My Predictions about Coming Debate

[Skeptic Guy]

I would hope that the expectation for the VP candidate is not just to do better than expected, but to actually have good ideas and well-defined positions that would contribute to the overall party strategy.

I'm not sure that it would be a win if she avoided hurting herself.

 

[Upchurch]

She seems to debate somewhat well there, but who knows how she will do Thursday?

I agree that she did very well in that debate. The difference is that she appears to be very knowledgeable on Alaska state issues. Lacking knowledge and experience in national (and international) issues, can she do as well?

It's obvious that she's cramming like crazy, but it's all new information. As a kind of trainer myself, I can tell you that practice is required to internalize it, let alone improvise on it or apply it laterally. That's why she has sounded either coached or random in her interviews. She's given pat answers on items she has prepared for but was unable to apply that information when the question is asked in a way she was unprepared for.

Ultimately, I think Palin could probably pull off being VP or President, but she just isn't ready yet. She isn't prepared.

 

[aerosolben]

I agree Palin does better than expected. She's not an idiot, and has been a successful debater in the past. However, I don't think its THAT much better - I still expect her to remain largely ignorant and uncomfortable with federal/national issues (it's only been a few days since we've seen her with Couric, and cramming is not going to fix that), and much of her success in the Alaskan debates is because she was much more comfortable and knowledgeable about the subject matter. She'll handle her talking points better than previously, but the depth still won't be there, and she'll continue to stumble with follow-up questions. I expect Biden and probably the moderator to ask those follow-up questions at least a few times.

I think the winner is determined by Biden's demeanor on Thursday - if he's congenial and focused, slight victory as he'll come off as more knowledgeable. If he gets angry or frustrated by Palin, slight victory to her. Either way, I see little or no movement in the polls as a result of this debate, just as there was none with Obama's favorable results in the first debate (or nearly any other debate ever). McCain's hope for recovery in the polls hinges on significant changes in the economy or Iraq (the latter seems unlikelier at this point to me) that cast him in a favorable light.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd say since expectations for Palin are so low, there's almost no way she can really "fail". On the other hand, it's becoming obvious that she's in over her head, so I don't think anything she does will sway voters to McCain-Palin.

I don't think it's a matter of Palin not being smart enough, or not a perfectly articulate person when she's in familiar territory. I think it's becoming more and more clear that she's out of her element with the topics that matter in this election (especially the economy and foreign policy).

 

[Pookster]

I agree Palin does better than expected. She's not an idiot, and has been a successful debater in the past. However, I don't think its THAT much better - I still expect her to remain largely ignorant and uncomfortable with federal/national issues (it's only been a few days since we've seen her with Couric, and cramming is not going to fix that), and much of her success in the Alaskan debates is because she was much more comfortable and knowledgeable about the subject matter. She'll handle her talking points better than previously, but the depth still won't be there, and she'll continue to stumble with follow-up questions. I expect Biden and probably the moderator to ask those follow-up questions at least a few times.

I think the winner is determined by Biden's demeanor on Thursday - if he's congenial and focused, slight victory as he'll come off as more knowledgeable. If he gets angry or frustrated by Palin, slight victory to her. Either way, I see little or no movement in the polls as a result of this debate, just as there was none with Obama's favorable results in the first debate (or nearly any other debate ever). McCain's hope for recovery in the polls hinges on significant changes in the economy or Iraq (the latter seems unlikelier at this point to me) that cast him in a favorable light.

I agree. Last Friday's debate did little to change the polls. What it seems to have accomplished (according to some of the polls) is to make soft Obama supporters and Independents more comfortable with him. Obama's pulling in Democrats in the numbers he needs to now.

A solid performance by Palin will likely do some of the same for those who are supporting McCain. It might even pull in a few undecideds. But I don't expect the polls to change much, if at all, due to hers or Biden's performance.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Palin is going to do better than expected. Why? This has nothing to do with Palin herself. It would apply equally to most candidates. It is, again, "regression to mean". Let us assume that, like most politicians, Palin is an "8" with speech/interview giving. After a really great "10" speech in the RNC -- with no opposition -- she has had two "6" interviews with unsympathetic interviewers. (Duh.) In a more neutral setting, and gaining some experience, it is likely that she'll come out back as an "8" in the VP debate.

I don't think you can count the conference speech as a data point. No-one doubts that she can read an autocue. (Though the guy who wrote the speech for her had to spell nuclear as "new-clear" so's she'd pronounce it properly ...) As it requires a different set of skills, it's no basis for guessing how she'll do in a debate.

 

[ZenFountain]

Palin will give many idiotic responses that will keep YouTube and Digg well supplied for about a week, give or take. Biden will come off as an *******, as he often does, probably be called a sexist by some. The debate will be forgotten about in two weeks while perceptions about Palin will continue to deteriorate along with McCain's chances of winning.

That's my prediction.

 

[Wangler]

Though the guy who wrote the speech for her had to spell nuclear as "new-clear" so's she'd pronounce it properly ...)/QUOTE]


A bit off topic, but what is the big deal about the pronunciation of "nuclear"? Why is that such a big deal? I see a lot of talk about this word, and not just in regards to Palin saying it?

Did I miss something?

 

[Jimbo07]

A bit off topic, but what is the big deal about the pronunciation of "nuclear"? Why is that such a big deal? I see a lot of talk about this word, and not just in regards to Palin saying it?

The "a lot of talk," comes from people being generally pedantic about grammar and diction, especially when it comes to science or technical topics. It indicates that one is "in the know," I suppose.

However, given the current bungler-in-chief, I'd imagine that the "nucular" pronunciation has some political baggage as well...

 

[quarky]

Well, we see another issue here--the "boy who cried wolf" problem. I don't know Sarah Palin and--for all I know--those who claim she's a stupid liar who's dumb as a bag of rocks are 100% correct. But since the Democrats called every single Republican politician in the last 30 years a stupid liar who's dumb as a bag of rocks, this accusation no longer means anything; it's just white noise, at this point. (Of course Republicans have their own biases: they claim every Democratic politician in the last 30 years can't wait to raise everybody's taxes, for instance.)

The internet made the "boy who cried wolf" problem a lot worse. On the one hand, it it is an amazing tool, giving everybody instant access to more information than the president of the USA, or the head of the library of congress, could have gotten 50 years ago. But it is also easy to find biased, partisan, incomplete information--if that is what one prefers to look for.

So, yes, I'm quite sure that if I enter "Sarah Palin stupid" into google I'll get tons of hits. But I won't look at such "evidence" -- any more than I would look at "proofs" that are results of searches for "Barak Obama traitor". It isn't so much that I necessarily believe every single hit results of such a search is false, but the very method of looking for biased information a priori makes the whole excercise dubious at best.

If nothing else, it stinks of the sin of pride: the real point of such a search isn't to inform one of reality, but to make oneself feel good for being superior to those "stupid Republicans" or "commie liberals" one disagrees with.

That was so good, I had to make it appear one more time.

 

[aerosolben]

I don't know Sarah Palin and--for all I know--those who claim she's a stupid liar who's dumb as a bag of rocks are 100% correct.
(snip)
So, yes, I'm quite sure that if I enter "Sarah Palin stupid" into google I'll get tons of hits. But I won't look at such "evidence" -- any more than I would look at "proofs" that are results of searches for "Barak Obama traitor". It isn't so much that I necessarily believe every single hit results of such a search is false, but the very method of looking for biased information a priori makes the whole excercise dubious at best.

If nothing else, it stinks of the sin of pride: the real point of such a search isn't to inform one of reality, but to make oneself feel good for being superior to those "stupid Republicans" or "commie liberals" one disagrees with.

While I agree with you in principle on confirming biases, it seems as if the conclusion you're drawing is that Sarah Palin's stupidity (or Barack Obama's traitor...ity) are consequently unknowable quantities - since dubious partisan information is everywhere. What I'm curious about is how you think one should make informed decisions about the election - are you intending to establish whether or not Sarah Palin is "stupid liar who's dumb as a bag of rocks" at some point, or are you comfortable with your ignorance on that point?

Personally, while I probably read more sources that align with my principles than do not, I do try to verify sources and make decision based on facts.

 

[ProbeX]

I agree that she did very well in that debate. The difference is that she appears to be very knowledgeable on Alaska state issues. Lacking knowledge and experience in national (and international) issues, can she do as well?

Based on a contrast of earlier debates and the recent interviews, Palin's problem might be partially due a particular style of performance anxiety that shows up as "word salad" and a lack of ability to concentrate. It could be that she freezes up when intimidated by questions that take her outside of her comfort zone, so she sort of wings it.

... That's not to suggest that the seemingly limited size of her intellectual comfort zone isn't problematic in the context of a VP hopeful.

 

[ZenFountain]

But since the Democrats called every single Republican politician in the last 30 years a stupid liar who's dumb as a bag of rocks, this accusation no longer means anything; it's just white noise, at this point.

To be fair the same attacks were made on Clinton in 92 (just a liar in 96) and Gore in 2000. Regardless I agree that the public is desensitized to the point where standard partisan attacks no longer mean anything. A big part of Obama's strategy is to appear as though he's above these attacks while still continuing to use the same tactics to undermine his opponents credibility. That's how he beat an opponent in the primaries that had superior position in every imaginable way going in and that's why he's pulling away from McCain in the polls now.

Although Palin is starting to look more like an anchor dragging the ship down than the wind in his sails McCain was looking for, I believe people are overplaying her effect on the campaign far too much. There's simply too many full time news channels with full time pundits these days.

 

[Dr Adequate]

A bit off topic, but what is the big deal about the pronunciation of "nuclear"? Why is that such a big deal? I see a lot of talk about this word, and not just in regards to Palin saying it?

I think the big deal is that one sounds so much more convincing discussing energy policy if one can pronounce the word "nuclear". It shows a certain basic familiarity with the subject.

That, I presume, is what was on her speechwriters' minds when, after failing to teach her how to pronounce a seven-letter word, they were obliged to spell it out for her.

 

[Wangler]

I think the big deal is that one sounds so much more convincing discussing energy policy if one can pronounce the word "nuclear". It shows a certain basic familiarity with the subject.

That, I presume, is what was on her speechwriters' minds when, after failing to teach her how to pronounce a seven-letter word, they were obliged to spell it out for her.

Well,

I have heard this about "nuclear" for a while, and wasn't sure what the big deal was.

If we want to make it specifically about the candidates, then I see her pronunciation of "nuclear" the way that I see Obama's pronuciation of "policy"...he says it like "polisay", but I don't for one minute think that he is not familiar with the policies he mentions.

So, for me, a ridiculous non-issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well,

I have heard this about "nuclear" for a while, and wasn't sure what the big deal was.

If we want to make it specifically about the candidates, then I see her pronunciation of "nuclear" the way that I see Obama's pronuciation of "policy"...he says it like "polisay", but I don't for one minute think that he is not familiar with the policies he mentions.

So, for me, a ridiculous non-issue.

From a linguistic point-of-view, having an allomorph of a vowel sound is a lot more common and easier to understand than is moving one syllable to the other side of a consonant.

I'd say it's not a big deal, but I think in a political process where we analyze every nuance and gesture that it is an issue worthy of comment.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, for me, a ridiculous non-issue.

Her trainers evidently didn't think it was a complete non-issue, or they wouldn't have tried to correct it.

Ridiculous, certainly. And it does appositely illustrate my point about the difference between reading someone else's words off an autocue and thinking for oneself.

 

[Wangler]

I'd say it's not a big deal, but I think in a political process where we analyze every nuance and gesture that it is an issue worthy of comment.

Worthy of comment? Perhaps.

But I don't agree when folks try to extrapolate her pronunciation of this word to some interpretation of her depth of knowledge in this subject.

 

[dudalb]

I will be utterly shocked if most people think the "other" candidate "won" the debate.

I think, in general, if Palin is reasonably coherent, the MSM will think she did well, and held her own, causing McCain to regain the poll lead.

I don;t think the VP debate with have much impact on the race either way.
Why are you so convinced of a McCain victory when the economic issues seem to breaking for Obama in a big way?

 

[dudalb]

Palin will give many idiotic responses that will keep YouTube and Digg well supplied for about a week, give or take. Biden will come off as an *******, as he often does, probably be called a sexist by some. The debate will be forgotten about in two weeks while perceptions about Palin will continue to deteriorate along with McCain's chances of winning.

That's my prediction.

I really doubt Palin will give that many idiotic responses; she will use Glitttering Genralaties as much as possible. That might show up badly if Biden gives specific.
The danger Biden has is that the guy is smart but he does come off as condescending, and people just do not like that.
BUt I agree it will not have any big impact on the race.