2022 Midterms - Overreaching Democrats vs Overreaching Trumplicans

Divided Government Is Coming... But How Divided?

After a two year hiatus, the Dividist blog is back. Our last post was after the 2020 Presidential election but before the inauguration, before the January 6th Capitol Hill insurrection, and before the Georgia runoff. In that post we discussed and analyzed how the Georgia results would determine partisan control of the Senate and the consequences in future elections. 

Here we are, two years later, days before the midterm election, and we are again discussing and analyzing how the Georgia results will determine partisan control of the Senate and the consequences for future elections. It's "Deja Vu all over again." 

Strap in. We've got a lot to catch up on.  We'll be pulling from relevant past work and predicting the future. This will be a long post. 

Just Vote Dividist - 2020 Closing Argument Edition - The Chaos vs. Normalcy Election

 Never Trump & Divided Government FTW 

Welcome to our eighth election eve "Just Vote Dividist" post. This blog started in 2006 to advocate a divided government voting heuristic. Every election eve since, the Dividist has published a Divided Government voting recommendation (see addendum below). This could be the last of this series as, thanks to COVID-19, our country's voting dynamic has changed dramatically and possibly permanently. As the Dividist writes this, somewhere close to 100 million votes have already been cast through mail-in ballots or early voting. This compares to approximately 130 million total votes cast in the 2016 presidential election. Which begs the question: What's the point of doing an election eve closing argument if 70% of the vote is already counted? And the answer is: The Dividist has no friggin' idea. So we'll do this out of tradition tonight and figure it out next time.

 

There are even more cries, lamentations, rending of garments and gnashing of teeth than usual this cycle. Partisans insist on characterizing this "most important election of our lifetime" as the Fascism vs. Socialism election.  Both partisan tribes are in rare agreement that if the other tribe wins it will be The End of Democracy In America.

Spoiler Alert: We won't fall into fascism or socialism no matter who wins. Moreover, our democracy will be fine regardless of the outcome. You're welcome.

Additional Spoiler Alert: In previous editions, we've teased the Dividist recommendation and buried our preference deep in the post. But everyone has already voted, so WTF? Here it is:

Gallup Poll Asks Voters The Wrong Question About Divided Government (again) and Arrives at a Wrong Conclusion About Voter Attitudes Toward Divided Government (again)

Graphic Credit: Gallup

This is becoming an election year tradition at The Dividist Papers. Every year Gallup publishes this poll and every election cycle the Dividist explains why there is far less than meets the eye in any conclusion based on this poll. The latest iteration is the absurd headline/conclusion in the 2020 edition of this Gallup Poll - "New High Favors One-Party Control of U.S. Federal Government":

"STORY HIGHLIGHTS

41% of Americans favor unified control of federal government

23% want divided control

52% of Republicans, 43% of Democrats favor one-party control"

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new high of 41% of U.S. adults say it is better to have a president and Congress from the same political party. Twenty-three percent would rather have one party control the presidency and the other control Congress, while 32% say it makes no difference to them."

Here is the problem. Since there is no realistic possibility of the GOP establishing unified one-party control of the government this cycle, the only realistic choice in 2020 is between divided government and unified Democratic one-party control of the government.

The Dividist is sympathetic to their plight. Gallup's intent is to use the same poll question year after year in order to divine trends over many election cycles. To do that, they obviously must ask the identical question every time. The problem is that the question they've asked every year since 2002 is deeply flawed as it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual choice facing American voters when they go to the polls.

As explained in the last election cycle (paraphrased):

Biden vs. Trump - The First Debate Shitshow Live blogging the live bloggers. But not really.

  Try to keep up. 

Welcome to the The First Presidential Debate of the 2020 General Election and the latest edition in the continuing saga of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers blogging the Debates!"   The Dividist fondly recalls when he first conceived this series to cover the 2008 Republican debate and asked the question:

"There are plenty of live-bloggers covering the debate tonight, but who is covering the live bloggers? The Dividist rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread."

Problem being, this blog grew up in the heyday of political blogs which is roughly analogous to the Jurassic period of life on earth. In the social media era, blogs are considered a quaint throwback and not as immediate, entertaining, snarky, disingenuous, mean-spirited, polarizing, hateful, or a useful disinformation platform for amplifying Russian propaganda. For that we need Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Podcasts, Zoom, whatever. 

Nevertheless, we persist. We find it useful to frenetically attempt to track and post multiple sources as the debate proceeds real time. It helps extend our limited twitter-fueled attention span and pace our drinking during the long 90 minute debate. 

Historically we select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum and attempt to cut/paste their live blog insights. Really, no idea how this will work in the current frenetic, fractured, social media environment. We'll just pick a few favorites - Twitter is our platform of choice, so #NeverTrumpers like Tom Nichols and Rick Wilson should figure prominently, as well as polling sites, cable news, newspapers, and others TBD. 

Tonight's debate was organized by The Commission on Presidential Debates and will be moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. Wallace selected the topics for the debate: 

• The Trump and Biden Records
• The Supreme Court
• Covid-19
• The Economy
• Race and Violence in our Cities
• The Integrity of the Election

We'll use these topics as an organizing structure for the responses we find that enlighten, inform, or otherwise amuse us. 

If past is prologue we will guess wrong about what to monitor and will be scrambling once things get started. Refresh your browsers for latest content once the debate is underway. Because of the derivative nature of this enterprise, I do run quite a bit behind the actual debate. Just setting expectations to lower the bar. Setting expectations is always important. Set your expectations very, very low. Here we go...

[UPDATE (10/01/20): We did not set our own expectations low enough. The thing about not being able to look away from a car wreck, is that you can't look away from a car wreck. The Dividist was unable to look away from the 90 minute car wreck as it unfolded. So, almost none of this post happened real-time, and there was no "live-blogging" to speak of. Most of this commentary was updated (and will continue to be updated) well after the debate.]

But... But... 2016!!! One poll and six pundits got it right in 2016. What are they saying in 2020?

They got it right in 2016. That wast then. This is now.

Six months after the election and three months into President Donald Trump's first term, the Dividist was still trying to figure out what happened. This blog was lying fallow, but as he said then: "With the passage of time, and with judicious use of third person plural, the Dividist has created enough distance from the election to get back to work and begin posting again." And with that, he selected among those few in the punditocracy who - unlike the Dividist - got it right and predicted that Donald Trump would win the Presidency. It was his first post after the 2016 election. The thesis was to "listen to a few notables who got it right... listen to what they said before the election and what they've said since."

Good advice then. Good advice now. We are now less than two months from the election to determine whether President Trump will serve a second term or if he will be replaced by Joe Biden. Conventional wisdom informs us that Labor Day is when most Americans start paying attention to the election. A good time to close the loop, go back, look at the sources who got it right then and see what they are saying now. We'll start with the polls.

- Cognitive Madisonianism Part Deux - Divided government, protecting the filibuster, and voting for hypocrites.

 Biden Shrugged  

The 2016 presidential election stunned pundits and voters alike (including the Dividist). But, as surprising as the electoral victory of Donald Trump was in 2016, a case can be made that the 2016 Senate election results were even more shocking. And therein lies a lesson for 2020.

Four years ago, The Dividist shared his thoughts on the 2016 election in a post entitled "Cognitive Madisonianism, splitting tickets, the 2016 Senate race, and why American voters are smarter than pundits and political scientists."

The Dividist was enthralled to discover the phrase "Congnitive Madisonianism" and eager to put it to use. As he explained then, it is a political science term for the simple concept that American voters, in their collective wisdom, prefer and vote for divided government. That concept being the raison d'etre for this blog, the reader can appreciate the Dividist's enthusiasm.

In that post we assessed the current state of the election and made some predictions about the likelihood of maintaining our happily divided government across the new year:

"In 2016 the GOP will keep the House majority, the Democrats will keep the Executive branch and our government will stay happily divided regardless of what happens in the Senate. The dividist voting heuristic strives to Keep It Simple Stupid and walk the simplest path of least resistance to keeping the government divided. In 2016, that path is to vote Clinton for President (or - at the least - not vote for Trump), and vote to reelect your Republican Congressman. For the Senate - vote your conscience."

In 2016, the Dividist could see a rationale to vote for either party gaining majority control in the Senate:

"The best dividist reason to support a Democratic Senate is based on the fear that some "Black Swan", "October surprise" event (e-mails, Wikileaks, Clinton Foundation, Trump quitting the race, etc) will derail the Clinton campaign juggernaut sufficiently to let the GOP nominee be elected President.  A Democratic Senate is a backstop to prevent Unified One Party Republican Rule.

The best dividist reason to support a Republican Senate is based on moderating Supreme Court picks. If the Democrats win the Senate there is a real possibility they will implement a "Nuclear Option" rule change for Supreme Court nominees. That means a Clinton Presidency and Democratic Senate could steamroll a GOP minority and confirm anyone Clinton nominates for the Supreme Court. They might even withdraw Garland to nominate and confirm a more reliably liberal judge.

Given the continuing catastrophe of the Trump campaign, the Dividist thinks hoping for a GOP Senate and moderation of Clinton picks for the Supreme Court is the better choice."

You win some. You lose some. For a current comparison, our 2020 prediction is that the Democrats will keep the House majority, Joe Biden and the Democrats will win the Executive Branch, and the best way to keep the government divided will be for the GOP to hold a slim Senate majority. But, as in 2016, the outcome of the Senate races in 2020 are very much in doubt.

That Was Then. This Is Now.

On Voting In The California Primary, Early Voting, Super Tuesday & Why Bernie Cannot Beat Donald Trump

The Dividist will be casting his California vote for Joe Biden on Super Tuesday in the Democratic primary on the day of election. We understand why some would prefer the convenience of early voting and absentee ballots when and if you know you will not be able to cast your vote on election day. What we don't understand is why anyone would cast an early ballot if they don't have to, with a primary season as fluid and dynamic as the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2020.

Stack Ranking the 2020 Presidential Candidates 2.0 The Post-NH, Pre-NV, Presidents Day Edition

President's Day is a good day to reflect on who might be our next President. During the formative years of this blog, the Dividist frequently maintained and updated candidate stack rank preferences over the course of a presidential campaign cycle (a couple of examples here and here from February, 2007 and February, 2008). Interestingly, some of the presidential hopefuls from those lists over a dozen years ago remain relevant in the campaign today, including Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton.

As noted, the Dividist stack ranking is a preference not a prediction. The list, then and now, represent the top candidates the Dividist would like to see as President, stack ranked in order of preference, within an additional constraint of supporting a divided government outcome.

State of the Union - The Musical! 'Frozen' Edition

Welcome to the Dividist's annual coverage of the Presidential Address to Congress - aka State of the Union - The Musical!

In 2007, as a blogging toddler, the Dividist despaired at finding a unique approach to the SOTU when so many other bloggers would be traversing the same ground. The answer came from Bob Woodward. In an on-line Washington Post forum the Dividist asked whether the SOTU had any real relevance. Woodward responded by saying it was "mostly theater." Genius. That was the answer. What better way to frame the SOTU, media and blog reactions than within the lyrics of a Broadway show tune?

The game is to start with a Broadway song then find blog posts, news stories, tweets, essays and commentary that can be vaguely referenced in the song and link them to the lyrics. It keeps the Dividist awake and blogging throughout the speech and mandatory drinking game.

In 2007 it was "Comedy Tonight" from A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. In 2008 it was the 1966 hit "Georgy Girl Boy". For 2009, we welcomed President Obama with "Razzle Dazzle" from the musical Chicago. In 2010, the man behind the curtain was revealed in - The Wizard of Oz. We mostly skipped 2011, but in 2012, with the President and Congress erecting barricades against mobs wielding pitchforks and torches, we were drawn to Les Miserables and "Do you hear the people sing?" In 2013, after the people handed the President an overwhelming 52% mandate for absolutely no change, we offered a tribute to our prog friends as they gaze lovingly at President Obama Superstar and thought "I don't know how to love him". In 2014, although an election year, we were virtually assured of continuing our happily divided government for the balance of his administration, so the President declared he will rule with a pen and a phone. It sounded like he was going to mail it in for balance of the second term. What could be more appropriate than President Obama gazing in a mirror and singing "I believe in you" from "How to Succeed as President Without Really Trying".

An now, here we are in 2015, with not just any divided government, but the very best kind of divided government. With fears of a lame duck President locked into a frozen block of icy gridlock with a Republican Congress, what could be more appropriate for the State of the Union than President Obama choosing to empower himself with "Let It Go" from Frozen?

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers 2012 Vice President Debate Mystical 10-11-12 Edition

Welcome to the 2012 Vice President Edition in the continuing saga of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers blogging the Debates!"

The Dividist fondly recalls when he conceived this series to cover the first 2008 Republican debate, lo those many years ago, and first asked the question:

"There are plenty of bloggers covering the debate live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? The Dividist rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread."

After last week's debate,  I don't think anyone will ever again ask the question whether Presidential debates matter.  Now Vice Presidential debates - that's another question. The jury is still out on that one.  After last weeks debacle, interest is high for this - the one and only VP debate prior to the election, now less that a month away.

It'll be interesting to see if it garners the 67 million audience of the Presidential debate. There is competition tonight - an NFL Football game between the Steelers and Titans, and two MLB playoff games, The Yankees vs. Orioles and  Athletics vs. Tigers. So it is safe to assume that Pennsylvania, Tennessee, New York, Maryland, Michigan, and Northern California will not be watching the debate. There are a few swing states in there. No matter. The Dividist is on the case.

As always, we select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum,and attempt to live blog their live blog efforts. I don't know who we will include, in the past we've used used  Daily Kos from the left, VodkaPundit or HotAir from the right, look to either Reason or Cato for a libertarian point of view and the Moderate Voice, and/or Donklephant as a centrist blog.  Andrew Sullivan is  a reliable live-blogger, as is Chris Cillizza's Fix and CNBC will be tweeting.

If past is prologue we will likely guess wrong about which blogs to monitor and will be scrambling once things get started. Refresh your browsers for latest content once the debate is underway. Because of the derivative nature of this enterprise, I do run quite a bit behind the actual debate. Just setting expectations to lower the bar. As usual - expectations are a big part of the game. Expectations for Biden are low. Expectations for Ryan are high.  That gives Biden an edge. A big edge.

======

PREGAME

Chris Cillizza's Fix: "Unlike last week’s debate, where large majorities of people thought beforehand that President Obama would wipe the floor with Mitt Romney (that SO didn’t happen), the expectations are much less tilted toward one candidate for this debate."

CNBC: "Thursday night's debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan has mushroomed in importance since Mitt Romney's strong showing in the first presidential faceoff. "

The Dish - Sullivan:"Gallup claims that veep debates don't usually influence voters. Joseph Cera comes to a different conclusion. Meanwhile, Silver believes that Biden could help shrink the enthusiasm gap "

Daily Kos: "One of tonight's agreed upon debate rules is, allegedly, that the vice president isn't supposed to be referring to his opponent as "Congressman Ryan." Instead, he is to refer to the Republican's boy genius only as "Mister Ryan.

Vodka Pundit - Stephen Green:"Will there be drunkblogging of tonight’s veep debate? Does Joe Biden sometimes accidentally put on his suit jacket upside down?"

Stinque: "In this corner, a Ripped Filthy Liar whom we suspect has a glass jaw. And in this corner, a Hairplug-Studded Veteran whose best moments remind you of a vérité Curb Your Enthusiasm. We have no idea what to expect during tonight’s Veep Debate Open Thread/Mixed Mental Arts Competition. We just know it ain’t gonna be normal."

Reason Hit and Run: "Tonight’s big question comes down to this: Who gets to follow in the footsteps of such political bright lights as Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and, yes, Joe Biden to become the next hapless understudy to the leader of the free world? "

DIVIDIST - Expectations for Biden are low, but he consistently kicked ass in the 2008 Dem primary debates – always performing better than both either Obama or Clinton, and certainly better than Palin. Expectations for Ryan are high, but he has never been tested at this level with this kind of intense national media scrutiny. I don’t expect him to pull a Palin, but he is perfectly capable of blowing it with a major gaffe. Obviously, Biden can’t win it for Obama, but I expect he’ll stop the bleeding, change the narrative and tee it up for Obama in the rematch next week.

We'll be updating when the debate starts in about 5 minutes. Beer me.

And we are off....

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers - It's All Over

The Last Debate before this one - the real Last Debate

Welcome to the last edition in the continuing saga of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers blogging the Debates!" This the very last presidential debate before the 2008 election. Ah, I think back to when I conceived this series while covering the first Republican debate, lo those many months ago, and first asked the question:

"There are plenty of bloggers covering the debate live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? DWSUWF rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread. "

Could it have only been 18 months ago? It seems like... well it seems only... um... Well, actually I no longer remember any part of my life when we were not in the 2008 presidential election season. It seems like... a lifetime.

No matter. I missed the last debate, but put the latest SNL skit at the top of the page which adequately covers everything anyone needs to know about that particular debate. Including the candidates shocking evasion on the pressing issue of my beloved Chicago Cubs getting swept in the divisional playoffs. Moving on.

As always, we select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum, and live blog their live blog efforts. I don't know who we will include, but we will start with some bloggers we have used before, include Daily Kos, and Cynic's Party from the left, VodkaPundit or Ed Morrissey at HotAir from the right, look to either David Weigel at Reason or the Atlantic's Megan McArdle for a libertarian point of view and 2008 Central, Ambivablog, or Donklephant as a centrist blog. We also enjoyed the mix over at The Crossed Pond during our last effort, so will check in there also. Finally, we will continue to review the progress of our poster boy for Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome [SPDS], Mr. Andrew Sullivan. Sadly, the affliction has continued to progress.

As usual I will likely guess wrong about which blogs to monitor and will be scrambling for substitutes once things get started. I'll forgo the usual pre-game, as I am running late, and will back fill later. Refresh your browsers for latest content once the debate is underway. Because of the derivative nature of this enterprise, I do run quite a bit behind the actual debate. Just setting expectations. Is that not what these debates are all about?

======

PREGAME

2008 Central.net: "These debates are incredibly scripted and controlled, with virtually every detail negotiated and agreed to by the campaigns in advance. I’m not trying to bash the debates, but, let’s at least be honest with ourselves. Like past debates, tonight’s debate is hardly a “debate.”

Reason - David Weigel:"McCain can only win by attacking Bush and Congress, the election might have been lost when he backed the bailout. That was a real-time, 3 a.m. phone call opportunity to prove he'd be bringing bulldozers with him to the White House. He blinked."

Cynics' Party:"Barack Obama is way ahead in the polls and all signs seem to be pointing to his inevitable victory on election day, but a big part of the reason I’m still unsure of an Obama win is that none of the debates so far have been decisive victories. Sound bite happy swing vote America hasn’t had a moment that will help them make up their mind one way or another."

Pitney at The Corner:"What demeanor should McCain display tonight? Angry doesn't work. Solemn doesn't work. ake-smiley doesn't work. Instead, McCain should go back to his roots and unleash his inner smart-aleck. If Obama accuses him of being erratic in a crisis, he should say: "So I'm erotic in a crisis? Who knew?" This approach has a couple of advantages. First, it enables McCain to show the more appealing side of his personality. Second, it throws Obama off his game. His handlers have surely anticipated every possible attack line about Ayers and Wright. And as a good liberal, he's waiting for the chance to say, "Have you left no sense of decency?" But he'd be hard put to defend against ridicule. The One can't handle the jokes."

BarbinMD Daily Kos: "Schieffer seems to have gone out of his way to carry water for McCain this election season, repeating the fantasy that McCain suspended his campaign, repeating the lies about Sarah Palin being against the "bridge to nowhere" and earmarks, and repeating McCain talking points about Barack Obama and troop withdrawals from Iraq, to name just a few."

Andrew Sullivan: "as I ...begin this last lap, I feel as tired of this as John McCain and Barack Obama look."

Justin Gardner at Donklephant: "Obama will continue to act cool, not respond harshly to any attacks and run out the clock. McCain has to make Obama seem unelectable. He won’t be able to. Only Obama can do that as this point. So Obama needs a BIG bobble tonight on the economy. And I mean HUGE."

The Crossed Pond Liz-3: "...all Obama has to do is not say anything stupid and look presidential."

DWSUWF - Traffic is way down on the usual live-blogging suspects. A lot of excuses - Vodkapundit is sick, Amba has a deadline, Andrew is tired. Campaign exhaustion has really set in. Oh... and there is a baseball game going on. BTW, does anyone really believe that the leaked "talking points" from the Obama campaign this morning was really leaked? I'm telling you David Axelrod makes Karl Rove look like an amateur at this game. It was a pure piece of planned disinformation to put the McCain campaign off their game and get some free publicity and buzz on the blogs. It worked. Axelrod = Barack's brain.

======

FIRST QUESTION - WHO IS JOE THE PLUMBER?

2008 Central.net: "McCain... asks Obama about his recent exchange with “Joe the plumber” and notes that Joe was concerned that Obama’s tax plan would hurt him. Obama responds that Joe was mistaken, and that his plan would cut taxes for a significant portion of Americans. McCain doesn’t understand why Obama wants to raise taxes at all, even if it’s on the richest Americans. He chides Obama for wanting to spread the wealth.Obama mentions Buffet again.”

Reason - David Weigel:"NEW INTERNET RUMOR: McCain will dump Sarah Palin as his running mate, select Joe The Plumber... But where is Joe's birth certificate?
Radley Balko: Note: Turn Google safe search to "on" before doing an image search on "Joe Plumber."

Cynics' Party: "Is Joe The Plumber friends with Joe Six Pack?"

Megan McCardle at The Atlantic: "Having recently suffered a water pipe leak, I am second to none in my appreciation of the many contributions that plumbers make to Our American Way of Life. Nonetheless, I am slightly concerned that we are spending so much time focusing on the effect of our national policy on Plumbing-Americans"

BarbinMD Daily Kos: "It's early, but it looks like Obama is winning the battle of the lines on CNN. McCain: No, I don't want to ask Obama a question. He wants to tell a story about Obama raising Joe's taxes. Nearly a flatline."

Andrew Sullivan: "Tax cuts for plumbers! ...McCain is dreadful on taxes. He can't even go on the attack successfully on solid Republican ground. But I find myself tuning out. Obama is boring. McCain is coming off cranky. 9.10 pm. "

ASC at Donklephant: "I’m looking forward to an interview with “Joe the Plummer.” I think taxing small businesses for earnings over $200k is a bad idea. Is that really Obama’s plan? He’s really dancing around this here."

The Crossed Pond Brad-23: "I really do like this small business distinction that McCain makes with Obama’s tax policies. I’ve said so in every debate. That’s a smart argument. I disagree that that’s the major germane issue, but it is a smart distinction and a good one for people to understand. Obama’s answer that he does give credits and incentives to businesses is pretty much correct, however.... Joe: “I’m more than just a plumber, guys. I’m a human being. Sniff.”"

DWSUWF - I know I am running way behind. Sorry. But I have a good reason. I had to break for some pizza and beer. I'll get there eventually. Really.

======

SAY SOMETHING BAD TO EACH OTHER.

2008 Central.net: "McCain hits Obama on not accepting his offer to participate in town halls, which he considers to be one of the causes of the current tenor of the campaign. He also criticized Obama for changing his position on campaign finance... Obama says that people expect presidential campaigns to be tough. And adds that 100% of McCain’s ads have been negative. He also pointed to some negative 527 group ads that are being run against him. I don’t think Obama needed to bring up the 527s, especially since, this line of argumentation would reflect poorly on him as well given some of the really harsh 527s that are being run against McCain about his age and health.”

Reason - David Weigel:"I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings than the issues." True enough. McCain utterly botched that question. Who gives a damn about the missing 9 town hall meetings? Michael Moynihan: Well, he sort of repudiated Lewis...
Radley Balko: MM -- You're right. Coulda' been quite a bit stronger. Jesse Walker: Obama "doesn't mind being attacked," except when his staff threatens TV stations with lawsuits for running ads he doesn't like. "

Cynics' Party: "Obama did lie on financing. Good punch for McCain. Can Obama hit back without sinking to his level?... Yes he can!: “100% of your ads have been negative, not just directly from your campaign but from 527’s and other organizations. I can afford to be hit for the next four weeks, but the American people can’t afford four more years of failed economic policies."

Amba at Ambivablog:"Schieffer brings up the negativity of the campaign, throwing out some of their strongest negative phrases. Would they say that to each other's faces?? McCain does not talk to or look at Obama. He almost tears up recalling John Lewis's association of him and Palin with segregation and church bombings. He asks Obama to repudiate those remarks. He says Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any campaign ever, and broke his promise to stick to public financing."

Megan McCardle at The Atlantic: "I cannot believe that John McCain's extended whining about how mean Obama has been to him in his ads is proving so popular with CNN's uncommitted voters. That said, Obama's defense of Lewis' over-the-top remarks is pretty weak."

BarbinMD Daily Kos: "It's all Obama's fault since he wouldn't do town halls with me. I regret some of the negativity, now let me be negative and complain about John Lewis (sniff, sniff). Now McCain lying, saying he repudiated every false attack against Obama...except from his running mate, his surrogates, the GOP chair in Virginia. Oh, and calling Obama a liar. Ha! Obama says there are more important thing than their hurt feelings...like the American people."Andrew Sullivan: "Schieffer's moral equivalence between the despicable smears of the McCain campaign with the toughness of Obama's. " [DWSUWF - Really Andrew? Really? Wow. they must be injecting the kool-aid intravenously now.]

MM at Donklephant: "Go Bama! He baited McCain in bringing up Ayers, and he slam dunks it. Obama gets to talk about the big issues, his big advisors, and McCain has to keep going back to Acorn and Chicago politics. He looks small, and Obama looks visionary. Slam dunk."

The Crossed Pond James-71: "I don’t mind McCain running an intensely negative campaign nearly as much as I mind him looking straight into the camera and lying to us about it. I haven’t seen people yelling “treason” and “kill him” at Obama rallies, so who’s really pushing negative and divisive politics here?"

DWSUWF - Ok, I am further behind. My brother called and we had a long conversation about where we should move if we need to get out of this country. Interesting, because he is liberal-left, and I am libertarian-right, but we both worried we are going to have to get the hell out of Dodge. The problem with the US becoming completely socialist (which we are), is that we are incompetent socialists. We are just really bad at it - not enough practice. I mean, if I am going to to live in a socialist country, I want to live in one that is at least competent at it. I'm thinking France. All the wine is subsidized and cheap. And it's great wine.

======

SCREW IT. I AM WRAPPING THIS UP.

2008 Central.net: "Obama was on point, McCain was all over the map. This is not a partisan perspective, it’s not based on the policies that they advocated. Rather, it is based on the how effective the candidates argued their opinions. As an aside, this is not the best live blog that I’ve done. The format was not conducive to a live blog.”

Reason - David Weigel:"Finally, an answer to that trivia question "what were the crappiest closing statements in American debate history?... How American history would have changed if JOE was a stockbroker.... Little known fact: Bill Ayers' pipe bombs were constructed with leftover pipes from JOE THE PLUMBER."

Cynics' Party: "It’s over. Obama won this one if you were paying attention, but I don’t think this will make much difference with the undecideds. Wives are on stage now. Cindy and Palin both seem to favor updos and military-inspired power suits.Nothing will be different tomorrow morning. Obama has a big lead. I’ve always thought he could win and, if he somehow doesn’t, we’ll have to wonder about dirty tricks. I’m stlll worried though, I really wanted to see him lock it up with one of these debates."

Amba at Ambivablog:"Both in the polls and on the blogs, people seem to be reacting on the basis of seeing good in whoever they've already decided to vote for. Me too, I suppose, although I tried to be even-handed. That's depressing."

Megan McCardle at The Atlantic: "Okay, I wasn't voting for him anyway, but I find McCain's focus on attacking Obama, rather than his own policy, unbelievably grating. His strongest performance of the night has been talking about the benefits of his own health plan, drawing a reasonable distinction between his philosophy and Obama's, and coherently explaining that difference, without resorting to either whining or calumny."

Kos at Daily Kos: "There was nothing here tonight that would change minds. Given that Obama has already broken 50 percent nationally and in the key battleground states, and that significant percentage of voters have already cast their early votes, McCain needed to radically transform the shape of the race. That means a homerun performance coupled with an Obama collapse. Neither happened. I'll let the snap polls determine who "won" the debate, but no matter what they proclaim, this race is pretty much over."

Andrew Sullivan: "Closing statements: McCain seemed almost wistful. Obama ended on "sacrifice, service and responsibility." Obama won this for the third time. A small prediction: there will be YouTube mash-ups of McCain's facial reactions on the split screen. And they will have a longer life, for good or ill, than many of the substantive exchanges."

DM at Donklephant: "The major headline coming out of this debate will be fairly simple — John McCain failed to do anything tonight to change the tone of this debate, he failed to do anything to convince the public that he would be a better steward of the economy, and he failed completely in any effort to raise any doubts about the character or readiness of his opponent."

The Crossed Pond Brad - 217: "You know, it keeps striking me that, in a vacuum, this was a good John McCain. He made the right cases (mostly), he was only negative when context seemingly warranted it, and didn’t seem overly snide even then, he seemed more Presidential than he has even in the primaries. The problem is it wasn’t in a vacuum. His response to the economic crisis still seems so erratic and scattered, that even though in any given moment he sounds good, there’s just absolutely no coherent narrative. His over-reliance on Joe The Plumber masked a real mismatch on his ability to empathize and sound like he “gets it”. And the question on negative campaigning was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen in a Presidential debate, period. I’m still gob-smacked. Obama continues to just look…well, as James 215 put it, like he’s already President. His task, all along, has been to pass that threshold…reflect for a moment on how well he has accomplished that. He appears more Presidential than Bush in 2004 or Bush in 1992 or either candidate in 2000. Obama has had precisely one goal in all of these debates: to not appear scary and erratic. He’s met that threshold a hundred times over. McCain, on the other hand, has had to pass the threshold that he has something to offer, that he has something else to say besides “four more years.” And he just hasn’t. I think this was McCain’s best debate. And I think, in effect, he lost it worse than any so far."

DWSUWF - Net net. It does not matter what happened in this debate. It does not matter what substance (or the lack thereof) was to be found in the questions and answers. Obama was cool. Obama was silky smooth. McCain made funny faces. Ergo, Obama won. That is it. That is what this election is about. Congratulations America. You get the leadership you deserve.

Sarkozy is looking better all the time.

I may have more thoughts in the morning. Out.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, 2008 election ,John McCain, debate, Sarah Palin

VP Debate- Live Blogging the Live Bloggers. But Wait! You also get the Chicago Cubs Divisional Playoff!

Welcome to the latest in the continuing series of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers" blogging the Debates! This edition the first and only Vice President debate between the verbose Democratic nominee Joe Biden, and the inexperienced Republican nominee Sarah Palin. "Inexperienced" - not in the sense of preparedness for the Presidency - in that sense she is no more prepared to be President than is Barack Obama, both of whom should serve as VP for 4-8 years to be properly prepared for that role. No, she is "inexperienced" in the sense that she was completely unprepared to be thrown into the media feeding frenzy that is the last six weeks of Presidential campaign. The other principles on both tickets have been swimming with the media sharks for a year or more. Their gaffes are old news. If she can right her PR ship, and get back to credibility with the electorate by the end of the campaign, it will speak well for her.

This series is inspired by the question I first asked covering a Republican debate sixteen months ago:

"There are plenty of bloggers covering the debate live tonight, but is anyone covering the live bloggers? DWSUWF rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread. "

We select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum, and live blog their live blog efforts. I don't know who we will include, but we will start with some bloggers we have used before, include Daily Kos, and Cynic's Party from the left, VodkaPundit or Ed Morrissey at HotAir from the right, look to either David Weigel at Reason or the Atlantic's Megan McArdle for a libertarian point of view and 2008 Central, Ambivablog, or Donklephant as a centrist blog. For this issue, we will also check in with The Crossed Pond, as at least one of that blogging crew is a member in good standing of "The Coalition of the Divided". Finally, the nature of this debate demands the inclusion of one example of the latest political mental illness - Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome [SPDS]. As James Joyner illustrates, the poster boy for this affliction is Andrew Sullivan. Welcome aboard Andrew.

As usual I will likely guess wrong about which blogs to monitor and will be scrambling for substitutes once things get started. Refresh your browsers for latest content once the debate is underway.

We do have one additional issue with the debate tonight. The second game of the Chicago Cubs - LA Dodgers divisional championship series will be televised at the same time as the debate. For this lifelong Cubs fan - in this the 100 year anniversary year of the last time the Cubs won the World Series (for some perspective - Haley's Comet has come and gone twice since the last time the Cubs won the the Series) - there is no decision. I will be watching the game. Fortunately, I had the foresight to initiate this series by live blogging the bloggers blogging the debates. Hence, there is no need for me to actually watch the debate itself. This is a big benefit for you - the reader - as you get the benefit of selected insights from bloggers across the political spectrum, but you also get a live blog of the Cubbies!

That said, I must speak of the deep anxiety that consumed me after watching Dempster load the bases with three walks last night- shortly before giving up a grand slam home run. Cubs fans know the dread of which I speak. The last time I felt this way was the moment that Bartman deflected the foul ball in the 2003 NLCS series. At times like this, I reach to literature for comfort and understanding. This excerpt from The Last Pennant before Armageddon by W.P. Kinsella is helpful:

"The sun is finally shining on Al Tiller," read a recent headline in the Trib. For the moment he was the most famous baseball manager in the nation, the man guiding the Chicago Cubs toward their first pennant in half a century; everyone wanted to talk baseball, no one gave a damn about his dreams.
He could picture himself at a news conference, pausing right in the middle of fielding questions about his pitching rotation and his left fielder's Achilles tendon, to say, "Gentlemen for the past several weeks I have been having prophetic dreams. It is my considered opinion that if the the Chicago Cubs win the National league pennant, the world is going to end. " ...
It was on the sixth night God spoke. Tiller was certain that Al Capone was one of lobbyists that evening. He had always thought of Capone as a White Sox fan. ...
"I appreciate your interest," God said. "I want to assure you that I hold the Chicago Cubs in highest esteem. I have listened to your entreaties and considered the matter carefully from all angles. I am aware of how long it has been since the Cubs have won a pennant. I think you should know that when the Cubs next win the National League Championship, it will be the last pennant before Armageddon ...."
Al Tiller assumed there was more, however that was the point at which he woke up, his sweat soaked pajamas wrapped around him like wet sheets, his heart thrumming. His last sight had been of the lobbyists leaping to their feet with joy as if their favorite player had just homered in a clutch situation."

======

PREGAME

2008 Central.net: "...one good Palin performance could help save her, but also if any of the Couric-interview Palin shows up, there’s nothing but trouble on the horizon. I think both are true - for different people. As for undecided, I’m betting that if they are still undecided now, they’re unlikely to be persuaded by an uneven performance from either candidate... The baseball playoffs are far more compelling than this debate. The Phillies-Brewers game is incredible - and only in the second inning."

Reason - David Weigel: "Palin v. Biden: In Which an Old Man Punches a Woman With Glasses Here's a sweetener for tonight's debate; video of both candidates unleashed and onstage... Reason staff will be blogging it all tonight."

Dave H at Cynics' Party: "I think this will be another infomercial for maintaining the status quo in American government. After seeing the horrific bill that Senators Obama and McCain and Biden voted for yesterday I'm feeling a bit disillusioned. Obama says when the house is on fire you first put out the fire. Can you put out the fire by handing the arsonists a $700 billion can of gasoline and tossing in some tax cuts on the side? So much for solving problems from the bottom up."

Stephen Green at Vodka Pundit:"Here comes the pre-debate spin. I’ll have the post-debate spins after tonight’s three-martini drunkblog."

Amba at Ambivablog: "Palin is unstudied. Biden is a bullshitter. Let a cruelly neutral constitutional law professor question Biden and penetrate his authoritative aura. See if Joe Biden dares to be interviewed by Ann Althouse."

Hunter at Daily Kos: "Palin, on the other hand, will likely be as belligerent as possible, primarily going after Obama and fervently ducking the specifics of any and all questions. That's all she's got to work with. The danger to Palin is not that she will be a beginning-to-end catastrophe, unless she's much shallower than we've even been expecting in our worst suspicions. The true threat is that every question is opportunity for a Couric-style gaffe that would be repeated on television for days. To avoid that, I expect she's going to keep to painfully trite generics as much as possible."

Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish: "From the American Conservative magazine. They're worried her "thinking" has been controlled by neocons. C'mon, guys. Quit dreaming. You think she would have been selected if she hadn't signed on that dotted line already? Pre-emptive war against Iran is the minimal commitment she will have given to AIPAC and Lieberman and McCain. You think Randy Scheuneman is a realist?"

DWSUWF - Which Carlos Zambrano will show up? The one who pitched a no-hitter a few weeks ago? Or the one that got pounded in the following game?

======

FIRST QUESTION - BAILOUT!

2008 Central.net: "Bailout bill question to Biden. Biden pivots immediately to criticizing the economic policies of the last 8 years, and then segues into Obama’s criteria for any bailout plan, and then into showing the importance of focus on the middle class. Good answer, if a bit rushed given that the answer is 90 seconds. Palin says the test of the economy should be asking parents at kids soccer games on Saturdays. She’s talking directly into the camera; Biden was looking at Ifill. Hits the same notes as Biden, before seguing into reform. She blames Biden and the Senate for not listening to McCain’s warning on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."

Reason - David Weigel: "It's a bit of a reversal from the presidential debate, with Biden looking at Gwen Iffel, and Palin looking at you, the TV viewer! Biden doesn't seem 100 percent healthy; Palin is glowing like a Botticelli. Palin's sentences are a nightmare to diagram, so I wont: "John McCain has been one representing reform," for example. Biden sticks to sorrow, not in anger attacks on McCain and fulsome praise for Obama. Palin will work for "Joe Six-packs, hockey moms across the nation." You know, a lot of hockey moms live in Michiga... oh."

Greg at Cynics' Party: "Joe says that Bush’s economic policies are the worst we’ve ever had and that Barry O is gonna fix this shit with his 4 basic critera which are as follows: 1. Blah 2. Blah 3. Blah 4. Blah. Rebuttle, Governor? Well, I betcha yer gunna hear some fear about the economy from the parents on the sidelines of the kids games, donchaknow."

Stephen Green at VodkaPundit Pajama Media:"Palin Speaking to the camera. She let slip a “betchya.” She sounds honest. I’ll wait before I say if she sounds credible... Biden doesn’t want “CEOs benefitting” from the bailout. Does he want to retroactively tax the Fannie/Freddie people back to the Stone Age?... It’s all Bush’s fault!, is the answer. But he hasn’t looked at the camera. He seems evasive, although I doubt he means to. He’s just focusing incorrectly."

Justin Gardner at Donklephant: "Good first answer by Palin. And she’s looking into the camera. Biden isn’t. But Biden hits back with the “fundamentals” line."

Miss Laura at Daily Kos: " I saw Joe Biden once during the campaign for the NH primary. He had a cold and was a bit throaty, and his mellifluous baritone just about soothed me to sleep. (It was cold season, and I was coming down with something myself.) His bit of hoarseness tonight is lulling me a bit as well, perhaps out of memory. Palin goes straight to the mom card, though using soccer not hockey. In that as in all things she is thus far relentlessly on message and as coached as you please."

Andrew Sullivan [SPDS] at the Daily Dish: "I'm a little speechless so far. The weirdness of Palin keeps flooding my frontal cortex. But so far, she's doing what one expects. She's chipper; she's full of folksy anecdotes; she's attacking Wall Street. She keeps talking about "Joe Six-Pack" and 'Hockey moms." No real substance from Palin but Biden seems off-stride, and flat. He sounds, well, Washington."

Rojas at The Crossed Pond -22:"Biden: addresses Palin as “governor”. Bush and Republicans are bad on economics. My job is hard because Bush made it that way. Obama wants oversight, homeowner protection, equity, and restrictions on CEOs. Middle class is good. Doesn’t answer the question. Palin: I like kids’ soccer games. “Betcha” (transparent play for Minnesota voters). Moms are scared. McCain is a reformer without results, and damned proud of it. Answers the question even less than Biden."

DWSUWF - Brewers take Philly 5-2. Lou is slapping around reporters in pre-game interview. "Yeah, it's a must win. If we lose tonight we are just going to forfeit the game in LA and not show up."

======

ENERGY and OIL and CLIMATE? Oh My!

2008 Central.net: "Palin criticizes Obama for voting for the 05 Energy Bill, and talks about taking on the oil companies in Alaska. Palin makes a joke about not promising much in the five weeks she’s been VP. Biden is stuttering a bit tonight - hopefully not a relapse. Biden says that Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska, but McCain will not. Interesting strategy by Biden."

Megan McArdle - Asymmetrical Information: "Palin scores big points on anthropogenic global warming by saying that it's less important to argue about the cause than to talk about a solution. Biden is still spewing statistics trying to recover what should have been a slam dunk topic for him. Not sure why, as they're both offering the same ridiculous lies promises about weaning America off foreign oil."

Greg at Cynics' Party: "Just because Palin did the right thing with a windfall profits tax in Alaska doesn’t mean that McCain’s gonna go it. But it’s hard to understand how Palin just won the round on energy... Aaand she just denied that Global Warming is caused by people. But then she just went on to say we need to curb emissions. Oh, and increase drilling too, especially in areas that are protected."

Stephen Green at VodkaPundit Pajama Media:"Biden shook his head on Palin’s “clean coal” slam. But on that one, let’s let Joe’s gaffe-y record speak for itself... Palin: “It’s ‘drill, baby, drill!’” It was a weak slam, but it was something... Joe Biden promises to stop “greenhouse gasses from emitting.” I can’t think of a better example of acting locally — so shut up, Joe! ... I must say that Palin is back in her comfort zone while talking energy — but she hasn’t yet once mentioned the Democrats’ attempt to completely shut down trillions in US energy production."

Noc at Donklephant: "Energy focus is good for Palin. She actually sounds competent."

Georgia10 at Daily Kos: "Energy is supposed to be her area of "expertise." Yet she inspires no confidence when she discusses the topic. Rattling off bland platitudes like "energy independence is the key to America's future" isn't policy. It's Palinizing."

Andrew Sullivan [SPDS] at the Daily Dish: "Her climate change answer was bewildering. But that seems to me to be her strategy: just channel a barrage of rhetoric and bar any real follow-up. Ifill seems unable, perhaps because of the rules, to challenge her in any serious way. Biden is stylistically awful and substantively dull. Palin has very little substance but is killing him stylistically. And Biden sounds very liberal. He's throwing this debate away so far."

Rojas at The Crossed Pond:"PALIN:Natural gas is good. People chant about drilling. Obama actually ISN’T in favor of drilling and Biden called it rape. I am in favor of rape when we get oil from it. You’re lying your ass off by claiming you were in favor of clean coal.BIDEN: I support hard targets on clean coal; my previous comment about clean coal was in reference to exports (R: ?!?!?!) McCain hates funding for alternative energy"

DWSUWF - The good Zambrano showed up. Got the first three batters. But the bad Cub fielders showed up. 5-0 LA, all unearned runs on two errors. I am very unhappy.

======

THAT IS SO GAY.

2008 Central.net: "Biden supports extending same-sex benefits to couples, and says there will be no distinction. Talks about visitation rights in hospital, joint ownership of property, etc. The property rights are not really that big a problem. Palin says she does not want to redefine marriage, but wants to be tolerant of choices of relationships. Do you support gay marriage? Biden says no, it’s a question of faith. and says that they agree on these civil rights. Palin sort of half-heartedly agrees that they agree."

Megan McArdle - Asymmetrical Information: "How come Sarah Palin gets more highly rated for being against gay marriage than Joe Biden does? Neither of them said anything that was either controversial, or particularly different from the other. Joe Biden just claimed that the right of same sex partners to visit their partners in a hospital is in the constitution. I'm all for gay marriage and all, but I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers didn't put that in there, or even intend to."

Amba at Ambivablog: "Biden says the Constitution calls for equal benefits as relates to rights of property and visitation. Palin says "I am very tolerant and I have a very diverse family and friends." The difference has dwindled here too. Biden and Obama do not support gay marriage. Palin says she and McCain would not do anything to hinder visitation and property rights. "

Trapper John at Daily Kos: "Q: Same-sex benefits? JB: Damn right! Same-sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. [Man, the world has changed when a national candidate isn't afraid to say this.] SP: Oh no. Not if it threatens marriage. But some of my best friends are gay! [Still, even she agrees that same-sex couples should have SOME rights. Amazing.] Q: Marriage? JB: No."

Andrew Sullivan [SPDS] at the Daily Dish: "Ifill gives Palin a total pass on gays and marriage - a total pass. She even claims that Palin supports equal rights for gay couples when she clearly doesn't. Does Ifill now what she is talking about? She doesn't ask about Palin's opposition to all rights for gay couples. How a question about equal marriage rights can be played to the benefit of one of the most anti-gay candidates in American history is staggering to me. Ifill has simply surrendered the facts on this issue and Biden let her. So far, this debate is a walk-over for Palin, enabled by Ifill but turned into a crater by Biden's incompetence as a debater. How he has managed to lose every issue where his positions are immensely stronger than Palin is beyond me. Real political malpractice."

Jason Kuznicki at The Crossed Pond:"Biden is lying and knows it when he claims that the Constitution says that same-sex couples should get visitation rights. That’s not in there. It just isn’t. He’s also not supporting full marriage rights, so I can’t support his answer. But he’s better than Palin on this, since she totally dodged, once again. Tolerance is different from civic equality." [DWSUWF NOTE - JK is also a member of The Coalition of the Divided"]

Dave Weigel at Reason: "Bold stuff from Biden on gay marriage: "the Constitution" guarantees hospital visitations. He knows how far out on a limb is with this issue. Indeed, she looks less comfortable talking about the subject."

DWSUWF - The Cubs have forgotten how to hit. 6 - 0. Announcers see Bill Murray in the park and make a joke - "It's Groundhog Day!" Yeah. That is just f*cking hilarious.

======

IRAQ, AFGANISTAN, IRAN, and - oh yeah - ISRAEL.

2008 Central.net: "She’s really excited to talk about Israel as a peaceful nation. Biden says that he’s been a friend to Israel and that he would not join the ticket if he thought Obama thought otherwise. He then criticizes the Bush administration policies re: Israel, mentioning Hamas in the west bank and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Biden says the only thing on the march is Iran. Palin is excited to agree that they both love Israel. Who was the last candidate on a major ticket who didn’t? This is ridiculous."

Megan McArdle - Asymmetrical Information: "Palin loves Israel too! Big hugs for Israel! I'm waiting for one of them to break into Havah Negillah.Biden claims that this administration's Israel policy has been an abject failure. Unlike, you know, all those earlier presidents who found simple and effective resolutions to the conflict. Once again, Iran bashing is much more popular than Iraq. Time to throw out that tatty old war you've been wearing for years and get something new, stylish, now."

Amba at Ambivablog: "Biden said he opposed the war but voted to give the President war powers. Palin: "It's so obvious that I'm a Washington outsider, one who doesn't understand the way you guys do things. Americans are cravin' that straight talk . . . why did you vote for it if you were against it?"

Stephen Green at VodkaPundit Pajama Media: "Am I the only one wondering where the pit bull went? I’m seeing the hockey mom, which is great — but so many fat, juicy targets are just being let go. Nice Kissinger namedrop by Palin. But does that mean she just lost the Hitchens vote? Palin is going for the Jewish vote right now. But I’m afraid that — Roger L Simon’s pleas notwithstanding — Obama has that vote locked up."

Georgia10 at Daily Kos: "Foreign policy is clearly Palin's Achilles heel, and since she can't debate on the facts, the McCain camp loaded her up with "zingers." But she's delivering them poorly, and they ring so hollow in this substantive debate. Maybe if the two people didn't have children fighting this war, the light, snarky zingers would be more effective. Now? They fall flat."

Andrew Sullivan [SPDS] at the Daily Dish: "Biden is very commanding on Israel. He's regaining control of this debate - making it about issues rather than rapidly delivered soundbites. My worry is not that she is winning the argument. It's that she is just chattering along... Biden is finally warming up. He has authority on diplomacy and international relations and finally it shows. Her goal is just to chatter and barrel forward."

Dave Weigel at Reason: "The Iraq exchange is as much of a time warp as the presidential debate's exchange was. "White flag of surrender," in 2008? Palin, remember, was not for the surge when it began, but she's all in now. Paging Walt and Mearsheimer: Both candidates are stacking their panders on Israel higher and higher."

Rojas at The Crossed Pond- 190: "Palin: "Yes indeedy. Holocausts are bad. Here’s some rhetoric on Iran that has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue. Israel has had much success negotiating bilaterally with its neighbors (?!?!?!?) Israel is at the top of our agenda. Biden: I am Israel’s best buddy. The Bush administration has botched Israel epically. I saw the Hamas win coming. Barack saw the need for peacekeepers in Lebanon (R: which nobody would have agreed to). Iran fills power vacuums wherever they occur. They won’t do that when Obama’s in charge, because we’ll talk to them, and talking to them will end their desire for regional influence."

DWSUWF - Seven to nothing. I am dying here. That last beer did not taste as good. Time for a scotch.

======

LETS WRAP THIS UP AND PLEASE SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT YOURSELF.

2008 Central.net: "Final statement. Palin says that she likes the ability to speak to people without the filter of the mainstream media, as if it’s the filter that’s caused people to be astounded. Making excuses for bungling two interviews in your only debate appearance. She talks about fighting for freedoms, and quotes Reagan as that freedom is always at risk. Biden says this election is the most important election, and the past 8 years have been spent digging a hole. Biden talks about a couple of policy preferences, including protecting the troops."

Megan McArdle - Asymmetrical Information: "Not content with the earlier blather, Gwen Ifill actually asks them what their greatest weakness is. Sarah Palin rambles about how great America is. Has she forgotten the question? Because I'm having trouble remembering what we're supposed to be talking about. The persuadables, however, love it. On topic responses are for weaklings!... Joe Biden too, offers for the "Rambling Grandpa" style of response. Still waiting for him to say that he's too much of a perfectionist, or has trouble delegating."

Amba at Ambivablog: "Biden almost broke down when talking about his first family's car accident. The listeners' estimation of Palin rises when she talks bipartisanly. But the line seems to dive whenever the speaker changes, then to rise gradually, then dive again when the other person starts a turn. "

Stephen Green at VodkaPundit Pajama Media:"Here we go again: Palin is selling McCain; Biden is selling Biden. What we really need is a debate between Obama and his own Veep selection. Now THAT would give us some real fireworks...Whopper of the night: Biden is saying that until fairly recently, he was nonpartisan when providing advice and consent on judges. If you’ll pardon my language: That is such bullshit that it spoiled the sip of vodka in my mouth. And this time I’m not kidding. Biden is a vile lying f-word... Palin, however, said she wished she’s vetoed more spending. And that strikes me as self-effacing and maybe even honest."

Georgia10 at Daily Kos: " Palin has perfected it. She is asked about her Achilles heel--her inexperience. In "response," she talks about "being a mom," worrying about "kids heading off the college." And she pivots into her litany of platitudes. Biden, in response to the same question, answers it with humility, acknowledging that he is passionate and then transitioning into his accomplishments. Biden counters Palin's "mom" argument by citing his life story, and describing how he was there for his family when his wife died and he had to stand vigil by his child's hospital bed. Biden teared up, clearly emotional."

Andrew Sullivan [SPDS] at the Daily Dish: "Biden's answer about his kids, the moment when he clearly choked up, was emotionally very powerful. I expect it will resonate more with women."

Dave Weigel at Reason: "Palin experiences her first actual return volley when she makes fun of Biden's comment that he didn't want to be vice president. She'd been joking about saying she didn't understand what the VP does; she assumed he was joking, too. "I guess that was a lame attempt at humor. Nobody got it." Biden: "Yours or mine? Which one didn't they get?"

Rojas at The Crossed Pond - 276: "Biden: I suck in many ways, but my greatest flaw is that I just care too much about this country. At times I cry myself to sleep about the great things I have done, like put cops on the street and raise two kids alone. My father had to live in godforsaken Wilmington! Wilmington, ffs! I raised two kids alone! Here, I can break down in tears, like Hillary. People need help.Palin: People do want change. John McCain is a maverick. I am a maverick. Damnit, how can I work some tears into this answer? Um…look, I’m making eye contact with Biden as I talk about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship gets me all choked up…damnit, it ain’t working. Screw it. Democrats are partisan. Biden: I love John McCain more than my dead wife and Christ combined, but he is the worst child-depriving poor-person-screwing-over non-mavericky bastard in the history of civilization. John McCain killed a puppy. He is a true American hero and I cherish his friendship. F*ck him."

DWSUWF - The Cubs suck. They lost 10-1. Cubs are down 0-2. That means that the odds are stacked against the Cubs because playoff teams never lose after winning the first two games. Unless you are the Chicago Cubs who lost the NLCS in '89 after winning the first two games.

I am now watching a rerun of the debate.

======

WHO WON?

2008 Central.net: "No gaffes for Biden, and only minimally bad for Palin. Chuck Todd: “You’re may not see this debate have a lot of effect It may just disappear, despite the hype.” Who said that before hand? That’s right, us."

Megan McArdle - Asymmetrical Information: "Soledad O'Brien polls the 32 "persuadables" by asking them to indicate, by a show of hands, who they thought won. She calls the vote for Biden "overwhelming". The magic of Tivo allows us to freeze frame and count: 11 or 12 for Palin, 12 or 13 for Biden (some people are hard to see). Thanks, Soledad, for giving credence to everyone who thinks women are bad at Math."

Amba at Ambivablog: "She's very sweet and friendly to Biden. And he reciprocates. She appreciates not having the "filter of the MSM telling people what they just heard." If you listened to these two candidates, you could just vote calmly on ideology without rancor."

Stephen Green at VodkaPundit Pajama Media:"If you were looking for a veep who wants, needs, to be President, then Joe Biden is your man. But Sarah Palin was the one who really manned up tonight, for unfailingly selling America on her candidate rather than on herself."

Kos at Daily Kos: "So who won? Who cares. Nothing happened to change the dynamics of this race. Palin proved that she's still unable to answer the questions posed to her, but she also didn't fall flat on her face. And in the ridiculously depressed expectations for the governor of Alaska, she didn't crash and burn."

Andrew Sullivan [SPDS] at the Daily Dish: "I began this debate feeling that she was steam-rolling him. She was. But it was a steam-roller coming at you on fumes, not real fuel. She doesn't have it. Maybe one day she might. But not now. Biden's peroration was very, very strong. There is no contest here. There was only one loser: Gewn Ifill. She was intimidated, peripheral, neutered. The rules didn't help. But Ifill put in a dreadful performance."

Dave Weigel at Reason: "In scoring these debates I try to remember not just what the expectations were beforehand, but what the goals were. When Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, what did he want? A safe-sounding (white) old hand who'd convince people that Obama understood them. When John McCain picked Sarah Palin, what did he want? An instant star who'd blow up the electorate, peel off Hillary voters, and purloin the "change" message from Obama. On those terms there's no question that the Democrats won tonight. Biden spent the night attacking John McCain's record and building up (with detachable honesty) Obama's. Palin spent the night re-selling Sarah Palin."

Rojas at The Crossed Pond - 322: "Sarah Palin still strikes me as being a potentially competent chief executive, and her handlers didn’t completely botch this they way they have everything else. But she’s clearly a lot better in set-piece, scripted formats than she is when she has to think on her feet. Said trait, ironically, being one that she shares with Barack Obama."

DWSUWF - As I already said, the Dodgers won. Anyone know when Haley's Comet will return next?

Regarding the debate - Of any of the candidates on either ticket, Biden is the best in this format. He was best in most of the Democratic primary debates and based on the debates, should have been the Dem nominee. Considered in a vacuum - Biden won.

But... and it is a big "but" - Palin showed that she is not the caricature portrayed by Tina Fey, not the incompetent idiot that many MSM pundits have decried, and not the wild eyed religious ideologue that Democrats paint her. Many people feared that she really was all of the those things. She showed that there was nothing to worry about. From that perspective, Palin gained far more for her ticket than Biden gained for his.

UPDATE: Fixing typos and links as I find them.

======

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, 2008 election ,John McCain, debate, Sarah Palin, Chicago Cubs.