Yes, but I don’t believe it was linked as political analysis. It was linked in response to your statement “There’s not going to be that much attention paid to this and very few people will watch.” I agree that Variety isn’t known for its political insight, but it *is *known for its insight into the media. This experience gives their intuition as to whether or not this will be a heavily watched debate significant weight. Granted, it may be based on unquantified predictions, but being the leader in their field, I think it’s a better cite than you gave credit for.
There is, though, the possibility that you didn’t intend to focus on raw numbers, but rather the impact the debate will have. Let a record-breaking number of people watch, but they’re tuning in for the sideshow, not to make up their minds. I’m not sure if that (or something close) is what you meant, I’m just trying to understand …
I’m stating my opinion. There’s always a possibility that I may be wrong, I just don’t find these arguments convincing evidence that I’m wrong.
In TV terms, 1984 might as well be 1984 B.C. There were far fewer networks and political coverage was entirely different. So was the handling of candidates. For perspective, CNN was four years old in 1984 and hadn’t been boosted to major prominence by the Gulf War, and Fox didn’t exist at all. For practical purposes there was no 24 hour news coverage, and obviously no internet coverage. Back then, you didn’t get nearly as many chances to actually see the candidates do their thing. Now, you practically have to try to avoid them.
It’s not unreasonable, I just don’t buy it.
It’d be really ironic if you followed this up by criticizing me for attacking the messenger and not the message.
Huh.
Like I said, you linked to Variety in a political conversation. But I did attack the message when I called it “weasel wording.” This is a speculative form of journalism that should generally be disregarded. You see this kind of writing when a theory sounds compelling and the facts aren’t really there. “People may tune into the debate because of X Y and Z.” Then again, the author never seems to mention, they may not tune in because there will be playoff baseball and college football that night and who knows what else on TV, and meanwhile interest in Biden is null while interest in Palin is waning, and they are both running for Vice President.
This debate won’t move the needle much, and I disagree with some of the posters here that this is a major event for either campaign. The Reuters piece I just linked to gives the 2004 debate viewership numbers. I don’t have a broader historical perspective than that, but I don’t think this is going to draw a ton of viewers.
:rolleyes: That’s twice in a row you’ve ignored everything I said except one offhand remark. The arguments you’re looking for were cleverly hidden in the entire remainder of the post, which you failed to quote or answer. I explained why I think interest in the debate won’t be that high, I explained my issues with the speculation in the article, and I said why I don’t think the comparison to the Bush-Ferraro debate works. Please tell me why those aren’t arguments.
have we entered some kind of Twilight Zone? Is there a candid camera rolling somewhere? I can’t keep up. I’ve been off the past 2 days and online for most of them and I can’t keep up… :eek:
What possible excuse could McCain for keeping Palin out of the debate?:dubious: He can suspend his campaign and pretend he’s needed in Congress all he wants, but Palin isn’t a Congresswoman. There is no plausible role for her to play. It’s like we’ve wandered into an SNL sketch.
Before we all get into a lather, McCain didn’t say he was contemplating suspending his campaign. He said he’d do “Whatever it takes” after being goaded by one of the FOX News sycophantic weasels. I think it’s irresponsible for The Nation to run a headline like this considering McCain never said it, and probably wouldn’t even have brought it up.
McCain’s not as stupid or senile as some would like to believe. He knows that gambit didn’t work last week. What possible benefit could he possibly derive from pulling it again?
As to the OP, I think many here are going to be surprised come Friday morning. I don’t believe Palin will do nearly as horribly in the debate as predicted. Right now the bar is set so low for her I don’t see how she can possibly fail. Biden definitely has the tougher job here, IMHO.
No problem, let’s start at the beginning. You said:
That is an opinion, not an argument. You provided nothing to support your opinion, except this gem:
I think we can all agree there’s not much to your “argument” so far. Then you added this:
Again, nothing to actually support your assertion, no cites, nothing (though you did manage to get a little snark in prior to that).
I then suggested that you read this article to see why you’re probably wrong.
Your response:
So instead of disputing the arguments put forth by the article you attack the messenger and call it all “weasel word(s)”.
My response included the “facts” you say do not exist and a brief summary of the arguments:
So let’s be clear: the fact is that the highest rated VP debate in history was between a man and a woman.
The arguments are:
Palin has been shielded from the media, thus the public may have a higher interest in hearing her positions;
The race is extremely close, so people may pay more attention;
Her lack of experience is a big question
Looking at other posts in this thread (which you’ve ignored), one could probably add:
McCain is 72, so there is a higher likelyhood (or at least perceived likelyhood) that he will croak and she will take over;
She’s a trainwreck when unscripted, and people generally like to watch trainwrecks;
She’s a woman, and people are interested in seeing if foot-in-mouth Joe will be able to control himself and not look like he’s beating up a woman.
So there are your arguments. Your reply was:
Again, nothing here actually rebuts any of the arguments. You have your opinion and you’re going to stick to it!
Here, in response to the quote about Ferraro, you bring up the lack of 24hr media, Internet, etc. You may have a point there, but you are not addressing the issue, which is that compared to all other VP debates (before and after, regardless of the state of 24hr news), this one had the highest ratings.
Here you are apparently trying to be “clever”, but either you missed the point or you don’t know what the word “ironic” means.
Let me explain: I was mocking you for putting forth opinions without backing them up; for being a “know-it-all” without any substance; and for dismissing nearly every argument without actually refuting the points.
You, on the other hand, were doing a classic case of “shoot the messenger”: You attacked Variety (clearly without knowing what sort of rag it is) and you attacked their experts without actually countering their arguments. All in all poor debating form, not dissimilar to what we can likely expect this Thursday.
And finally this gem:
See, this is ironic. You have stated that “People will not tune in because of X Y and Z”; you provide your opinion, no supporting evidence, no “other side of the argument” – and then you call the Variety article “weasel words”, even though it has at least provided some evidence and a sound argument for its case.
Now, since you don’t like Variety, let’s look at other media:
"NEW YORK (AP) — For an audition to be second fiddle, Thursday’s debate between often ill-informed newcomer Sarah Palin and often gaffe-prone veteran Joe Biden offers unusually large pitfalls — and promise.
For once, the whole world may be watching. Already, 3,100 media credentials have been issued, the most the Commission on Presidential Debates ever needed in seven vice presidential debates it’s hosted.
The attention is driven by the public’s fascination with Palin, the first-term Alaska governor that Republican presidential candidate John McCain plucked from relative political obscurity to be his running mate."
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice presidential debates rarely play a role in White House races, but the showdown between Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden will be different – it could matter.
The highly anticipated encounter on Thursday between the verbose Biden and the sheltered Palin will likely draw a larger television audience than last week’s first debate between their bosses, presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain.
The spotlight will be on Palin, the unknown moose-hunting mom from Alaska whose surprise choice shook up the White House race, made her a political celebrity and raised concerns about her readiness to step into the top job – the prime function of the vice president."
"Perhaps the most eagerly anticipated debate of the U.S. presidential campaign season takes place Thursday in St. Louis, Missouri. The two candidates for vice president, Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Joe Biden, will take part in their one and only debate. The political stakes are high for both candidates, but especially for Alaska Governor Palin, a newcomer to the national political stage. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has a preview from Washington. "
And I’m guessing if you wait one more day you’ll see about a million more articles just like these. Try not to dismiss them all as the media trying to whip up excitement for this event – you know, you may actually be wrong here, friend.
The NY Times today describes Palin as a “confident”, if “often vague” debater. The article describes how she excelled in her Alaskan gubernatorial debates. Those debates were very different in that several candiates appeared at the same time, so Palin could take the high road while letting the other candidates attack each other. That, of course, won’t be an option tomorrow when she’s facing only Biden. But the *Times *article should temper expectations that she’s going to come out looking like a drooling fool.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a piece on Gwen Ifill today. The article opens:
If Ifill catches Palin off-guard like this, we could be looking at another squirm-inducing moment. Ifill said of her preparation, “I just read everything out there. I try to be the best informed person on the stage and read everything that has been written about people and go as far back as possible.” Ifill is bound to get Biden and Palin off their talking points a few times.
