Sunday, October 5, 2008

The VP Debate

I wasn't able to watch or read much news this weekend, but judging by Digby's post, Take Me Out To the Ballgame, at Hullabaloo they must have been mixing up the sports metaphors.

After the Republicans successfully worked the refs and lowered the bar, last Thursday Sarah W Palin was in her wheelhouse and kept her eye on the ball. While she didn't hit it out of the park, she proved that she could take a punch and serve an ace when it counted. Biden meanwhile, showed that he's a team player right out of the gate by avoiding time in the penalty box and probably won on points. But with her humor, personality and confidence, Palin hit the trifecta.

The question for Tuesday is whether McCain will throw another hail mary or if Obama will fall on the ball and run out the clock. The one thing he needs to avoid is dancing in the endzone or spiking the ball before the final score is on the board. He needs to keep his eye on the ball. McCain, on the other hand, is behind on points, so he needs to strike out the side, get the ball over the plate and score a knockout.

Who do you think is winning? Did the VP debate make much difference? Will Tuesday's debate between Obama and McCain?


  1. Even Karl Rove (Satan Himself) thinks Obama would win if the election were held today.

    I don't think the VP debate will have much affect on the polls. A well-trained cockatoo could've stood in for Palin. "Squawk! Corruption on Wall Street! Squawk! Maverick! Squawk! Israel!"

    I love how Repubs think they can scare the elderly Jewish population in FL into voting McCain. At one point, that might have been possible (It worked for Bush), but I think the Obama campaign is getting the message across that they not only stand behind Israel, but have a better plan to heal the ailing economy.

    Also, as intensively schooled as she was prior to the debate, how come no one taught her how to pronounce nuclear correctly? I'm guessing they tried, but gave up.

    As for the remaining presidential debates, I think Obama will win rather handily. I thought the first debate, which was expected to be Obama's weakest, was a draw. However, the pundits disagreed with me and gave it to Obama. So what the hell do I know?

  2. I laid my actual WAGERS on the Republican party taking this one before the primaries had even run. What the hell do I know? I only actually put substantial money on it, because I find gambling on politics entertaining. The fact that my sister is married to a standing EEE-Lectered Democratic politician is just icing on the cake as to my knowledge. They aren't as confident as vicki is. Quite worried, actually.

    Vicki's partisanship makes me giggle and I think she'll be disappointed come November.

    Reckon I'll find out "what the hell do I know?" when I settle accounts in a month. Many side bets on Congressional and state elections too.

    Partisans are partisans...gamblers tend to have a better handle on the real world odds.

  3. What am I, a clown? Do I amuse you?

    As much as I dislike Karl Rove, he knows what he's talking about. McCain effed up big time when he dismissed Rove's advice re: Romney and picked someone who's been little more than an embarrassment and liability for the ticket.

    And Steve Schmidt seems to be utterly effing useless despite being Rove's understudy. I almost peed myself laughing when Keith O called him a "street thug" the other night for storming into the MSNBC offices and threating people.

    Good luck on your wager. I understand McCain likes to roll the bones, which is fine with me so long as he does it with his own money/future and not mine.

    Have you seen the polls lately? And the news of McCain ceasing campaigning in Michigan and Obama gaining ground in not only former battleground states, but former repub states as well?

    If the election turns out as you've wagered, I think a lot of repubs will be just as surprised as me.

  4. Have you got any money to wager? Don't insult me. But I'll bet against you on some things. Very specifically, at that.

    You have free speech. I have the BALLS to put money where I think it will go.

    Only met one person on the internet so far in many years of internet that had the BALLS to wager with me. He lost.

    Being named "vicki", you might be at a bit of a loss out of the gate as far as balls go...

  5. I don't think there was anything insulting in my response. Certainly nothing as demeaning as my partisanship making you "giggle."

    It's not like I don't gamble. I just have too much respect for the democratic process to wager on it as though it were an actual horse race rather than a metaphorical one. I'd rather put my money on boxing or MMA where the outcome is far less likely to be rigged.

    And I don't equate betting with "balls." Betting doesn't take courage. It just takes money and a willingness to piss it away.

  6. Dear Vicki,

    Thanks for going at it with Thomas. I think he's being a bit more aggressive with you because I called him "defensive." But that was about guns not politics.

    I agree with your prediction for tomorrow night's debate.

  7. i disagree with Vicki, in that i don't think it was McCain who picked Palin. i think she was more or less forced on him by the evangelical part of his base. there have been rumors James Dobson was involved in vetting her, and then in recommending her to McCain, presumably in tones he could not afford to blow off, but i suppose we'll never know for sure.

    that said, these past four years or so i've been claiming that the Dems need a landslide victory if they want to get any victory at all, and i still stand by that. the elections of 2000 and 2004 show us what will happen if the margin is small enough that the GOP can even halfway credibly dispute it; they've no less reason to do the same, and more, this year. maybe Obama can get a landslide - i certainly hope so - but if he doesn't, he loses.

    (and tom, FWIW: having courage is not dependent on having any particular set of gonads. if you think for a moment that quality is in any way restricted to men, you haven't lived nearly as much as you claim to.)

  8. I totally agree with nomen on the landslide bit. I'm not doubting that McCain caved to pressure to nominate Palin to keep his evangelical base, but his running mate--and which of his many advisors to listen to on the matter--was his decision.

    Still, why her? Why not Huckabee? People have actually heard of him, and he put on a decent show in the primaries. I think they put all their eggs in the "woman VP = Hillary votes" basket. Maybe McCain sent his people out to find him a running mate "like Huckabee, but with boobs!" At least they came through on the second part.

    He made a choice between going after the evangelicals or the moderates and undecideds, and I don't think Palin appeals to the latter two. Now that's what I call a gamble.

    Re: Tomorrow night's debate--my prediction is based on logic and the issues, neither of which applies to this election, apparently. McCain could've undergone intensive personality training since the last one where he basically grimaced when forced to shake Obama's hand. I bet he comes out with a big grin and gives him a bear hug tonight :).

  9. It's not pissing it away when you win.

  10. True, but it's not proof of your "manhood" or "testicular fortitude" either. And as a betting man you should know that, over time, you lose more than you win. Otherwise casinos and OTBs wouldn't stay in business.

    I will resist the urge to rub it in your face when you lose on Election Day. No one should revel in another's financial misfortunes considering the current state of our economy ;-p.

  11. I have hedge bets on both sides. So you likely won't have anything to rub in my face.

    As a person with inside knowledge due to the idjeet my seester married, the Democrats aren't confident. She was a state and national delegate, for what it's worth. The only people that exhibit your level of confidence are bloggers not gamblers or people on the inside of the game.

    I don't gamble in Vegas, I gamble with people that put their money where their heart is instead of where their mind would be if they crunched the numbers. Call me an opportunist if you like, but I like to win.

    I cleaned up when I lived in Chicago and everybody wanted to bet Bears against Dallas when Dallas had a better team...

    Overall, my win to loss ratio on political betting is about 5:3 in my favor over the years.

    I refuse to see politics and voting as anything other than a game when you only really have one party anyway. I guess I don't have your respect for the "venerated institution of voting" like you don't have respect for my interpretation of the Second Amendment. All's fair in blog discussion.

  12. Nobody thought Thatcher would ever make it where she landed, I see a parallel with Palin. Most especially in their backgrounds.

  13. Disagreeing with and disrespecting are 2 different things. I'm starting to think Mike's right--you are defensive. I've neither insulted nor disrespected you as you claim.

    And how is having hedge bets on both sides putting your money where your heart is? And how does heart even factor into betting when it doesn't accomplish anything? Put your money (or time, or effort) into changing the system in whatever way you see fit if you care about it half as much as you claim.

  14. Nomen--This article finally answers the question re: who's responsible for the Palin nomination. It was Steve Schmidt. And he advised McCain to do so simply because he thought McCain needed to do something "dramatic."

    It also contains the following quote. Sounds pretty confident to me, Tom.

    "He could run the greatest campaign in the history of campaigns and still lose by a landslide," said consultant Chris Lehane, a California Democrat who has worked with Schmidt on several projects for corporate clients. "Given the current political environment, the Democrats could nominate a refrigerator and still win.",0,555417.story?page=1