Vice Presidential Debate Conversations Could Change Election
By Terri Harel | 10/12/2012 | Elections 2012, Featured, Headline | 32 Comments
Photo credit: Charlie Neibergall(AP)
Thursday’s vice presidential debate got off to a heavy start, with moderator Martha Raddatz’s first question posing the recent Libyan turmoil at the US embassy. The debate did not slow down from there. Social media was afire with vice presidential debate conversations and many media sources provided a play-by-play fact check of the candidate’s claims.
Biden was vivacious and, at times, vicious in his remarks. No doubt, this is the Obama camp’s response to the President’s listlessness in the first debate. Paul Ryan, who is a new comer to the national stage, seemed much more composed and fiesty than Biden and delivered his answers methodically rather than passionately.
Most publications and TV networks were reporting a “draw,” although University of Wisconsin communications professor Kathryn Olson told Reuters that Biden dominated the conversation and commanded the debate.
The vice presidential debate certainly served as an entertaining confrontation, especially compared with the uncomfortable bout between Romney and Obama last week. However, the vice presidential candidates did not cover questions with any more depth than their running partners.
Vice President Biden offered a substantial amount of detail in his responses on Medicare, foreign affairs, and the budget, and served well to highlight his extensive experience in public office, but still seemed easily distracted from his point. Ryan seemed more rehearsed and rigid in his answers, often firmly repeating his answers despite the moderator’s request for ellaboration. Yet, both candidates threw out personal bait to their audience, in an irrelevant cry for emotional appeal on each issue.
No novel political tactics were at play here, but the candidates’ performance was surprising, surely entertaining, and offered an enticing preview of the next presidential debate. If anything, the debate furthers the interesting developments in social media and journalism. Voters have, at their fingertips, an unprecedented amount of discourse to participate in and information available to research. The incredible impacts of these conversations on this presidential race are already being felt, and with an eye towards future of electoral processes, will be imperative to track.
Let us know what you think! Did the vice presidential debate matter? Did it change your vote?
Some additional fact check resources:
Leave Your Comment →
32 Comments
Alex Gauthier
10.12.2012
@alexg
The facts simply don’t support the notion that the economy is worse off than when Obama took office. Ryan tried really hard to highlight the slow growth rate over the past 4 years, but the Romney/Ryan ticket is having a tough time convincing voters that republicans could have handled the economic crisis better.
Terri Harel
10.12.2012
@tlharel
The kind of developed economy we have now makes it difficult to recover in short periods of time, I think. During the great depression era, the sheer lack of infrastructure throughout the country made it possible for the government to invest in large public work projects and stimulate the economy. Also, manufacturing is key to economic recovery. Our country simply does not have the skilled workers we need to bolster manufacturing in the way we would need to stimulate the economy. There is something like 600,000 unfilled jobs in manufacturing because we just do not have the workers to fill them.
Chad Peace
10.12.2012
@Chad_Peace
While I like fact-checking and it is valuable for obvious reasons, “facts” are not necessarily objective, because information doesn’t make sense without context. Unfortunately, our context is a relative term to our preconceptions, bias, and affected by the arguments we try and make. All I’m saying is that the 2 second “verification” process does not necessarily contribute to a real discussion of issues, because the conversation often strays from what is really important to a subjective assessment of the facts.
Jane Susskind
10.12.2012
@jsusskind
I don’t think the VP debate had a huge impact on voters. It helped mobilize those who already support either Biden or Ryan, but I don’t think it will swing the undecided voters. Biden supporters saw this as a victory for Biden and Paul supporters saw this as a victory for Paul. Nothing new was brought to the debate, and while it was entertaining, a lot of questions were left unanswered.
Betty Davis Cox
10.12.2012
Style & poise: Ryan
Substance & passion: VP Biden
Kevin Hall
10.12.2012
I’m glad Biden treated Ryan’s plan like the complete joke that it is. More of what collapsed the world’s economy? That’s the last thing we’d need.
Stormie Forte
10.12.2012
Biden!!
Robert Davidson
10.12.2012
Ryan was the gentleman and Biden was the….well I will let you fill in the blank
Anna Herlocher
10.12.2012
Winner
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
turned it off after listening to them shout about iran sanctions, and all let ryan slide with the massive and dangerous lie that iraq has enough fissile material for even one nuke.
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
meant iran, but whats the difference, right?
Joe Mecus
10.12.2012
Biden was a shameful disgusting,rude ,cocky bum
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
ryan was a liar. biden too. but ryan lied in a way that will lead to another war.
Dorothy Melosky
10.12.2012
I didn’t see the Presidental debate between Obama and Romney as an uncomfortable bout. Who was uncomfortable? I thought Obama was a gentlemen as he had to endure Romney’s lies and misconceptions. Joe Biden did just fine in drawing the line between fact and fantasy. I hope after Obama wins for another four years that we can persuade Joe to run in 2016.
Kevin Chulski
10.12.2012
I watched the “debate.” It was anything but. And it’s not going to change the election. Not by itself. Both parties feel like they won the debate. The general public reaction is mixed. What could change the election is if this debate shifts the tone of debates and campaigns going forward. The acrimonious tone of the VP debate makes me worry about the future of our two party system, it suggests that mutual resolution on any issue is unacceptable.
Masada Disenhouse
10.12.2012
How can you have a presidential/vice presidential debate that doesn’t include questions about how they will address climate change, which will likely make far more people homeless, sick and dead than any of the issues they did discuss?
Kevin Chulski
10.12.2012
Why are you folks even part of this “independent voter” group?
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
climate change? how about nuclear war, masada? how many people will be homeless, sick and dead if we bomb nuclear reactors in iran?
how about inflation, and the debasing of our currency? when the dollar breaks, how many will end up homeless, sick and dead?
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
Paul Ryan lied about iran’s nuclear program last night.
“When Barack Obama was elected, [Iran] had enough fissile material – nuclear material to make one bomb,” Ryan said. “Now they have enough for five. ” ~Paul Ryan
Scott Horton excellently explaining why this is totally false:
“No, they don’t have any fissile material at all. What he means is that if they took all the low enriched uranium they have now, and then they announced to the world they were leaving the NPT, and then they kicked out all the inspectors, and then reconfigured all of their centrifuges, and then spent a couple years enriching further, up to above 94% U-235, then they would have enough nuclear material for a few bombs. He just “shorthanded it,” as George W. Bush would say.”
The CIA and Mossad agree:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
The highest they’re enriching now is to 20% which is for their US-built (in the 70s) medical isotope reactor. Weapons grade is above 90%, really above 94%. Ryan was using fissile to mean weapons grade, which makes him a liar. Here’s about fissile vs fissionable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
Carol Green: Scott your help in understanding all of this is priceless- thank you so much.
So when it’s enriched to 94%, that enriched uranium is placed into a container and that container is placed in front of a missile, and when that missile crashes into the ground with the enriched uranium at it’s front, then it explodes? Is that how it works?
Scott Horton Nope. In a simple gun-type A-bomb like they used on Hiroshima basically what happens is that a uranium pit is shot with a uranium bullet inside the bomb, leading to a critical mass and fission. This is the crudest form of nuclear bomb, but still requires a much more specific form of detonation than simply crashing into the ground.
A Nagasaki-type bomb is different. It was a plutonium implosion bomb, which is a much more sophisticated way of setting off the chain reaction by have many small high explosive shaped charges all detonate at the same time creating critical mass and the chain-reaction nuclear explosion. (Implosion bombs apparently can be made out of uranium, but almost always seem to be made from plutonium instead.)
Then there is the H-bomb, which uses a plutonium implosion fission bomb as the blasting cap that actually makes it hot enough (as hot or hotter than the sun) to accomplish the *fusion of hydrogen atoms. These are the “super” bombs which if made large enough are capable of killing all of Houston in one shot. http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Hydrogen_Bomb/images/H-bomb_2.gif
Kevin Tenorio
10.12.2012
I guess one important point is that the Iranians, if they were to begin an A-bomb project, would almost certainly only be able to make a gun-type Hiroshima nuke, which would be far too heavy to put on any missile. To make a nuclear missile out of a nuclear bomb requires miniturization, which would mean not just an implosion bomb, but a super-sophisticated much smaller than Nagasaki sized bomb, which they presumably would only be capable of after a few generations of successful weapons. So, what are they gonna do, drive it in a pickup truck to Israel? A jumbo jet? Maybe sail up America and Israel’s Red Sea? Not likely. Oh and then also if a million impossible things happened and they made one and used it on Israel somehow, then we’re supposed to believe that the Iranians won’t mind being H-bombed off the face of the earth by Israel and the United States. I don’t.
Mike Van Roy
10.12.2012
The question is who do you trust at the funerals the President doesn’t want to go to?
Kevin Driscoll
10.12.2012
Looked like a gigantic can of B.S. was opened and spewed all over that stage.
Stormy Leigh
10.12.2012
Last nite sealed the deal of my opinion of the Obama administration.
LaRaye Ely
10.12.2012
I don’t think the VP debate will change the election, except to solidify those who have already made up their minds. I think Biden acted like a petulant child. He was rude, overbearing and condescending. Mr. Ryan showed he is far more mature than Biden, despite their age differences. I wouldn’t vote for Biden for dog catcher. What an awful man.
Wilma Flenner Demastus
10.12.2012
Biden was a viicious man.
Malou C. Mariano
10.12.2012
If people believe that Biden had won the debate, well, he had better, after all, he is older and supposedly experienced. If he had made a a fool of himself, that would have been disastrous although will not be surprising. Laughing like taunting another is not so respectful ….. Can you imagine how much more amazing Paul Ryan would be when he reaches the age of Biden?
Lucretia Lulu Talley
10.12.2012
Not understanding why people are saying Ryan was polite when just last week the Potus was just as mild mannered and he was labeled weak off his game and the clear loser of the debate… What was the difference?? 0_o
Chad Peace
10.12.2012
@Chad_Peace
Plus 1
Mark Bellamy
10.12.2012
I thought Biden was awesome, calling BS on all the BS. :-) Still voting for Johnson though.
Emma Goda
10.13.2012
@emmagoda
I did have a chance to watch the debate but I did enjoy reading all the social media outlets the next day about what happened.