A thread for you all to discuss the debate as it happens. If you don’t like the company round here, there’s a live chatroom at Larvatus Prodeo.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Open debate thread
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
1,076 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 » Show All
What’s the bet now that Ch 9 won’t be getting any feed from the National Tallyroom on Nov 24. If I was Howard, I wouldn’t want to be pissing the MSM off, since they have been on his side forever, but they can turn and visciously too.
629 comments !!
Question: Who here gives the worm any credibility whatsoever?
I took three points out of tonight.
1. Rudd won the debate. Undoubtably. He was more positive, Howard still too negative, and he didn’t target his responses right. Score one for Labor.
2. The debate won’t have an impact on the election result, as per previous debates, unless it becomes a catalyst for a momentum shift to Rudd over the next week etc
3. Channel nine should be forever banned from using the worm. Absolute garbage. Rudd opens his mouth, and before he says anything the slightest bit substantial, the worm shoots up a few points. What total crap.
Channel Nine did NOT pirate the Debate feed. It was hosted by Sky but the feed was available to any of the Networks who cared to carry it. Everyone knew beforehand that Nine was going to broadcast it and use the worm and Sky did not say a word of protest beforehand. If Sky had said before hand that no other network could carry the feed they would have been crucified. Who wants to bet that Sky won’t be able to take any legal action.
Back now. Watched it with Labor voters, admittedly.
Surprised and not displeased by the questions, as this is all about the media. And what they will report.
Struck us as the questioning was balanced, in the main. The media, Kelly very, and Hartcher somewhat less, seemed almost to be setting up Howard.
Kev won it, clearly. One of the ambivalents here remarked that it was the first time she had seen Kev as a less than wooden person, and she was impressed.
Though she does not and never has had a TV.
If Sky took legal action – won’t they be suing themselves
Doesn’t Ch9 own sky, or part thereof?
Max,
Maybe people prefer the look of Kevin to JWH – I know it’s shallow, but it could very well be a factor. If someone looks fresh and attractive, it can alter perceptions completely, even if they may lose on substance. (see Kennedy v Nixon debate in 1960)
Btw, I’m not saying Rudd lost on substance, I’m saying that visually, he may be more appealing than Howard, which could explain the upward movement in the worm whenever he appeared on TV.
Debate with no worm = boring as batsh*t
Debate with worm = great television
I started with Ch2 but the family made me switch to 9 ‘cos they wanted to see the worm.
Forget Milne, overwhelming and comprehensive win to Kevin, was very impressive tonight and the experts will call it that way tomorrow.
The way Rudd handled the tough questions and economy and union scare will also boost his confidence and give him momentum for the rest of the campaign.
Howard gave the worst and befuddled closing response I have ever heard from any political leader, dreadful.
Where was the Astrologist?
Interesting at the start of the year most Astrologist claimed Saturn would leave Leo in September making way for Leo’s to have a great end to the year.
What has happened!!
I heard the last 20 minutes on News Radio – Howard’s voice sounded like it was shaky, Rudd sounded firm.
AND Rudd’s answer to Uhlman’s pretty spitefully worded triple barrel question was excellent – brilliant work, smooth as you like. Uhlman is a spiteful turd.
Rudd’s closer was ok and did well to focus on the future. Howard’s closer wandered, was mundane and I lost focus as it sounded like waffle.
It is not Smirk, he has graduated to Yellow Smirk or Yellow Costello for the continuous courage he has shown in not challenging for the Leadership.
Milne’s summary should make him ashamed of himself – I guess he is still hoping to get a job with Costello. Sky news, well we all know that is the TV version of the GG – another electioneering arm of the Liberal party.
All Labor supporters should be happy with their man – he did himself credit.
————————–
Labor 20+ if no media interference
Labor 5 if media interference
Labor voters do not buy murdoch papers
No 655
Channel 9 does not own Sky.
GP at 631. I can see the headlines “Howard Loses Fight With Worm”
So Howard want to cover the 3 r’s….Racism, refugees and rooting the unions.
Congratulations to Ch9 for having the gonads (note gender-neutral term) to defy Loughnane’s arrogant, petty attempt to prevent the public seeing what a towelling the Ruddster gave Grandpa.
Albert Ross 657# The worm certainly made it more entertaining I changed over about half way as well. It made a whole lot more interesting. I still think Howard received more time.
{A spokesman from the Liberal Party said that Nine did not adhere to the agreed rules.
“Nine breached the conditions of the broadcast (agreement),†the spokesman said.
“It’s a matter for the National Press Club.†}
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22625342-29277,00.html
Howard’s libs = girly-men afraid of worms
Let It End (658): Bang on. This is the general response from where I was:
“what the [heck] is he talking about? Australian history? And why won’t he stop licking his teeth? Is there food trapped in his mouth?”
as a wrap up and a nice sequel to that
oh, that hand gesture he kept doing at the start, the pumping fist. That was…unpleasantly suggestive
It re-started at the point it left off at for each speaker.
I thought you were banned from this blog?
He is an unmitigated fool.
I’ll say it again: who cares about the legality or otherwise of the feed??? If there is any truth to the suggestion the govt or the liberal party had anything to do with the outage, then that is deeply, deeply disturbing in our supposed ‘democracy’ – and is undoubtedly what should focused upon rather than the minor point of legalities surrounding the replacement feed.
Normally I don’t think the debates have made any difference, but this time I reckon that those who want to believe that Howard might be a safer bet as Rudd is still an unknown quantity would have been left in no doubt as to who has a positive, energetic plan for the future. Howard looked, and is, washed up – Yesterdays Man.
Isn’t pulling the plug on Ray Martin and the worm unAustralian?
Isn’t Ray part of the great australian narrative that the PM was so concerned about? will he set up an inquiry?
PS. did I misshear the PM – I could swear that at one point he claimed that 15% of australians in private sector employment were union officials?
Can anyone confirm this?
There is an online poll at the SMH website. Everyone go and vote please
http://www.smh.com.au/
Yes he did say that, I noted the slip at the time.
The fact that the worm rocketed skywards as soon as Mr Rudd broke wind simply illustrates the inherent bias of the Channel Nine studio audience.
Like 2004, once again the Nine studio audience was stacked with lapdogs of Labor and trade union sycophants.
Ray Martin was simply s hitty that he has lost the gig as MC to a far more talented 33 year old. His childish tantrum and his ranting about free speech is yet another example that Channel Nine is no longer ‘The One’, rather a piece of commercial TV driftwood.
Yes, but you must understand that for the previous 4 debates Ray Martin has been Howard’s moderator of choice. This year it is different because Martin has been hosting Labor party fundraisers (he also does the same for the Liberals). This annoyed Howard so much that he shifted it to Sky News.
No 672
I voted neither.
also, a tipping point?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nine-says-debate-broadcast-sabotaged/2007/10/21/1192940904313.html
The AWB doing kick back deals with Saddam was “illegal” so lets not get tied up about the legality or illegality of something far less significant or important in a frikkin worm. BRING BACK THE WORM I say, legal or illegal.
Swing Lowe @ 656
I take your point, but if that is the case then channel nine chose a very shallow minded audience.
Now, I’m trying to picture an audience member, who is sitting in the crowd. I imagine there is a dial in his or hand for ‘approve’ and one for ‘disaprove.’ A person who automatically clicks ‘approve’ as soon as the camera switches to Rudd surely can’t be a suitable indicator of who won the debate. I accept (with some disgust) that there are people who WILL vote for Rudd simply because he is not Howard, but the point of the worm is supposedly to guage response to the debate. Which is why, of course, the worm is useless as an indicator in such events.
It is virtually impossible to pick an unbiased audience, of course, something I admit freely (along with the fact Rudd clearly won).
Albert @ 657
I completely agree, the worm added huge amounts of entertainment to the debate – mainly for reasons discussed above
Melbcity, nobody cares, least of all Mr Bowe who I suspect is going to kick you off again, mostly for being irrelevant.
There is a massive difference between breach of contract (if that’s what it was) and illegality, Generic Person.
No 679
A reasonably good assessment. It once again proves Channel 9’s complete uselessness in picking swinging voters. They’ve got it wrong so many times now, that the worm is worthless as a gauge for voting intentions in the wider public.
Without searching the site for, John Hunt is a.. causing much amusement as I related it to my travellers, was it any mistake that Kev referred in his introductory to Mr Coward, immediate correction.
Adam – thanks for confirming that my hearing is still acute – my wife and I both cracked up simultaneiously over that line. I think it indicates an obsession. I notice they don’t use the higher figure of 20% union membership across all sectors of the economy.
by the way what do the bookiesl know about the PM’s chances in Bennelong that the Coalition doesn’t given the amunt of itme he is spending there?
But Mr Howard remains the bookies’ favourite to win his Sydney seat of Bennelong, with his odds at $1.28 compared with $3.25 for Labor challenger Maxine McKew.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22625342-29277,00.html
What a load of RUBBISH! Where the hell is the country headed when Liberal party hacks try to tell TV stations what they can and can’t broadcast?
Where the hell are these people from? Shouldn’t they be running a junta in Burma? Or public relations for North Korea?
Just saw a National Farmers Fed television ad for Work Choices. Boring.
I noticed the Mr Coward “slip” too, but wasn’t sure if I was imagining it…
teehee…
Well: pick the monday morning story. I reckon the ch9 feed will overshadow this, and it’s like having a lit skyrocket in your pants. Rudd soundsbites on the six PM news, and a story of sabotage filled with denials, accusation, counter-accusation and then some. Things fall apart
SMH says Rudds odds have shortened after the debate win
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudds-odds-shorten-after-debate-win/2007/10/21/1192940905426.html
Why is Chris Ullhman a turd? He hammered those questions at Rudd. Rudd responded well. Ullhman likes to put them on the spot. Rudd had it covered. Although he didn’t hammer Howard. Although I thought Paul Kelly looked even angry at Howard when asking about the inflationary pressures from his tax cut policy.
Who cares what P-Dwarf thinks? I mean, his paid posiiton is, as far as I can tell, Costello’s press secretary.
More importantly, the punters have awarded it comprehensively to Rudd. Check the betting odds shoifting back.
Again, I think Rudd did very well on the Hawke/Keating reform legacy.
And Rodent having the hide to accuse Rudd of peddling untruths after his whopping porkies about centralised wage fixing!
Sh*t, even the authors of that report state quite clearly it is totally irrelevant to this election – as neither side proposes it.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22625345-29277,00.html
Can I point out that claiming someone presents substance, whereas someone else doesn’t isn’t actually SUBSTANCE!
I switched off the sky news broadcast as soon as Speers mentioned that Milne was with him.
No 691
The journalists were all average in my opinion.
They should have been more involved and allowed to put the PM and Rudd on the spot. They essentially allowed them to blab on for several boring minutes rather than answer the question.
In the morning, how much attention the story about Nine’s feed gets will depend on the media outlet. Chances are Seven and Ten will pretty much ignore it, while it’ll probably be done to death on Today.
Tomorrow night’s stories will depend very much on what happens during the day. The Libs might want to roll out some policies pretty quickly, if they have any – based on tonight’s performance, the cupboard seemed pretty bare. I would imagine we might see some detail of the climate change fund announced by Team Howard tonight.
1
alpal Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Tonights debate is about Rudd. If he sparkles, doesn’t get defensive with the panel, looks and sounds energetic, doesn’t gaffe, produces the odd decent on-liner – and finishes strongly then he will tell Australia that he is ready. We’re looking – this is your test.
I think he passed your test alpal and took back the election campaign momentum from JWH, if only temporarily, and he was better tonight than the puppet he was last week, 9/10 for my money.
“A person who automatically clicks ‘approve’ as soon as the camera switches to Rudd surely can’t be a suitable indicator of who won the debate.”
You guys are forgetting what the worm really measures. It reflects how people FEEL towards the two leaders. If the worm shifts to “positive” before Rudd actually speaks, then it shows that the majority of people in the audience feel warmly towards Rudd. Maybe he was smiling, maybe he just looked good, it doesn’t matter, it is a global measure of IMPRESSIONS, which is important in politics.
The question about who people think won the debate was summed up when the audience were actually asked to vote. 65% of the audience said that Rudd won, 29% said Howard, and the rest undecided.
Whether the composition of the audience was unbiased to begin with is a different issue.
Rudd won. Howard lost.
night all.
hehe ShowsOn… maybe Andrew Robb should try a line of attack more familiar to he and the libs? … “The worm hates our way of life and hates our freedom”…
Pages: « 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 » Show All