Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Epictetus · 10-08-2004, 12:35 PM

Alright, the first two debates are over. In the first, the concensus seems to be that Kerry won, which has been reflected in the polls, as he went from down 8 points to dead even in the days after the debate.

The Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday does not seem to have helped that much. While Cheney did a much better job, and (I believe) forced a draw with Edwards, polls still show the Kerry/Edwards ticket making gains. In fact, in the latest AP polls shows them leading Bush/Cheney by a 50-46 margin (Morgin of Error on the poll was +/- 3 percent) (Story)

In addition, since the last debate, a report has been released saying that Saddam Hussien did not have WMDs at the time of the invasion (Story), and just today, a report was released that job growth in September was much less than expected (Story )

Not all is bad for Bush, however. In the first debate, it was widely believed that he would beat Kerry, while now the expectations are reversed. If Kerry does not "win" tonight, he loses much of the momentum he has built up. Even a tie could be considered a win for Bush.

Historical Precident doesn't give us much to work with. A Gallup analysis of approval ratings before and after debates (found Here) shows us that the winner of the first debate does not neccesarily go on to win the others. Perhaps most encouraging to the Bush team would be the Mondale/Reagan debates of 1984, where Mondale dominated the first, Reagan had a slight lead in the second, and of course went on to win the election convincingly.

So, my question for all of you: What must Bush do to get energy back in his campaign? What lines of attack does Kerry use?

What candidate does the town hall style favor the most? Generally, it has been considered better for more "populist" politicians, a role neither of these candidates really fit.

Thoughts?

S. Hunter · 10-08-2004, 01:12 PM

I don't think Bush can do it, but then again, I don't think the debates matter all that much. People will forget in a week, and will vote for whoever they will vote for - The debates are nice to watch, but in the end they are already out of peoples mind at the booth. (An opinion I've seen seconded by the manager of Mondale's campaign and one of the senior Bush1 Campaign managers.)

Artisan · 10-08-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epictetus

If Kerry does not "win" tonight, he loses much of the momentum he has built up. Even a tie could be considered a win for Bush.

Thanks for the links and the thoughtful analysis... but I have a hard time following your logic that a "tie" will be considered a win for Bush. The R's have, since before the debates began, been working to lower expectations of W's debate performance. Now they have apparently established that a tie = a win for W because of some sort of "point spread" or "handicap" - after all he's the Commander in Chief, not the the captain of the debate team.

This is a perfect example of how "spin" can affect one's judgement and the ability to objectively evaluate information and reach an informed opinion.

One thing is for sure, both campaigns have figured out that the public responds much better to the "horserace" aspect of the election than to the real questions of policies, issues and ideologies which are often viewed as too thorny for the general public to follow much less care about.

Whoever wins the election will be President not because the people selected him for his platform and ideas, but because their staffs did a better job of marketing their candidate, and the candidate managed to make fewer mistakes in delivering their message, attacking the opponents, and presenting their carefully constructed images in a way that the public responds more favorably to them.

Soldier · 10-08-2004, 01:54 PM

So sad has our nation become...

S. Hunter · 10-08-2004, 01:59 PM

Well maybe if we would STOP writing off third parties. But wait, thats throwing away your vote. (Actually, Badnarik is doing fairly well in the southwest and Nader will certainly pick up some votes. Badnarik is being ignored by the republicans, even though he is on the ballot in atleast ten more states)

darius · 10-08-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Well maybe if we would STOP writing off third parties. But wait, thats throwing away your vote.

Amen, brother!

What it comes down to is that Kerry wouldn't be my top choice for president, but 4 years of the GOP has not been good to the issues I believe in. The Dems are better.

We need instant runoff voting, or something else that allows voters to rank their candidates or vote a platform. However, until that day is close, I'm going to work within the system.

Are you a Libertarian, in PA? The 13th District US House candidate, Chuck Moulton is a college friend of mine -- we lived down the hall from each other at Rochester Institute of Technology.

darius

Epictetus · 10-08-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artisan

Thanks for the links and the thoughtful analysis... but I have a hard time following your logic that a "tie" will be considered a win for Bush. The R's have, since before the debates began, been working to lower expectations of W's debate performance. Now they have apparently established that a tie = a win for W because of some sort of "point spread" or "handicap" - after all he's the Commander in Chief, not the the captain of the debate team.

I'm not sure that it's spin. I know there's a lot of criticism of polling, but I enjoy looking at the numbers and predicting what could happen. In this case, going into the initial debate, people expected Bush to do better by a 15 point margin, now, the reverse is true, more expect Kerry to do better. So, if Kerry wins, it will be less of a surprise, hence less of a impact on the race. If it is a tie, it looks like Kerry will have done worse than expected, and Bush better. Hence, a tie works more in Bush's favor.

Rogue · 10-08-2004, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darius

Amen, brother!

What it comes down to is that Kerry wouldn't be my top choice for president, but 4 years of the GOP has not been good to the issues I believe in. The Dems are better.

darius

Just curious, what issues have suffered under th repubs?

Epictetus · 10-08-2004, 09:25 PM

35 minutes to go... any last minute predictions?

HillBilly · 10-08-2004, 10:53 PM

mah daddy's voting nader. Go Green! Go Green!

darius · 10-08-2004, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Just curious, what issues have suffered under th repubs?

Well, I'm pro-choice and pro-grammar.

darius

Maeve_Mari · 10-09-2004, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue

Just curious, what issues have suffered under th repubs?

The Economy
The Environment
Health Care
Tax Reform
Global Warming
Volunteer Military
Women's Right to Choose
Early and Intervention Education
College Education Funding
Small Business
Big Business
Technology and Innovation
Medicare
Social Security
Right to Privacy
Due Process
Profiling
Nuclear Proliferation
World Peace

Inquartata · 10-10-2004, 02:34 AM

You forgot

Al Qaeda
Hamas
Etc.
Saddam Hussein
Oday and Qusai Hussein
Libya's nuclear program
The Pakistani black market nuclear network
The Oil-for-Food graft ring
French ambitions
Democrats generally

Seems like a net plus to me.

Artisan · 10-10-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HillBilly

mah daddy's voting nader. Go Green! Go Green!

Good...At least he won't cancel Inquartata'a vote or mine...we'll just cancel each others.

ReverseLunge · 10-10-2004, 03:26 AM

Women should not have the right to vote period. Women can't make up their minds for anything. Women need to be in the kitchen. If they have nothing to do then they need to be pregnant.

telkanuru · 10-10-2004, 03:36 AM

Isn't there a rap song about ReverseLunge?
Something along the lines of

"Keep trolling, trolling, trolling"

but my memory is flakey.

Epictetus · 10-10-2004, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Women should not have the right to vote period. Women can't make up their minds for anything. Women need to be in the kitchen. If they have nothing to do then they need to be pregnant.

You know, on other forums I'm on, this could be construed as a joke, as there is no way someone would say that in seriousness. Granted, I have not been here that long, and do not know you, but, well, no sense in responding further.

ReverseLunge · 10-10-2004, 05:11 AM

I seriously mean it. Problems happen in life when an ugly guy wants to to be with a pretty girl. The biatch always ends up leaving him for some other guy. The only solution is to knock her up a few times so she can't go nowhere.

Rogue · 10-10-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

The Economy
The Environment
Health Care
Tax Reform
Global Warming
Volunteer Military
Women's Right to Choose
Early and Intervention Education
College Education Funding
Small Business
Big Business
Technology and Innovation
Medicare
Social Security
Right to Privacy
Due Process
Profiling
Nuclear Proliferation
World Peace

You're kidding right?
Just because you say this doesn't make it so.
I know the facts don't matter.

jeff · 10-10-2004, 01:09 PM

Oh please, Rogue. You want to claim that the environment hasn't gotten worse (high level official of EPA quits because things have gotten so bad - due to political push from administration), that there's not more nuclear proliferation (N. Korea and Iran both more dangerous than 3.5 years ago, while we focussed on a country posing far less risk?) and so on.

Just because you don't know the facts doesn't mean they don't matter. You really should put away your cheerleading for Bush some time and learn some reality.