Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!

View Poll Results: Who won the debate?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama Killed It

    6 9.52%
  • Obama Won

    23 36.51%
  • Obama by a Little

    7 11.11%
  • Draw, Goes to Obama

    5 7.94%
  • Draw, no one wins

    5 7.94%
  • Draw, Goes to McCain

    1 1.59%
  • McCain by a Little

    2 3.17%
  • McCain Won

    7 11.11%
  • McCain Killed It

    3 4.76%
  • McCain started off strong, but faded and Obama started poorly but ended strongly

    4 6.35%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: The OFFICIAL Final Presidential Debate Results Thread / Poll

  1. #61
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius;2806704]Here's the transcript:

    Schieffer: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn't.

    Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Sen. McCain?

    McCain: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

    Schieffer: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

    McCain: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

    Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

    We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

    I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

    [B]Sen. Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. [/B]That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

    I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

    Schieffer: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

    McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.transcript/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    Errr ... Breyer was nominated in 1994, 10 years before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. Nice try Jack.

  2. #62
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2806746]You ever try DogFish Head, nuu...it's an India Pale Ale...good stuff. 10 bucks a 4 pack of their 90 minute IPA...but a whopping 15% alc/vol. Allagash is some great stuff too....


    PS...sorry for derailing debate thread into beer thread. I'll stop now, we have a forum for this don't we? I never make it that far, though...I get distracted by Fishooked's animated gif boobie thread....[/QUOTE]

    DogFish is excellent. Matter of fact, they have a brewery/restuarant here in NorthernVA that I go to every so often. High quality beer and great food.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2806881]DogFish is excellent. Matter of fact, they have a brewery/restuarant here in NorthernVA that I go to every so often. High quality beer and great food.[/QUOTE]

    Their main brewery is based in Philly I believe. I've never tried their beer but my brother-in-law loves it.

    Out here on Long Island, I've been very much into Blue Point beer, a great local brewery that's been growing steadily the last few years.

  4. #64
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=maury420;2806878]Errr ... Breyer was nominated in 1994, 10 years before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. Nice try Jack.[/QUOTE]

    He meant Alito and McCain had an excellent point. If you read Obama's own justification for voting no on Roberts, it's clear that it was based on his personal litmus test on specific issues which he didn't even name as his reason for voting against him. It showed clear contempt for a highly qualified Justice where Bush actually got it right.

    [QUOTE]Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts. [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/[/url]
    [QUOTE]The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. [/QUOTE]


    Personally I like a liberal court and with the age of some of the liberals on the court it's a reason I would consider voting Obama. That said its dissapointing that a highly qualified Justice who the President has been empowered by the Constitution to pick that Senator Obama would inject purely political motives to vote against him. For a guy who talks about working together, this is a perfect example of partisan politics at its worst.

    As far as the Debate, Obama did a good job of rope-a-dope and McCain failed to land a knockout punch. While the election appears to be in the bag for Obama, the lack of leadership he has shown through the debates shouldn't make anyone gleeful of our countries future prospects.

    We have already seen the danger of a weakend President in a time of emergency. I don't see anything in Obama to give me hope. I hope Gordon Brown is up to the task of leading the World out of this deep recession.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 10-16-2008 at 10:17 AM.

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=maury420;2806878]Errr ... Breyer was nominated in 1994, 10 years before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. Nice try Jack.[/QUOTE]

    I noticed that as well when he mentioned it during the debate. I was like, "huh?'

    In any event, McCain's camp, despite the spin has to be really dissapointed about the debate season.

    He won the convention season with Palin's nomination and was looking good starting September. His people had to believe that he would best Obama in the debates. Then there was the Palin interviews, the financial crisis, and McCain still had an opportunity to change the momentum back in his favor.

    But then he had the political stunt of saying he was suspending his campaign and had the nonsense of "will he or won't he" debate. That hurt him IMO. Yet if he had clearly won the first debate, then he could have either seized the momentum of blunt Obama's.

    Overall, I have to believe that McCain's people thought he would easily win the debate season, but their candidate (and the economy) let them down.

  6. #66
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SMC;2807114]I noticed that as well when he mentioned it during the debate. I was like, "huh?'

    In any event, McCain's camp, despite the spin has to be really dissapointed about the debate season.

    He won the convention season with Palin's nomination and was looking good starting September. His people had to believe that he would best Obama in the debates. Then there was the Palin interviews, the financial crisis, and McCain still had an opportunity to change the momentum back in his favor.

    But then he had the political stunt of saying he was suspending his campaign and had the nonsense of "will he or won't he" debate. That hurt him IMO. Yet if he had clearly won the first debate, then he could have either seized the momentum of blunt Obama's.

    Overall, I have to believe that McCain's people thought he would easily win the debate season, but their candidate (and the economy) let them down.[/QUOTE]


    I think both candidates had succesful convention seasons. Everyone forgets, but Obama was presumed to have the harder task of consolidating his base with all those angry Clinton supporters. He did that quite well.

    McCain excited his base with the Palin pick and got a lot of energy out of it, but that was always a short-term effect. As soon as she started talking to Gibson, Couric, et al, she became a huge liability.

    By the way, did anyone else think it was odd McCain was declaring Palin --who got her passport last year-- ready to be president one minute, and then trashing Obama for not having traveled to Colombia the next? Weird.

  7. #67
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    Palin had a big hand in costing McCain the election imo..

    His numbers pretty much plummeted when it became clear to everyone just how shockingly unqualified she was.

    I know the financial mess was interwoven, but most people agree McCain won the early part of the debate which was all economy ~ I think he could've held his own here.

    I think Palin started the tailspin, the economy accelerated it and now what we are witnessing is the the discrepancy between the confident guy with the big lead versus the guys who is losing and frantic. If McCain and Obama were closer in the polls, I think that debate is a lot different last night.

  8. #68
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2807001]He meant Alito and McCain had an excellent point. If you read Obama's own justification for voting no on Roberts, it's clear that it was based on his personal litmus test on specific issues which he didn't even name as his reason for voting against him. It showed clear contempt for a highly qualified Justice where Bush actually got it right.



    [url]http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/[/url]



    Personally I like a liberal court and with the age of some of the liberals on the court it's a reason I would consider voting Obama. That said its dissapointing that a highly qualified Justice who the President has been empowered by the Constitution to pick that Senator Obama would inject purely political motives to vote against him. For a guy who talks about working together, this is a perfect example of partisan politics at its worst.

    As far as the Debate, Obama did a good job of rope-a-dope and McCain failed to land a knockout punch. While the election appears to be in the bag for Obama, the lack of leadership he has shown through the debates shouldn't make anyone gleeful of our countries future prospects.

    We have already seen the danger of a weakend President in a time of emergency. I don't see anything in Obama to give me hope. I hope Gordon Brown is up to the task of leading the World out of this deep recession.[/QUOTE]



    we know he meant Alito and not Breyer, however that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake or error... albeit small

    as for voting against Alito (or Roberts), I would not hold that against anyone because Bush wasn't even legitimately elected and therefore should not have been appointing SC justices so voting against illegitimately appointed justices is fine by me


    on a personal note, I grew up and lived in the Caldwells, where Alito lives (maybe lived now, he may have moved) and I have met him around town several times and at the supermarket where I worked as a kid. Very nice guy

  9. #69
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2807001]He meant Alito and McCain had an excellent point. If you read Obama's own justification for voting no on Roberts, it's clear that it was based on his personal litmus test on specific issues which he didn't even name as his reason for voting against him. It showed clear contempt for a highly qualified Justice where Bush actually got it right.



    [url]http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/[/url]



    Personally I like a liberal court and with the age of some of the liberals on the court it's a reason I would consider voting Obama. That said its dissapointing that a highly qualified Justice who the President has been empowered by the Constitution to pick that Senator Obama would inject purely political motives to vote against him. For a guy who talks about working together, this is a perfect example of partisan politics at its worst.

    As far as the Debate, Obama did a good job of rope-a-dope and McCain failed to land a knockout punch. While the election appears to be in the bag for Obama, the lack of leadership he has shown through the debates shouldn't make anyone gleeful of our countries future prospects.

    We have already seen the danger of a weakend President in a time of emergency. I don't see anything in Obama to give me hope. I hope Gordon Brown is up to the task of leading the World out of this deep recession.[/QUOTE]

    I agree in part with what you are saying (I know, typical B.S. lawyer answer, I can't help it at this point.)

    Roberts was clearly qualified to sit on the high court. His record as both an advocate and as a Judge is as impressive as it gets.

    I won't quickly dismiss Obama's reasons as being purely politically motivated. Based on his response, he seems to have a broader approach to interpreting the Constitution that a strict constructionist (such as Scalia.) A broad reading of the constitition is often associated with a liberal mindset, something Obama clearly has. Obama had a legitimate explanation (albeit one in the minority and one I don't agree with) for not voting for Roberts.

    I like having a balanced bench, which we had until O'Connor (who was often a swing vote) was replaced by Alito (who largely votes conservative). If Stevens, who is getting up there in age, is replaced by another conservative, the balance of power on the bench may dramatically shift.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2806621]You going to give us a few more of those great "scientific" polls that sample 80% Dems/20% Repubs, then call it unbiased and scientific.;)

    Save your CNN and Washington Post Polls. I'll wait for a legitimate polling groups results.

    Oh, wait, no I won't. Obama has this election in the bag, the post-debate yap is meaningless theatre.[/QUOTE]

    The poll is of members of this website which is mostly right-wingers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us