So, How'd it go?

[telkanuru]

So, who did better in the first debate? That is, who "won"?

And for discussion, did watching the debate swing anyone from one camp to the other, or from neutral to a camp?

[Soldier]

I say it was a draw, only because I heard absolutely nothing productive said.

[frenzl]

i think bush because i wanted him to win and in my opinion he did because kerry has no idea whats going on. - i don't feel like going into detail.

[Maeve_Mari]

"3 Polls Show Kerry Won Debate Over Bush

Friday October 1, 2004 3:46 PM


AP Photo FLGH112

By TERENCE HUNT

AP White House Correspondent

CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) - President Bush and Sen. John Kerry rushed back to the campaign trail Friday to try to convince voters they had won the debate over foreign policy and to renew the argument over whether going to war in Iraq had made the nation safer.

Three post-debate polls suggested voters who watched the policy-driven confrontation Thursday night were impressed by Kerry. Most of those surveyed said he did better than Bush. "

[scrapinpeg]

I thought Kerry spoke more clearly than usual, but still managed to say nothing. His plan is essentially to do what Bush is doing in Iraq, only somehow he'd do a better job of convincing France and Germany to join everyone else. Bush was mumblemouthed as usual, but made a good point that Kerry can't hope to convince anyone to help when he says it shouldn't have been done in the first place.

On the topic of preemption, Kerry made the mistake of saying he'd only act preemptively if there was global approval first. That right there is enough for me to dismiss him as a viable option. He made it clear with that statement that, in the event of a threat to our security, we would not act without seeking approval, which means delay, which means more opportunity for the threat to succeed. Which means, if I were a terrorist, I would be praying hard for a Kerry victory right now.

On the topic of Korea, Bush made a good effort at pointing out what is wrong with Kerry's bizarre position. Kerry, who is so keen on building alliances, here is steadfast in a policy that would destroy a multilateral effort that is absolutely key to resolving North Korea's nuclear situation. Bush pointed that out, and also pointed out that China has more leverage than we do, and that bilateral talks are what the bad guys want in the first place. But what Bush should have done better is point out that Kerry's position, as the Clinton policy before, would only encourage Korea to more blackmail.

All in all, I think Kerry spoke better, had better soundbites, and doomed himself. Bush didn't do poorly, and stayed on topic, and probably didn't affect his campaign much one way or the other.

[Maeve_Mari]

I thought Kerry spoke more clearly than usual, but still managed to say nothing. His plan is essentially to do what Bush is doing in Iraq, only somehow he'd do a better job of convincing France and Germany to join everyone else. Bush was mumblemouthed as usual, but made a good point that Kerry can't hope to convince anyone to help when he says it shouldn't have been done in the first place.

On the topic of preemption, Kerry made the mistake of saying he'd only act preemptively if there was global approval first. That right there is enough for me to dismiss him as a viable option. He made it clear with that statement that, in the event of a threat to our security, we would not act without seeking approval, which means delay, which means more opportunity for the threat to succeed. Which means, if I were a terrorist, I would be praying hard for a Kerry victory right now.

On the topic of Korea, Bush made a good effort at pointing out what is wrong with Kerry's bizarre position. Kerry, who is so keen on building alliances, here is steadfast in a policy that would destroy a multilateral effort that is absolutely key to resolving North Korea's nuclear situation. Bush pointed that out, and also pointed out that China has more leverage than we do, and that bilateral talks are what the bad guys want in the first place. But what Bush should have done better is point out that Kerry's position, as the Clinton policy before, would only encourage Korea to more blackmail.

All in all, I think Kerry spoke better, had better soundbites, and doomed himself. Bush didn't do poorly, and stayed on topic, and probably didn't affect his campaign much one way or the other.

BUT->
On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well, but Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.

But each of the other four countries in the talks have held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process — and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly to North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.

[mrbiggs]

3 polls doesn't really mean anything, CNN said a USA today gallup poll said that 53% of people thought that Kerry won. 53% means nothing; that could change from poll to poll, or from one week to the next. I don't know what other polls showed, but I suspect that their results are similar. If Kerry did win, it was by almost nothing.

[keith]

well a quick survey of the world media gives the nod to Kerry.

This means that Bush will win in a landslide.

[Rolls]

3 polls doesn't really mean anything, CNN said a USA today gallup poll said that 53% of people thought that Kerry won. 53% means nothing; that could change from poll to poll, or from one week to the next. I don't know what other polls showed, but I suspect that their results are similar. If Kerry did win, it was by almost nothing.

Where you not reading the poll. 53% Kerry, 37% Bush... I don't know what the others responded probably didn't even watch it or thought it was a tie. But that 53% IS a significant margin over 37%.

Quit being Bush's lap dog.

By the way, most statistical polls DO mean something. You just have to know how to read them.

Rolls.

[K Degnon]

well a quick survey of the world media gives the nod to Kerry.

This means that Bush will win in a landslide.

Yeah, I remember Mondale doing better in the '84 debates than Reagan, but that didn't help poor old Walter very much.

[scrapinpeg]

In the interest of completeness, here's the full breakdown of the Gallup poll cited above:



Expressed himself more clearly: 60% Kerry, 32% Bush

Had a good understanding of the issues: 41% Kerry, 41% Bush

Agreed with you more on
the issues you care about: 46% Kerry, 49% Bush

Was more believable: 45% Kerry, 50% Bush

Was more likeable: 41% Kerry, 48% Bush

Demonstrated he is
tough enough for the job: 37& Kerry, 54% Bush

[Maeve_Mari]

Was stunned by the cameras and looked like he couldn't remember his name: Bush
Scowled when didn't think the cameras were on him: Bush
Pulled incomplete phrases together pretending they were sentences: Bush
Continues to believe that once you are say something it is right forever. Even after the facts reveal it was wrong: Bush

[scrapinpeg]

I don't think those were part of the poll...

But lord yes, Bush sure pulled some dumb faces. My fave was the old standby "deer in the headlights," though the "can we go home yet" look was a close second.

[Maeve_Mari]

I don't know how Bush supporters can sit and listen to him talk and not cringe at the poor delivery, the missing content, and the down home freestyle that is completely devoid of any hint of intelligence.

Maybe it's just that his supporters all believe that the Iraqi's really are "fighting vociferously" (as Mr. Bush stated last night) and no true harm could come from that!!

[Maeve_Mari]

I don't think those were part of the poll...

But lord yes, Bush sure pulled some dumb faces. My fave was the old standby "deer in the headlights," though the "can we go home yet" look was a close second.

I thought he was going to have to walk off the stage at one point. Exhausted after the first two minute question, I didn't know how he was going to pull out the next 88 minutes.
He stayed there, though. I give him credit for that. Till the bloody end, he stayed there.

[esskreemr]

So, who did better in the first debate? That is, who "won"?

And for discussion, did watching the debate swing anyone from one camp to the other, or from neutral to a camp?

I watched the debates. I watched the spin. Actually, I got home late and watched the spin first. I was amazed. Kerry was articulate, used his time well, and clarified his stance on the topics.

President Bush on the other hand was an embarassment. The first 2 questions he actually held his own but it didn't even go down hill from there, it dropped off a frickin cliff. Bush looked like he would rather be anywhere but there. The third or fourth question had him trying to piece together incoherent words to find a thought, any thought. Was he even speaking English? Near the end, it looked like he needed a nap. For the last 3-4 questions, he didn't even use all the time allotted to him. That's because he had already used up his stump speeches in the first two questions. He should have done one of two things about half way through: 1) Handed his card to some 7th grader to read for him, 2) Looked straight at the camera and say resolutely "I'm tired of all of this here talk, I've got a war to run. I'm outta here." Instead, he just continued to attempt to articulate the thoughts that just weren't coming. I thought Bush was going to blow a gasket when Kerry mentioned Bush's daddy.

The best thing is that this was the debate that Bush was supposed to thump Kerry good. The WAR President and the WAR Debate. I realize that he could've shown up butt-naked in a tin foil hat and the "Save the babies, Kill the Ay-rabs" crowd would've still declared it a victory, but c'mon!! Most high school debate teams would've have given him the pink slip if he performed like that!

Honestly, I expected more. I'm not sure why, but I did. I was happy that the networks made it into more of a debate than it was originally agreed upon, but I wanted more. I thought Kerry did just as he was expected to as a top level debator. He held his own, restated his main talking points without being repetitive, answered the repubs' spin, and made it through without any critical blunders. Bush should have stayed home. He did himself and us a huge disservice with that abyssmal performance.

[Elemental]

Consider this.

If you were an alien watching this debate but you didn't know which of these two men was the president, based off of the debate, which one would you think is the leader of the Commander in Chief?

[Rolls]

In the interest of completeness, here's the full breakdown of the Gallup poll cited above:



Expressed himself more clearly: 60% Kerry, 32% Bush

Had a good understanding of the issues: 41% Kerry, 41% Bush

Agreed with you more on
the issues you care about: 46% Kerry, 49% Bush

Was more believable: 45% Kerry, 50% Bush

Was more likeable: 41% Kerry, 48% Bush

Demonstrated he is
tough enough for the job: 37& Kerry, 54% Bush

you forgot the first question, arguably the most important...

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate 53% Kerry 37% Bush

Here's a link to the full poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237

Rolls.

[telkanuru]

Voting for Kerry (pre debate): 93% Kerry, 3% Bush
Voting for Bush (pre debate): 19% Kerry, 68% Bush

I find this very interesting.

[keith]

Consider this.

If you were an alien watching this debate but you didn't know which of these two men was the president, based off of the debate, which one would you think is the leader of the Commander in Chief?

well if they give Bush a box to stand on, or maybe a smaller lectern he might manage to look a bit more imposing at the next one.