Quick Take VP Edition

I am with Ann Althouse.  This debate was annoying.  The constant interuptions from Biden and the moderator made this almost unwatchable.  This may be the classic case that depending on how you got the debate radically effects how you thought it went.  If you just heard the debate, I think Biden won on points.  If you saw the debate, Biden was such a horse's ass that I can't believe it went over well.  I have some support for this view.  When David Gregory and Piers Morgan think you are acting like a jerk, it's a sign that you may be acting like a jerk.  Apparently CNN had trackers and at least early on Biden, while I think winning on substance, was tracking low, I assume because he was so obnoxious in his body language.  I was watching CSPAN, so if someone knows otherwise please comment.  I guess I agree with Althouse:

That debate was so annoying! Some of the CNN commentators are talking about how Biden did what he came to do, to fire up the Democrats. "This was not for the independents," says Van Jones. Okay, well, but independents were watching, and Biden was horribly rude. He created this disturbing atmosphere of anxiety.

Update: OK, I can't figure out how to unblock this text.  For what it's worth, the Frank Luntz focus group on Fox News I think gives a narrow win to Biden (I didn't see him ask the question, so I am getting this from the tenor of the conversation).  But the preponderance of opinion (but not universal) is that Biden was also a jerk.  I wonder if this is like Gore in the first and third debates in 2000.  Gore won those debates based on command of material, but his body language and sighing was so obnoxious that he got little benefit, in fact probably lost ground.  No one in Luntz's focus group of undecideds definately decided whom to vote for tonight.  Also, Frank Luntz is wearing a suit that is about three sizes too small.  I feel bad for the buttons on his suit coat. 

Update 2: Apparently the CNN panel thinks that Ryan won on style, vindicating my take.  I should say I think it is a draw, but that Biden being a jerk probably cost him a clear win.  OK, I am now watching CNN and their instant poll has Ryan winning, 48-44, so as I just typed (I swear I typed it before I saw the poll) the people are split.  That seems about right to me. (I got the CNNpoll wrong.  It was 48-44 Ryan.)

Update 3: BTW, I am watching CNN because Sarah Palin is coming on Fox and as a political commentator she has very nice hair. 

Update 4: More Twitter feed on Biden's smirking.

Update 5: From Charles W. Cooke's Twitter feed:"From what I can see: CNN Focus Group has Ryan 33-33 Biden; CNN Poll is 48-44; CNBC Poll is 56-36; CBS poll is 31-50. Correct?"

Update 6: By the way, is Joe Biden really under the impression that Syria has more land mass than Libya? 

Update 7: Andrew Sullivan calls it for Biden.

Update 8: Peter Robinson think Biden was a jerk, but that because he was more aggressive that equals a win.

Update 9: CNN: 21% more likely to vote for Biden.  28% say Romney.  50% say neither.  1% said mularky. 

Update 10: In other news, Orioles up 2-1 in 13th. Internal Update: Orioles win.

Update 11: For the love of Pete, on Fox they are talking to...Paul Ryan's nephew who looks like he's about 10.

Update 12: Rove says that Biden brought energy, but why did it take the #2 guy to do that?  I take that to say Biden won.  He says Ryan was more substantive, which is a concession that Ryan got pushed around. 

Comments

[Donald Pay]

So, let's understand: Republicans thought Obama being polite indicated he wasn't up for the job of President, yet Biden bringing the heat was annoying. Uh, right. I'll just say most of what is going to be reported about this debate is spin with the lamestream media wanting a close race so they can extract more money out of the superrich people who fund both campaigns.

I actually prefer the cool demeanor of Obama and think he won that debate on substance and forthrightness and demeanor. And, although I was annoyed by Biden's theatrics, it was nice to see that little twit Ryan get called on his lies.

[Jon S.]

Donald, Joe Biden said he didn't vote for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he voted for both. Is that a lie? Or did he just forget how he voted on war?

[larry kurtz]

As usual, the GOP only likes it when the black guy is covered in blood. Biden looked like a cougar playing with a field mouse.

[Donald Pay]

JS,

Biden's debate comment referred to putting the wars off budget. You seem to be getting your talking points from the headlines of the Weekly Standard or Breitbart, but you aren't reading the transcript which states:

"“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

There was no lie, though it was inartfully articulated.

[Jon S.]

Donald,

I think you are right, although he certainly gave the impression that we was against the wars. I see that he was talking about the credit card, not the actual wars. It was badly put. It is worth noting, though, that the entire stimulus bill was put "on the credit card." Forty cents of every dollar appropriated has been on the credit card with no plan to get annual deficits below $900 billion a year. It's tough to take this administration seriously on deficit cutting.

[Jon S.]

I've been thinking of that "I voted against them" comment. What did he mean? Is there some appropriation for the Iraq war that he voted against? I assume so.

BTW, here is a list of Senate Democrats who voted FOR the prescription drug bill: Baucus, Breaux, Carper,Conrad, Dorgan, Feinstein, Jeffords (sort of Democrat), LAndrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson (NE), and Wyden. Yes, Biden was a No.

[Jon S.]

Also, the argument about the prescription drug bill was not over whether we should have one or whether it "bust the budget" but over how price would be controlled. Would it be by competition (the Republican view) or by the government directly negotiating price (Democrat view).

[Donald Pay]

I hate to break it to you, Jon, but it is really not about competition between the Part D plans if the goal is lower costs to the government. It is about which negotiators can get the best deal. Both entities, government and insurance companies negotiate price with the drug companies.

The insurance companies are negotiating with the drug companies for price, but each insurance company comes to the drug companies with a far smaller pool than a government negotiator would. If market forces work, volume pricing would indicate a single government plan with higher volume would out negotiate a private plan with smaller volume.

Now if you you look at it from an individual's level, you may be able to decrease YOUR cost by getting into a plan that has negotiated lower prices for the specific drugs you consume right now. You are taking a risk, however, of being hit by much higher prices on drugs you don't use right now, but may have to use in the future. In that case the government has to pay the higher price, and you may have to pay higher co-pays. The government takes most of the risk, however, up until the donut hole. Thus, if a person makes a wrong decision about his drug plan, the cost to government increases.

I'm not sure if you've had to deal with Subpart D. There definitely is a lot of competition, but it is very complicated, and most seniors need help figuring out which plan is best for them. And it hasn't really done much to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.