CBS News: "Early Poll Results Suggest More Uncommitted Voters Saw Obama As Debate Winner" -- http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml

538.com: "10:31 CDT: [Nate] CNN poll went to Obama. Hearing that Luntz and GQR focus groups went to Obama. Yes, I'm beating this horse to death." -- http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Sorry about that, Elephantmen -- you lose!

Joan, clearly you and I were watching the same debate.

From the early polls on the debates, it looks like independents saw the same debate, too. (see: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/). And that's a good thing.

Stop yer whinin, everybody. The polls on the debate are out, so you don't need to guess what "the people" think -- or make stuff up -- just read the numbers and weep (Republicans) or celebrate (Democrats).

From the CNN polls (thanks to TPM Election Central, http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%

The CBS poll has more -- much, much more -- of the same. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/opinion/polls/main4482119.shtml for the story, http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf for the polling detail.) One key finding of the CBS poll:

THE DEBATE’S EFFECT ON OPINIONS OF THE CANDIDATES

(Among uncommitted voters who watched debate)

................Obama........McCain

Better..........46%........32%

Worse...........8...........21

No change...46...........47

Bottom line, Obama netted 38% of undecideds who thought better of him (46 better minus 8 worse), while McCain netted only 11%. Take that.

Some of it has to do with a Republican candidate who, with a straight face, can defend hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts (after initially opposing them), yet complain about $3 million in porkbarrell spending to study the DNA of bears.

McCain is pandering to the voters who could not explain (or understand) the difference between a million and a billion. These are pretty much the same people who still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, and who also believe that Obama is a Muslim -- and that it matters.

Sean Quinn at 538.com has an amusing comment on John McCain's "tell" - the "tongue jut." (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/tongue-jut.html)

Poker players (I'm not one, I just hear them talk) say that a person's "tell" can let an opponent know when they're bluffing. In the video posted here, it is funny to see how active McCain's tongue gets after two comments he makes: 1) when he declares that his campaign has positive proof that Obama really did try to sell sex ed to kindergartners (slurp, slurp); and 2) when he pretends not to be part of the Georgetown cocktail circuit (slurp).

It will be fun to watch the next two McCain-Obama debates with a focus on his reptilian appendage, and try to discern what it means.

The people who come up with these excuses for the right know how to count... and they know that the people to whom they pander do not.

They know the difference between a million and a billion... and know that the people to whom they pander will get as worked up about "wasting 3 million dollars of TAXPAYER MONEY on bears!" as they will on wasting 700 billion dollars on the bailout or the war of the day.

They know which side their bread is buttered on... and know that, to get enough votes to win in a still-democratic system (they DO know how to count), they have to pander to people who can barely afford either bread or butter.

They know who the real elites are, and they know who controls the media (they and/or their bosses are, and do)... and they know how to manipulate the people who are incensed at being manipulated by the elites and the media.

If she says "team of mavericks" one more time, I'll throw my shoe at the tv.

"We could be in for a few days of pro-Palin commentary, since her subjects and verbs corresponded."

Generally true, but how would you diagram a sentence like this? (From the CNN debate transcript,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html)

I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

That's one example of several, if you read through the transcript. And it's one that is likely to get a lot of play, given the constitutional implications of what she apparently is attempting to say.

And then there is her peculiar reverse-understanding of the word "attribute":

[I]t is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain....

I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate.

Kinda makes the references to schoolteachers a bit more poignant, dontcha think? Darn right, you betcha, doggone it.

Make that 172 (unless Republicans count double now).

It is a releaf to lern that you are mearly a proffesional writer. Im sure you're writing is as excellant and intelegent as you're letters.

(With apologies to RBolling, whose contribution this week is brilliant and hilarious.)