October 2, 2008

Biden versus Palin: The VP-selects Duke it Out

First of all, I think Palin did well tonight…but she could have done better, particularly in the first 20 minutes. She spent much too much time responding to some of Biden’s more minor points and not enough time answering the question at hand. A key strength of Palin’s nomination and allure is her ability to straight talk and she needs to stay on that path. A key point there is being direct in answering questions – whether or not she fully knows the answer. With Biden following Palin and answering the moderator’s questions first, he looked stronger and more focused.

Note to McCain and Co…Always, always, always,..answer the question first then move on to rebuttal points.

Having said that, I have to say I was extremely disappointed with the moderator’s performance tonight. Ifil asked good questions but I felt she was clearly leaning in a direction that gave Biden an edge in the debate. On key issues such as healthcare, deregulation, and taxes - Biden had an opportunity to rebut Palin’s initial response but in his rebuttals he continuously threw in misstatements of facts and contrived numbers with no inkling of legitamacy behind them - like the 20 million people who will get dropped from their insurance plan as a result of McCain’s healthcare plan – but then Ifil didn’t allow Palin a rebuttal. When a VP-select makes as many erroneous statements as Biden did in tonight’s debate, how can she not allow for a rebuttal? Ridiculous.

Throughout the debate she gave Biden second rebuttals and final word (and in many cases the only rebuttal) before moving on to the next question. And the problem with that is that once something damaging is said and there is no one to correct the gross misstatement of facts, it’s “out there.” And the people don’t forget.

Major thumbs down to Ifil but I’ll add that Palin also failed in this regard because she should have stepped-up to the mic and insisted on responding to some of Biden’s “facts of fiction”.

On troop funding, Palin should have resoundingly stated McCain’s history in supporting our military. She should have directly responded to Biden's multiple references of McCain voting against one troop funding bill that Obama supported – Reality: he didn't vote against it, he abstained from the vote but noted his clear disapproval of the bill and urged Bush to veto the bill not simply because it included a timetable but because it included a very short, unrealistic, and dangerous withdrawal timetable. And btw: many were against that piece of it as well and McCain felt that abstaining was the right thing to do because of that piece of it. I’ll also note that Obama actually did vote against a troop funding bill because there was no timetable which goes directly to the same point that Biden was trying to make against McCain. Palin needed to throw the facts back to Biden and the people watching rather than let these misperceptions from the Biden-camp linger. She should have made it very clear that McCain’s record has unequivocally supported troop funding and our active duty military and military veterans in general (except when pork, absurdities or nonsensical demands were tied to the passing of those bills). Palin needed to hit that message home and she didn’t.

So, who won tonight’s VP debate? I hate to say it but I think Biden did – due in no small part to the moderator who, to me, appeared to show clear bias towards Biden in her management of response times and rebuttals to key issues. But... I do believe Palin came out ahead from where she started prior to the debate. Her approval numbers of late have been dropping like bombs and I think she helped herself and the McCain camp tonight with a strong performance. Kudos to Palin. A big boo for Ifil; and all my silent curses to Biden.

6 comments:

Dan said...

You must have one hell of a hangover! I can only conclude that you made the debate into a drinking game and your word was "maverick!" Ouch!

Dan said...

I believe the number, 20 million losing their group coverage, sited by Senator Biden comes from a recent analysis in Health AffairsCost And Coverage Implications of the McCain Plan to Restructure Health Insurance” (Buchmueller, Glied, Royalty, and Swartz). It is based on employers losing their tax exclusion for offering coverage.

Dan said...

So what were the other Biden "misstatements" you found objectionable?

Dan said...

OK, I watched it your way. I only used 4 oz. glasses, but I'm still hammered. I need to go take a nap!

Deanna Shaw said...

RE: Cost and Coverage analysis of McCain's plan

Yes, I knew where the Obama camp pulled that number because I’ve read it.

First, If you've also read through all that hooey then you should recognize the gross assumptions and what-ifs that need to be true for 99% of the analysis to be even remotely plausible.

Second, it overlooks key elements of McCain's plan (i.e., key reforms executed in tandem with the tax credit not to mention the true nature of the tax credit with respect to the employer tax subsidy).

Finally, just for fun - let's say the 20million total is an accurate figure (which it's not)... that number includes currently uninsured as well as those who choose to leave employer-sponsored healthplans. The study does not denote a total for either population so already the 20million is grossly misleading.

**Insert fact-check please**

Here's just one rebuttal on the cost and analysis paper (it includes links to previous papers from 2000, 2002, and 2004 that support enrollment increase of non-group coverage to potentially reduce market prices significantly, improve market efficiency and reduce adverse selection).

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2008/09/25/health-plan-scoring-that-runs-out-of-bounds/

Dan said...

Wow! That is a lot of sound and fury, but you really don't offer many (any) specifics.

First, it is not clear what "gross assumptions" you find objectionable. These were the assumptions from the Buchmueller paper:
1) Employers purchase insurance in an market
2) The tax changes will have adverse selection results leaving most group plans with a relatively higher risk pool which will raise costs
3) Eliminating the tax exclusion and nondiscrimination requirement will make insurance more expensive
4) Employers will react to higher insurance prices and reduce quantity demanded.
Were there others?

Second, other than the tax changes, the remaining elements of McCain?s plan are essentially a wish list of outcomes with no suggestions of how to achieve those outcomes. Sorry, but hoping is not a plan.

Third (not "finally"), err what? I'm not sure if you misunderstood the paper or you're serving a word salad. No habla Palinese!

Finally (really), the Thomas Miller rebuttal essentially has two arguments.
Argument 1: The estimates of demand elasticity used by Buchmueller are wrong because the circumstances in which they were measured are not exactly the same. Miller, however, does not describe how these circumstances are different and how the difference would effect demand elasticity. Instead he implies that employer demand is perfectly inelastic. This is extremely unlikely.
Argument 2: Miller claims we can not assume Medical costs will continue to increase as historic trend rates. His reasoning is that the McCain plan assumes Medical cost increases will slow (without providing a mechanism for accomplishing this change), so it must be so.
Perhaps because he understands the weakness of his arguments, Miller quickly pivots in his "defense" of the McCain plan to attacking the Obama plan.

I'm willing to entertain reasons why the estimate of 20 million is wrong, but you have not provided any (yet).