« Atrios: It's Not Unreasonable to Ask for Explanation Concering the "Weirdness with the Left Side of McCain's Face" | truthseeker77's Blog | If You are A Fan of Accuracy, Avoid Reading Josh Marshall »
Pew poll: Describe in one word McCain's debate performance (Could it be condescending? aggressive?)
The Pew Research Center polled over 800 respondents asking what word would best describe McCain's debate performance last week.
"Condescending" would easily top the list in the minds of Joe Klein, Atrios,Eugene Robinsno, Josh Marshall and other fanatically liberal pundits.
But alas! But only 18 individuals who watched the debate out of hundreds of respondents chose the word "condescending" to best describe John McCain's debate performance last Friday.
It's important to note that the poll was conducted from Saturday to Monday; therefore, I'm being charitable by not allowing for those whose impressions of the debate were formed only after reading the official "McCain-was-condescending" narrative trumpeted by the Kleins, Marshalls, and Atrios of the world.
But then, Marshall originally declared the debate a "draw" and did not notice McCain's condescending ways until his mind was contaminated by his ultra-liberal buddies who made him have an epiphany on Saturday, when he suddenly changed his mind, as I've noted before.
One-word impressions of McCain’s debate performance (asked of 832 viewers):
Experienced 61
Old 30
Knowledgeable 33
Confident 26
Strong 20
Honest 19
Condescending 18
Good 15
Aggressive 13
Angry 13
Fair 11
Prepared 11
Sincere 11
Excellent 10
"Condescending" would easily top the list in the minds of Joe Klein, Atrios,Eugene Robinsno, Josh Marshall and other fanatically liberal pundits.
But alas! But only 18 individuals who watched the debate out of hundreds of respondents chose the word "condescending" to best describe John McCain's debate performance last Friday.
It's important to note that the poll was conducted from Saturday to Monday; therefore, I'm being charitable by not allowing for those whose impressions of the debate were formed only after reading the official "McCain-was-condescending" narrative trumpeted by the Kleins, Marshalls, and Atrios of the world.
But then, Marshall originally declared the debate a "draw" and did not notice McCain's condescending ways until his mind was contaminated by his ultra-liberal buddies who made him have an epiphany on Saturday, when he suddenly changed his mind, as I've noted before.
One-word impressions of McCain’s debate performance (asked of 832 viewers):
Experienced 61
Old 30
Knowledgeable 33
Confident 26
Strong 20
Honest 19
Condescending 18
Good 15
Aggressive 13
Angry 13
Fair 11
Prepared 11
Sincere 11
Excellent 10
Advertisement
Impressive that you spend so much time patrolling the enemy's ranks of propagandists. But why report the news here? Surely you don't expect to convert us fanatically liberal commenters?
From the Pew article: "First, more voters rate Obama’s performance in last Friday’s debate as excellent or good than say the same about McCain’s (72% vs. 59%)." That's a pretty large margin.
October 2, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew you guys would change the subject.
Everyone knows McCain can't top Obama in anything. Democrats are smarter and McCain has problem telling the truth.
And how can you brag about being "fanatically" anything? Wouldn't it be more desirable to be "reasonably" Democratic, for example? You know, as in not making stuff up about Republicans and never or rarely ever criticizing your favorite candidate?
I believe a small but real portion of you might learn how to think by reading my insightful posts.
October 2, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Continuing with my last post, my diary is about McCain being "condescending" or not. This is what's being disputed.
That Obama won the debate is not being disputed.
October 2, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missed the irony, apparently. I am not fanatic about anything, but used your phrase. I'm proud to be defined as speaking for us guys, BTW, even if others might claim some freedom to speak independently from my sage spokesman-speak.
You won't find me making up stuff about Republican; there's way too much public-record idiocy and greed to play with. I changed the subject because you were trying to pick at Marshall, which is irrelevant to the campaign or truth in general.
October 2, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink