VP debate odds.......Follow

What I can't figure out is why everyone's saying that Biden needs to "not be a bully" and should "make the debate boring". I don't see how it's going to swing anybody's vote if he's tough and honest, forcing Palin to continue to expose herself as being as far in over her head as she is. I understand that everybody's expectations for her are bottom-of-the-ocean low, so why take the risk of restoring their faith? I'd rather have a tough guy for president than someone who cracks under pressure.

Um... You just proved my point. What was your reason again? So that you could show you don't "agree" with every SCOTUS decision.

You see how since you agree with Roe v. Wade, you'd come prepared with some other case you don't agree with in order to balance your position, right?

Palin disagrees with Roe v. Wade. Thus, she probably came prepared to talk about a SCOTUS case she agreed with, for exactly the same reason you'd come prepared with one you disagreed with.

She was asked to name another case she disagreed with. That's why she got caught a bit off guard. We all assume and expect to be asked a "balanced" set of questions (ie: if we agree with one case, we prepare for one we disagree with). She wasn't asked a balanced set. She was asked to talk about one she disagreed with, and then followed up by being asked to name another one she disagreed with.

As you yourself stated, you'd have come prepared with one that was the opposite position to the one you knew would be asked about. That's what Biden was asked. It was *not* what Palin was asked. What do you think would have happened if you'd come prepared with a case you agreed with, for all the reasons you stated above, and were then asked to name another case you agreed with right after talking about Roe v. Wade?


You'd have stumbled. Everyone in that same situation would stumble. You'd draw a blank because our minds don't work that way at processing information. We are very very good at presenting for and against concepts. It's part of the fight or fight mechanism in our brains. We can simultaneously hold two opposing types of thoughts inside our heads (a plan to run, and a plan to fight at the most basic level). We're very very very bad at holding any detail of more then one type of the same thing inside our heads. It's why we find it hard to remember lyrics of a song if we're thinking about or hearing another song.


Asking Palin to name a second case she disagrees with right after just discussing one she disagrees with hits this "wall" in our brains. It always takes us longer to do that then to think of something that is perceptually an opposite case. If Couric had asked Palin to name a SCOTUS case she agreed with, I can guarantee you she'd have had no problem. Again, for exactly the same reason you said you'd have come prepared with a case you disagreed with.


It's funny, because you elaborated the exact mental process I was talking about, but still kinda missed how it applies in this case. Her mental prep would be the opposite because she holds the opposite position on Roe v. Wade. Switch it around, and you'll hopefully get why Couric's question was designed to get that type of stumble.


Um... And even then, having now looked at the video, it wasn't that bad of a recovery. She choose to say what criteria she used for judging cases and positions rather than naming any specific ones. Honestly, that's a pretty decent answer. She's telling us what kinds of cases she favors and why, which I think is much more useful then just rattling off a single case.

She should have said that's what she was doing. The way she answered wasn't deft at all. But the direction she went with the question when she did draw a blank was the right one. She should have again been more forceful with it. Turn it back on Couric by saying "I don't think it's as important to name specific cases as it is to identify *why* we agree or disagree with a given case". This makes it seem like you planed it from the start, and also makes Biden look a little bad in comparison because all he did was rattle off some case about Women's rights, without really explaining what it was about and why he opposed that particular case.

She at least gave her criteria. And it's a pretty good one that most conservatives will identify with. She believes that most issues should be resolved at the lowest level of government possible and disagrees with cases where that principle is violated. I'd have tossed out Kelo v. New London as a great example, but I doubt if I'd have been able to remember the name or detail if I'd been on the spot. Probably would not have in fact.



/shrug

I still believe she was simply trying to prevent the next news cycle from being about what magazine's she's subscribed to.



Her qualifications are in her positions on issues, *not* whether she can deftly avoid squirrely questions in an interview.

Which would you rather have? Someone who's wonderful at giving out typical political side-speak and making themselves look good on TV, or someone who actually takes actions and holds positions that you agree with?

I'll take reality over perception every time.

Er? Samira said she'd have come prepared with a case she disagreed with, just to balance the fact that she agrees with Roe v. Wade. She said so in her post. The point is that it's a balanced set of cases, not that she'd come with one that she disagrees with. We can presume that if she disagreed with Roe v. Wade, she'd have come prepared with a case she agreed with, right?


I'm simply pointing out that it's human nature to think this way. It's such an automatic thing that Samira did it herself without even realizing that she was doing it. It's doubly funny that she disagreed with my statement, but then supported my exact premise when she stated the reason why she'd have been prepared with a case she disagreed with.


Whether you like or dislike Palin isn't the issue here. It is clear that the series of questions asked of Biden and Palin were *not* the same. Samira's own explanation of how she'd have prepped gives you a big hint why. Couric should have asked Palin to name a case she agreed with. She didn't. I've already explained at length why that's a significant departure from the question she asked Biden. They are *not* equivalent.

This is getting bad; I'm honestly trying to be objective and give Palin a fair chance but her lack of experience is evident. She's repeating herself so much. She said that "My executive experience from being a business owner, gas regulator, etc" line back to back.

I am sooo glad I didn't listen to myself. And so is my liver.

Yes. But my point was that it's human nature for that "range" to include opposite positions, and it's actually difficult for us to do it another way. Heck. Even the word "range" in this context tends to imply that we'd pick issues from opposing side so as to widen that range, right?

You can't get around human nature. You proved my point by subconsciously doing exactly what I said people do. You even had the benefit of being able to take as much time as you wanted to correctly think in terms of which direction each case was so as to avoid making a mistake. Yet many of you continue insist that it's unusual for someone to be caught flat footed when essentially forced to "think upstream" on a moments notice.



She wasn't. She was prepared to talk about Roe v. Wade. As part of that prep, she automatically and subconsciously prepared for the topic of supreme court cases in general by filling in an opposing case (one she agreed with). Exactly as you did when you said what you'd do to prepare.

We can debate why she had difficulty when asked the second question. I've explained at length my reasoning for it. You may agree or disagree (but it's almost spooky that you followed up the way you did), but the critical point for us to agree on is that the question Palin was asked after discussing Roe v. Wade was *not* the equivalent to the one Biden was asked during his interview.

If Biden had been asked to name a second case he agree with and had done so without blinking, you'd have a point that she underperformed. But he wasn't.


My main point here was to observe that the two were *not* given equivalent sets of questions. Feel free to disagree as to how significant that difference should have been, but the counter that "Biden was asked the exact same thing" isn't valid.



But Biden is. And he was not subjected to the same "trick". Hence my starting statement that Palin wasn't treated the same as he was in their respective interviews.


I just had to first prove to all of you that there really is a difference in terms of how humans naturally group things in our brains, such that both of them being asked for a case they disagreed with right after discussing Roe v. Wade, while appearing on the surface to be "identical" questions, weren't really the same. I do thank you for providing an excellent proof of that for me though. :)