<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Survey:  Californians Say Obama Won 2nd Debate 2 to 1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.policyreport.net/2008/10/survey-californians-say-obama-won-2nd-debate-2-to-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.policyreport.net/2008/10/survey-californians-say-obama-won-2nd-debate-2-to-1/</link>
	<description>California Public Policy Debate and Analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:42:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Oleg</title>
		<link>http://www.policyreport.net/2008/10/survey-californians-say-obama-won-2nd-debate-2-to-1/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Oleg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thepolicyreport.wordpress.com/?p=393#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Isn&#039;t a debate supposed to be about  a battle of records and intellects?

Who was it that said, &quot;the best defense is a good offense&quot;? Or is that just a matter of common sense (Petrosian&#039;s chess games notwithstanding)?

If &quot;attacking&quot; 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&#039;ll take as little as possible.

Frankly, presidential debates are a joke largely for practical reasons; one, presidential candidates aren&#039;t likely to go into details of plans they can&#039;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&#039;s TV audience to fourteen political wonks(give or take a few thousand), several yawning spouses and three dogs. Three, moderators aren&#039;t allowed to moderate. Four,  too much outright mud-slinging isn&#039;t presidential(or prime-ministerish) unless you&#039;re in Ukraine; McCain claimed he was &quot;taking the gloves off&quot; for this one(or shall I say &quot;that one&quot;), but did we see any back-and forth from either candidate? No. We saw &quot;more of the same.&quot;

And the comedy is made all the more apparent by the commentators before and after the debate. According to the majority of them, &quot;moments&quot; in debates are not created by stunning rebuttals but by the elder Bush checking his watch, or Nixon&#039;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 &quot;prowling&quot; or &quot;wondering&quot; restlessly in the back while Obama was talking, contrary to Obama&#039;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 &quot;average&quot; person(Joe Six-Pack &amp; 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: &quot;attacking.&quot; I say inject them with amphetamines and throw them into the octagon. Winner gets the big job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t a debate supposed to be about  a battle of records and intellects?</p>
<p>Who was it that said, &#8220;the best defense is a good offense&#8221;? Or is that just a matter of common sense (Petrosian&#8217;s chess games notwithstanding)?</p>
<p>If &#8220;attacking&#8221; 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&#8217;ll take as little as possible.</p>
<p>Frankly, presidential debates are a joke largely for practical reasons; one, presidential candidates aren&#8217;t likely to go into details of plans they can&#8217;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&#8217;s TV audience to fourteen political wonks(give or take a few thousand), several yawning spouses and three dogs. Three, moderators aren&#8217;t allowed to moderate. Four,  too much outright mud-slinging isn&#8217;t presidential(or prime-ministerish) unless you&#8217;re in Ukraine; McCain claimed he was &#8220;taking the gloves off&#8221; for this one(or shall I say &#8220;that one&#8221;), but did we see any back-and forth from either candidate? No. We saw &#8220;more of the same.&#8221;</p>
<p>And the comedy is made all the more apparent by the commentators before and after the debate. According to the majority of them, &#8220;moments&#8221; in debates are not created by stunning rebuttals but by the elder Bush checking his watch, or Nixon&#8217;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 &#8220;prowling&#8221; or &#8220;wondering&#8221; restlessly in the back while Obama was talking, contrary to Obama&#8217;s restful demeanor. Having listened to the debate on the radio, I must have missed a number of these relevant moments.</p>
<p>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%.</p>
<p>From a macroscopic sense, sure, trifles matter; the &#8220;average&#8221; person(Joe Six-Pack &amp; 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.</p>
<p>Re: &#8220;attacking.&#8221; I say inject them with amphetamines and throw them into the octagon. Winner gets the big job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
