General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

The seemingly large split between the CBS poll (51-30 Biden) and CNN poll (48-44 Ryan) can be reconciled. I thought there might be some sort of pro-Republican "skew" in the CNN poll when I saw some of the other questions asked and was puzzled when Ryan also held an advantage in a question along the lines of "Who has better experience to serve as President?" or "Who is more qualified to serve as President?"--I forget the exact wording, but it was something that Biden probably should have been leading in.

Thankfully, CNN indirectly addressed it on their website this morning. The CNN/ORC poll was of all debate viewers, and the audience was more Republican than the electorate as a whole. That makes senses on an intuitive level; I assume that the people who watch any of the debates in the first place (and especially the VP debate) tend to skew older and whiter (and thus more Republican) than the general population. And Republicans have been riding pretty high for the past week or so due to Romney's first debate performance, and thus more likely to tune in for this one. There also seems to be a greater level of interest/intrigue for Ryan within the GOP than for Biden within the Democratic Party. All of which help explain the narrow Ryan margin over Biden in that poll, even if undecided voters felt Biden won the debate, as the CBS poll suggests he did quite handily.

It all comes down to media spin after that. I see that Fox News currently has the following headlines among its top four: "Snickerdoodle," "Biden's Demeanor During Debate Called Disrespectful," and "BIAS ALERT: Liberal Media Differs on Debate Spin." Meanwhile, HuffPo's is "BIDEN'D" in 96-point font and TPM's headline was "Democrats Get The Debate They Wanted." I think if both sides go away feeling pretty good about how it went, and undecideds lean slightly toward Biden winning, then it's a win for Democrats overall, who have been suffering from a re-emerging enthusiasm gap lately and need energy at this point more than anything else. If Obama can tap into Biden's confidence (while avoiding the Veep's sometimes-over-the-top body language), then he's going to capture the headlines and regain some momentum--even if the second presidential debate is a draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Udaman

That said, can someone, ANYONE please give the Democrats a lesson in how to do a closing argument. Both Obama and Biden had rambling, repetitive, unclear closing comments. Biden's didn't even last his full allotment. Romney, and especially Ryan, had memorized speeches that were powerful and clear and left strong impressions (they've been aided by the luck of the coin toss and getting to go last, but still).

---

i disagree. I felt that, while Biden's closing lacked some sort of climax, Ryan's was deadpan, memorized and passionless. Like an actor delivering what was written in a script that he just couldn't deliver...


I think the lasting impression will be, not one of closing arguments, but one of an older, more experienced politician showing a rookie how he was "out of position"....

jmho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Diablo

The seemingly large split between the CBS poll (51-30 Biden) and CNN poll (48-44 Ryan) can be reconciled. I thought there might be some sort of pro-Republican "skew" in the CNN poll when I saw some of the other questions asked and was puzzled when Ryan also held an advantage in a question along the lines of "Who has better experience to serve as President?" or "Who is more qualified to serve as President?"--I forget the exact wording, but it was something that Biden probably should have been leading in.

Thankfully, CNN indirectly addressed it on their website this morning. The CNN/ORC poll was of all debate viewers, and the audience was more Republican than the electorate as a whole. That makes senses on an intuitive level; I assume that the people who watch any of the debates in the first place (and especially the VP debate) tend to skew older and whiter (and thus more Republican) than the general population. And Republicans have been riding pretty high for the past week or so due to Romney's first debate performance, and thus more likely to tune in for this one. There also seems to be a greater level of interest/intrigue for Ryan within the GOP than for Biden within the Democratic Party. All of which help explain the narrow Ryan margin over Biden in that poll, even if undecided voters felt Biden won the debate, as the CBS poll suggests he did quite handily.

It all comes down to media spin after that. I see that Fox News currently has the following headlines among its top four: "Snickerdoodle," "Biden's Demeanor During Debate Called Disrespectful," and "BIAS ALERT: Liberal Media Differs on Debate Spin." Meanwhile, HuffPo's is "BIDEN'D" in 96-point font and TPM's headline was "Democrats Get The Debate They Wanted." I think if both sides go away feeling pretty good about how it went, and undecideds lean slightly toward Biden winning, then it's a win for Democrats overall, who have been suffering from a re-emerging enthusiasm gap lately and need energy at this point more than anything else. If Obama can tap into Biden's confidence (while avoiding the Veep's sometimes-over-the-top body language), then he's going to capture the headlines and regain some momentum--even if the second presidential debate is a draw.

---

The string of headlines at Drudge is pretty funny. No talk of substance, all on demeanor.

I've been trying to identify why my reactions to the debates has largely been different than the pundits. Mike Corey identified the nub for me:

Quote:

---

I thought Biden was as dominating and as overly aggressive as Romney was a week ago.

---

For me, those traits are a turn-off. That's probably why I discounted Romney and thought that debate was a tie, and discounted Biden and thought that Ryan did better. Having said that, though, Ryan finished very poorly on the abortion issue I thought although the R/R position is what it is (popular with many social conservatives, not so much with many outside that sphere). I will say that Biden got better as the debate went on, less of that weird smile and more sure-footed.

Both sides need to use the debates to fire up the base. Democrats did a better job at the convention; Mitt did a better job in the first debate; both VPs probably did well in that regard. Everything is still close to or within the margin of error nationally, I'll rely on Nate Silver to break the Electoral College down for me.

I think the haranguing of Biden's laughter is indication enough that the GOP wants to change the conversation from the substance of the debate to the manner in which the substance was delivered.

This won't move the polls much--maybe .5 percent.

Now it's up to Obama and Romney for the home stretch.

Romney is still coming from behind, but he's found his footing. Going to be very interesting, but I still suspect Romney will not be able to overcome what little margin of error he has got to pull this thing off.

Last night was a watch. Previously referenced we're a poll showing Biden a 20 point winner and CNN's with the two inside the margin of error. I also saw a poll (NBC, I think) with Ryan as the 20 point winner. That tells me that my eyes were correct...Biden was aggressive and performed well, Ryan was calm and performed well. Between that, and the fact it's a VP debate, this won't change polls an iota.

What Biden did well, was set the table for Obama. He defended the Admin's foreign policy well and put e onus on R/R to give a specific alternative. He attacked Ryan's tax plans well and defended Obama's economy record. If Obama comes to the next debate with the same kind of vigor, he'll do we'll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Diablo

I think if both sides go away feeling pretty good about how it went, and undecideds lean slightly toward Biden winning, then it's a win for Democrats overall, who have been suffering from a re-emerging enthusiasm gap lately and need energy at this point more than anything else.

---

This.

The single biggest takeaway from the first Obama/Romney debate (and the thing that hurt Obama the most) wasn't the specifics of what he said or didn't say -- it was that he came across as devoid of passion, for either his ideas or for the job of being President.

IMO, James Carville had the single most salient observation immediately after the first debate -- Romney looked like he wanted to be there, and Obama didn't. Romney came across as engaged, willing to fight for his positions and enthusiastic about the idea of being President; Obama's demeanor said, "I got a speeding ticket and I have to do this debate as community service to work off the points." The Democratic ticket desperately needed a passion injection, which Biden delivered, and not just through being assertive. He also had a couple of powerfully empathetic moments last night that tempered his aggression, like when he talked about losing his first wife and his daughter in a car accident. Things like that say, "My passion is real and comes from a deeply personal place," which helps to humanize him and maybe buys him a little slack from the viewers for some of those more, um....emotive moments.

Biden's job wasn't to win the election -- VP debates never decide elections. His job was to rally the troops and set the table for the next Obama/Romney debate. I think he did both -- now Obama has to deliver.

One thing to keep in mind about the next Obama/Romney debate is that it's a town hall format. It's a different dynamic -- rather than addressing (or, perhaps more accurately, ignoring and steamrolling over) a moderator, the candidates will be addressing voters directly. This is not the format for speechmaking, aggression, snark or rehearsed zingers. This is where the candidates need to dial it back a notch and find that tricky balance between showing respect and presenting with confidence, between straight talk and empathy. Just because Romney was more aggressive in the first debate doesn't mean the same tactics will work again in this one -- and by the same token, just because Obama may feel the need to be more aggressive doesn't mean that this is where he should do it. Of all the debates, this is the one that's least about attacking your opponent and most about telling the voters, "I understand your concerns; let me explain how I'll help you."

Boorish or beautiful, 'twas in the eyes of the beholder.

And better boorish than boring: the Dems were in need of an adrenaline shot, and Biden did and said everything that the base has been wanting to say to Ryan for months.

After Obama's Eastwood Chair impersonation, this will reenergize the base and get them out volunteering and organizing and what not with a zeal that they needed going into a crucial early voting weekend. That may have been more important, since VP debates seldom move the polls anyway.

The Dems are fired up this morning about Biden; so, too, are the Republicans. That's a lose-lose for the GOP, politically.

Now Biden may have been unpresidential last night, but it's no more so than X, Y, Z partisan comments you might anticipate here.

All that said, the focus can now be where it belongs as we head into the homestretch. I anticipate a wonderful debate next week that focuses on substance and not on style and that ultimately benefits the American people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Udaman

Romney, and especially Ryan, had memorized speeches that were powerful and clear and left strong impressions (they've been aided by the luck of the coin toss and getting to go last, but still). It's so easy. Even George Bush, Jr. would have memorized final comments where you hammer your opponent and say all the things you want to, because you KNOW the other person can't respond and still say all the things he/she wants to say as well. I give both Obama and Biden a solid, solid F in their closing statements thus far. Cannot believe how awful they have been (both in substance and in lost potential).

---

That getting in the last word means a LOT. Especially, when you consider the attention span of the vast majority of viewers.

I love the internets.

http://nyti.ms/RTNNch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rthomas

I love the internets.

http://nyti.ms/RTNNch

---

Personnally, I'm looking forward to the Bad Lip Reading video for this debate. The Biden BLR is my all time favorite. That's TOE UP!

As I did with the Presidential debate, here are some political cartoons from the VP debate. I hope no one sees partisanship here, as I am posting cartoons that represent both sides... but mostly because the intent here is humor not to sway anyone or make any arguments.

http://media.caglecartoons.com/media...120366_600.jpg
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media...120361_600.jpg
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media...120296_600.jpg
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media...120328_600.jpg

-Jason "hope ya'll enjoyed that!" Evans

In the immediate aftermath of the first debate, it didn't seem to me that there was all that much reason for Obama supporters to have lost a fundamental confidence in the ultimate outcome of the race. It was common for the challenger to perform well, and to gain some ground after the first debate, so no big deal that Romney would too. But would the bounce last? How big was the bounce really, anyway? Not only has the bounce lasted, but it appears that it has grown beyond what it was the first few days after the debate.Then, Obama supporters could console themselves with the idea that while the national polls were very much tightened or even tied, Obama still maintained leads in the swing states, or enough of them, that he was still in pretty good shape. Now, it appears the advantage in a lot of the swing states is gone as well. If I recall correctly, the high point for Obama in Nate Silver's measure of probability of victory was about 85%. Since the debate, that has fallen all the way down to 63%. I know, 63% is still pretty good, but to lose 22 points in that measure in a week and a half is frankly amazing. I guess it really is a case of when a pendulum starts to swing back, the momentum it picks up is very, very hard to arrest.It is definitely nervous time for Obama backers. It appears that unless he comes back with a really good debate performance on Tuesday -- and I recommend him making a self-depracating joke at its outset about his own first debate performance -- he may just be in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

PPP, which is Democratic leaning and probably overstates things for Obama, had some compelling results from Ohio today.

Quote:

---

@ppppolls
Barack Obama leads our new Ohio poll 51-46, not much different from 2 weeks ago when it was 49-45.
19% of Ohioans say they've already voted and Obama has a 76-24 advantage with them. Romney up 51-45 with folks who haven't voted yet.

---

--Jason "early voting may really save Obama's bacon in some states" Evans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

PPP, which is Democratic leaning and probably overstates things for Obama, had some compelling results from Ohio today.



--Jason "early voting may really save Obama's bacon in some states" Evans

---

"Vote early and vote often?"

sage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

--Jason "early voting may really save Obama's bacon in some states" Evans

---

So, silly question, but anyone have any insight into why this is? Having never voted early myself, I honestly have no idea what the demographics of an early voter look like.

Quote:

---

PPP, which is Democratic leaning and probably overstates things for Obama, had some compelling results from Ohio today.


@ppppolls
Barack Obama leads our new Ohio poll 51-46, not much different from 2 weeks ago when it was 49-45.
19% of Ohioans say they've already voted and Obama has a 76-24 advantage with them. Romney up 51-45 with folks who haven't voted yet. --Jason "early voting may really save Obama's bacon in some states" Evans

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reisen

So, silly question, but anyone have any insight into why this is? Having never voted early myself, I honestly have no idea what the demographics of an early voter look like.

---

See stats in Jason's post. Historically, Republicans do better in absentee voting -- business travel, vacations, etc. "Early voting" is a new phenomenom. I think it is generally accepted that the Obama ground operation, targeted at individual voters and precincts and built over the last four years, is without parallel.

I guess we'll find out.

sagegrouse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reisen

So, silly question, but anyone have any insight into why this is? Having never voted early myself, I honestly have no idea what the demographics of an early voter look like.

---

well, me....cause i don't like voting at a church (my precinct) and i don't like standing in line yacking on election day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reisen

So, silly question, but anyone have any insight into why this is? Having never voted early myself, I honestly have no idea what the demographics of an early voter look like.

---

We have early voting in Georgia starting tomorrow, and I am sure I will vote this week. It really helps to avoid the long lines.

I am independent so I don't help either party on a regular basis, for what that is worth.

I think early voting generally helps whichever party has the best ground game to turn out the vote. Sage is correct that absentee skews towards older, more monied folks. Early voting is probably too recent to have meaningful presidential data although I would love to read a good study on it.

Edit: here is North Carolina data from 2008 although I know nothing about this source so take it for what it is worth:


http://earlyvoting.net/commentary/de...-early-voting/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sagegrouse

See stats in Jason's post. Historically, Republicans do better in absentee voting -- business travel, vacations, etc. "Early voting" is a new phenomenom. I think it is generally accepted that the Obama ground operation, targeted at individual voters and precincts and built over the last four years, is without parallel.

I guess we'll find out.

sagegrouse

---

No, saw the stats, but my point was why would early voting swing heavily Democratic. That is, why it wouldn't be representative of the regular voting #s (and I don't think anyone is anticipating Obama pulling in 76% of Ohio.

The point has been made that absentee voting swings R,and a hypothesis given for why, that seems to make sense.

Is the ground game argument that this ground game is somehow urging people to not only vote, but vote early? And this somehow helps the candidate (ie. an early vote is more beneficial than a regular vote)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reisen

No, saw the stats, but my point was why would early voting swing heavily Democratic. That is, why it wouldn't be representative of the regular voting #s (and I don't think anyone is anticipating Obama pulling in 76% of Ohio.

The point has been made that absentee voting swings R,and a hypothesis given for why, that seems to make sense.

Is the ground game argument that this ground game is somehow urging people to not only vote, but vote early? And this somehow helps the candidate (ie. an early vote is more beneficial than a regular vote)?

---

An early vote is a banked vote. Cannot take it back or switch if something drastic happens between now and November. Or if you just lose your enthusiasm and decide on Election Day that the weather kinda stinks and I don't want to wait in a line . . . .