The Biden-Palin Showdown: Winners and Losers
I went into the debate tonight with a few expectations and key points to watch out for. One was to make sure that the moderator didn’t go overboard in her treatment of the candidates, either worrying too much about accusations concerning her book and treating Sarah Palin with kid gloves, or heading overboard in the other direction and doing 90 minutes of gotcha questions. Next, I wondered if Biden would either fall into self-made gaffe traps or be so timid that he essentially gave the night away. The last, of course, was to look for Sarah Palin to either have the long expected deer in the headlights moment or run amok in the other direction and attack Biden to the point of looking shrill.
In the first two questions, the content was good from both candidates, but the initial impression that hit me was that Biden was relaxed, but Senator Palin seemed to be rushing each answer, almost running out of breath trying to get the answers out. I also noted that she said “maverick” twice. You don’t do that if you want to be seen as a maverick. You let other people say it about you. Still, they both had measured responses.
The tax question came up and Palin attempted to try the “Obama raised raised taxes 94 times” and when Biden came back and pointed out that they were procedural votes and McCain had done it hundreds of times, Palin went into a panic. She didn’t answer and began talking about Alaska. She was talking faster and faster at that point. However, Palin hit back with the small business hit and delivered some good lines on that one.
Biden snuck in the ultimate “bridge to nowhere” line at 9:20 pm and that was the first hit.
When they got to the energy debate, Palin scored some big points about taxing the oil companies in her state and Obama voting for the Bush Cheney energy bill.
Gwen Ifill set herself up as not being partisan at 9:27 when she challenged Biden on his difference with Obama on the bankruptcy bill.
At 9:30 pm eastern, Palin talked about energy, she slowed down and got on her game.At that moment, the nervousness started to fade out and she began to deliver some shots and the confidence came out.
When asked about Iraq, Palin had her best answer of the night thus far. She called out Obama for not funding the troops, though Biden shot it down, but she phrased it perfectly. Biden shot back well saying that McCain had voted against a similar amendment.
At 9:50 Palin scores a huge point with the “negotiating with leaders” point. Biden simply didn’t recover from that exchange well and it seemed to focus Palin even more.
By 10:05, Palin started to hit her stride and hit some very good points on foreign policy. It was around the 10:10 point also where Palin finally started to slow down in her speech and seemed to get a bit more confidence.
At 10:12 Palin came out with what will likely be one of the media clips, “There ya go again, talking about the Bush administration.” There weren’t many big shots of the night, but that may have been one of them.
In summary, I think that Palin started out weak in the first half hour, but rallied and put in a very solid performance up until the closing statements. Biden did a bit better there, but over all, I have to give the debate to Palin. She accounted herself very well. If we frame this in terms of the expectations from the Tina Fey clips and the recent interviews, Palin hit a grand slam.
Point to Palin for the race from me. The pundits will tear the individual statements apart for weeks, but Governor Palin not only beat expectations, but beat Biden fair and square.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “The Biden-Palin Showdown: Winners and Losers”
She said it way more than twice. I noted at least 4 occasions during my liveblogging. And one of those times, she mentioned it twice in a single answer.
And for the record, I felt it turned out exactly opposite as far as the two halves of the debate. Palin held her own in the first half, and Biden destroyed her in the second, resorting to tired and completely dishonest talking point about defunding the troops and victory and surrender.
At best a draw. No “beat Biden fair and square” from my vantage point. Both Palin and Biden had strong moments. But Biden sounded strong and sure of himself in this debate. He left a greater impression on me. Palin (and I've never been of the “Palin stupid” crowd) showed she could scrap with the big dogs but did seem rushed. Personally, I can't wait until November 4th when all of this over…
I'm leaning with Chris here. I thought she did pretty well during the first half, maybe even a bit more. I would be willing to say she was “winning” for a good spell there, but everything seemed to change when Biden talked about his first wife and how that affected him. Palin wasn't even close to being prepared for that. I get the impression he was about ready to toss Palin off the stage. But he held back and blew her away for the rest of the debate. Of course, these are just my observations–I'm not going to call a winner. I'm sure each side will say their candidate won. But overall, I thought it was a good debate. A little disappointed it didn't turn into a gaffe-fest. Perhaps that's a good thing?
Which debate were you watching…because Palin did not win this debate. She stumbled and changed the issue far too often.
In my opinion Biden did a much better job.
Sorry Jazz even many of the talking heads on FOX thought Biden won except for Bill Kristol and he's always wrong. When Biden said the McCain administration would be just like the Bush administration she could not come up with a single example of how it would be different, she just repeated some folksy talking points.
There were no deer in the headlight moments and no long periods of total incoherence an improvement but I think ypu and I were watching different debates.
I think you are confusing the idea of who won the debate according to your own personal view and who won the debate in the mind of an undecided voter, Jazz.
It is fairly obvious to me and just about everyone else who watched this debate that when it comes to “fair and square” Sarah Palin did NOT win this debate.
You are letting your own bias effect your view on that matter apparently.
Around 9:17 or 9:18 Palin starts talking about getting the government out of people's lives, including healthcare. She made the case that government was a failure and seemed to support deregulation….
Hmm… By winning the debate, Jazz, do you mean you came away thinking that Palin would be a better President than Biden would be? Or did you have some different political nuance in mind?
Wow, I shouldn't have gone to bed if I'd known you would all stay up to comment. Look, I didnt' have any “biases” going in to “effect” me, or if I did, they would have been to favor Biden, since I've been tearing Palin apart from the day she was nominated. And no, it does not have me coming away thinking Palin would be a better president. I was speaking exclusively of how the candidates did in that specific debate, and I felt that once Palin hit her stride she came up with a couple more memorable zingers than Biden and didn't allow herself to get trapped. In terms of performance, that's mostly why I gave it to her. Biden did fine also.
As to what most of the talking heads or the public polls have to say, that doesn't matter to me. I'm just here giving my take on it, and that was that Palin surprised me. Perhaps I had just lowered my expectations so much that the shocked me by not falling apart, but I thought she did a little better than Joe. I don't agree with the majority of things she said, but she delivered her message much better than I thought she would.
T-Steel, you are right. It was a draw. Honest people, as I wrote, would have to strain to name a winner. If you want a score on a scale of 100, it's Biden 53, Palin 47. See below for an accurate report I sent to someone. The debate began with Palin the better party. Then Palin blundered — she didn't annihilate Biden and Obama on their ultimate loser-vote-buying intention, having judges be able to reduce not only interest, but also the _principal_ on loans (these are _contracts_). Biden also stupidly said progressive taxation is justified on the grounds of “fairness.” This is a lie, frequently found in, say, books by MIT Press on tax policy. (The authors I've seen from this publisher are obscessed with and have hatred for the use of the word “successful” and the word “success” in association with higher incomes, revealing some envy that is at the root of progressive taxation.) Palin should have _annihilated_ Biden on the loan-revision issue, as well as on the “fairness” [sic] issue. But she didn't. With the loan issue she changed the subject to energy policy, a blunder and it was at this point that Biden arose from his more timid (cautious, conservative) initial demeanor and got animated. As I wrote (see below), the campaign should not hide him but use him.
Both candidates did okay. The universe (liberals, anyway) expected (and hoped) that Palin would fail miserably, and she did not. During the first part of the debate, she did better than Biden. She made one mistake (changing the subject rather than annihilating Biden about something he and Obama want to do: if I heard right, they want to reduce interest rates and _principal_ on outstanding home loans) and in my view was working to recover that superior position after that, and she didn't do this. Once or twice she did what McCain did that I didn't like to hear (or see), repeat typical sound bites in answering questions. She also failed to take Biden apart when Biden argued that progressive taxation is justified due to “fairness.” It is nothing of the kind, and with the size of government Obama and Biden want, it will simply be impossible to tax those over $250,000 and reduce taxes on everyone else. The amount of income that needs to be taxed to support what the Dems want forces them to reach well down into the middle class portion of aggregate income. Biden probably had begun the debate deliberately in a timid or more accurately, careful and conservative manner but loosened up about the time he made the controversial statement about revising loan contracts and Palin didn't demolish it, and him. As Biden loosened up he began to do much bettter. I know everyone was afraid of Biden saying something stupid, but he didn't, he actually did quite well when he became animated, it's probably now worth the risk to “let Biden be Biden” out on the campaign trail and for the media to begin to cover him rather than avoid covering him to conceal his gaffes from the public (so as to continue supporting the Democratic Party this year, same as every other year). Overall, it was a draw. Both candidates did fine. It's a draw because honest people would have to strain to name a winner. Neither candidate stood out immediately as better and neither one did notably better.
As a McCain supporter, I have a hard time believing how many people are saying that Palin won last night. By any normative standards of debating, Biden won big time IMO. Of course, I think the issue is that a presidential or VP debate isn't judged by any normative standards. Palin did play this to her strengths and she does have a Reaganesque gift for political communication, speaking directly to the folks. The degree to which she does this is grating to me personally, and I don't sense that she has anything close to Reagan's serious core to back up the casual packaging.
As I said yesterday I still support McCain, but hope that he stays healthy and vigorous! I think Palin is someone who could potentially grow into the job, and as a sidekick to McCain I like her well enough (like the reform emphasis and strength on energy policy.)
Now just to be clear though, when I say that Biden won the debate, to me that's NOT the same as saying that I believe he'd make a better president or VP. His experience and knowledge are superior to Palin's, but he did tell some whoppers last night (would that Palin would have been able to counter them) and even when he gets the facts right I strongly disagree with the way he connects the dots and the policies that he and Obama would implement. My explanation of winning the debate then is a technical one- on scoring actual points for support of his ticket's arguments because Palin wasn't up to the task of playing defense.
Man – I have seen a lot of quick polls and analysis saying how good Palin did.
My thoughts, after having watched most of the debate as my poor, pitiful Cubbies got their asses handed to them, is that my view being different was due to one (or more) of a few things.
A. I watched a different debate.
B. The low expectations for Palin are reflected in the opinion she did great.
C. I am a policy wonk-type, more impressed by the grasp of facts (even if a few were twisted by Biden, but hey, this is politics) than by image.
D. My impression of her image during the debate is totally off compared to everyone else. I fully expected every time she talked that she was about to look the camera straight in the eye and shout, “LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT!”
I was totally unimpressed, and walked away thinking that those who criticize her as being a lightweight completely lacking in the qualifications for even VP in training, nonetheless President were that to be thrust upon her, have it correct.
As I posted somewhere earlier on TMV, even though I thought Palin would do well she exceeded my expectations.
As far as judging the performances… lots of ways one can do that and she had a good strong delivery and did avoid questions that she couldn't answer and talked about her strength, energy. Many people find her folksy approach likeable…
But it was clear to me that Biden had substance and a great knowledge and command of issues. Biden has been involved in all of these issues, has debated them for years with others and has written legislation on many of them. All Palin could offer was the Cliff Notes version which she got from a two week cram session.
CStanley said, “The degree to which [Palin] does this is grating to me personally, and I don't sense that she has anything close to Reagan's serious core to back up the casual packaging.”
This has been a beef of mine lately as well and I'm not a huge Reagan fan. People seem to underestimate what Reagan brought to the table when he started his 1980 campaign. He'd been in the national spotlight already since at least 1964 when he gave a very well received speech for Goldwater. He was governor of the largest state in the Union for 8 years. He'd run for President twice already in 1968 and 1976. In 1976 in particular, Reagan just barely lost to Ford in the primaries (1,187 to 1,070) and was arguably the leader of the conservative movement for the 4 years leading up to his victory in 1980. While Palin and Reagan might both be great communicators, Reagan was also a national figure for at least 15 years before winning in 1980. Palin might be able to build up such a track record over time as well, but she doesn't come with it today. People want Palin to be Reagan because they are communicators and governors, but Reagan much more as well.