurveyUSA contact 1250 California Adults. Of the 1250, 904 had watched the debate. The following information is from the SurveyUSA Website:
- 56% say that Obama was the clear winner.
- 26% say that McCain was the clear winner.
- 18% say that there was no clear winner.
Also, I found this question quite funny. The people surveyed were asked what they thought about the amount of time the candidates spent attacking each other throughout the debate:
- 33% thought it was too much time.
- 17% thought it was too little time.
- 48% thought it was the right amount of time.
Question: How much attacking is the right amount?
Isn’t a debate supposed to be about a battle of records and intellects?
Who was it that said, “the best defense is a good offense”? Or is that just a matter of common sense (Petrosian’s chess games notwithstanding)?
If “attacking” means disputing an opponents statements than so be it. If it means borrowing stump-speech sound-bytes remixed to halfway answer tee-ball questions than I’ll take as little as possible.
Frankly, presidential debates are a joke largely for practical reasons; one, presidential candidates aren’t likely to go into details of plans they can’t be sure will even be on the table when it comes time to work. Two, true philosophical jousting sans logical fallacies (about political perspectives or otherwise) would limit a debate’s TV audience to fourteen political wonks(give or take a few thousand), several yawning spouses and three dogs. Three, moderators aren’t allowed to moderate. Four, too much outright mud-slinging isn’t presidential(or prime-ministerish) unless you’re in Ukraine; McCain claimed he was “taking the gloves off” for this one(or shall I say “that one”), but did we see any back-and forth from either candidate? No. We saw “more of the same.”
And the comedy is made all the more apparent by the commentators before and after the debate. According to the majority of them, “moments” in debates are not created by stunning rebuttals but by the elder Bush checking his watch, or Nixon’s un-presidential appearance(though it is said that people listening on the radio liked him more). I even heard it analyzed how McCain was “prowling” or “wondering” restlessly in the back while Obama was talking, contrary to Obama’s restful demeanor. Having listened to the debate on the radio, I must have missed a number of these relevant moments.
Further, poll numbers after debates signify little to nothing. Not minutes after the VP debate did CNN have Biden as winner by ~20%, switch to Fox News? Palin apparently crushed Biden and sprinkled him like salt on her moose steak, she was the winner by ~90%.
From a macroscopic sense, sure, trifles matter; the “average” person(Joe Six-Pack & Hockey Mom) will decide on a winner. Yet as a thinking citizen, I find the level of substance in the debates at the highest level of government so low that determining a winner is like stacking dust particles.
Re: “attacking.” I say inject them with amphetamines and throw them into the octagon. Winner gets the big job.