debate is over how'd they do?

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by dumboiu
What an intellectual and mature question to ask.............

and this from a person with the screenname "dumbo".

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
and this from a person with the screenname "dumbo".

If you had as much intelligence as DUMBO has in the tip of her pinkie, we would all be much happier on here!

 

[mikeymars]

"Prediction One: The Kerry camp will come out of this high-fiving, convinced their man did no worse than a draw on a debate that was supposed to be Bush's best area. They probably feared Bush was going to put this race away tonight, and so far there's not much sign he did."

100% on the money. The Kerry partisans -- who are DESPERATELY looking for something -- ANYTHING -- to raise their morale-- rushed to the DIS boards this morning to make themselves feel better.

"Prediction Two: The Bushies will be a little down. Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them. Bush focused almost entirely on principles tonight, not policies."

60-70% on the money. Bush could have done better, albeit the flash polls done last night with undecided voters suggest the "damage" wasn't anything near the level the Kerry spin crowd thinks.

"Prediction Three: Here's my shocker: No bounce for either side out of this. This evening's comments just reinforced the messages that came out of each party's convention. Of course, Kerry got no convention bounce, while Bush got a fairly solid convention bounce, so maybe he'll get a little bump."

BINGO. What almost NO ONE is getting on this thread is the BASIC fact that hardly ANYONE had their opinion changed last night. Yes, there's a few people here who CLAIM they are still undecided, but the bottom line is that is COMPLETEY irrellevant given NONE of the said posters live the shrinking universe of states that are still in play. People, the ONLY voters who matter are about 85 individuals living in the rural backyards of Ohio, Iowa and Pennyslvannia. And by and large you don't find that little niche crowd on the DIS boards.

"But my sense is that in the coming polls, Bush retains his lead, outside the margin of error, in the mid-to-high single digits."

Or stated differently, no meaningful traction for Kerry.

 

[tidoublegger]

Here is what I posted on another thread: George W was tripping over his words in the debate. He certainly isn't known for his strong rhetoric and last nights debate only confirmed that. I found Bush's facial expressions to be quite distracting and actually made him look foolish.

I thought John Kerry was an eloquent speaker. No matter what who you are voting for, obviously John Kerry was the stronger of the two candidates in the debate.

According to a CNN.com quick poll today, the results of the debate were as follows:

Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?

President George W. Bush 21% 81393 votes

Sen. John Kerry 72% 279156 votes

Evenly matched 6% 24639 votes

Total: 385188 votes

 

[beattyfamily]

IMHO, it was a tie and I think Kerry 'needed' a slam dunk more than Bush did.

 

[jrydberg]

I think a key point to remember here is that these debates are really all about John Kerry. George W. Bush is many things, but he is not an unknown. By and large, you know what he stands for. Barring a Gerald Ford gaffe, Bush will not be the focus of these debates. In that respect, Kerry performed fairly well last night, though in terms of substance, I found it somewhat lacking. In any event, I think the net result is that Kerry is still a viable alternative. That's about all he could really hope to accomplish last night anyway.

 

[KarenC]

I'm someone who takes the train daily, and who works in the shadow of the Sears Tower, photos of which were found with the terrorists in Afghanistan. I am concerned about what we have, or haven't done, to secure people like me here. It REALLY bothered me last night when John Kerry listed specific things he would do to secure the homeland and George Bush said something to the affect of "we don't want to get into how he'll pay for all that." What, we can't afford homeland security!???

John Kerry will raise my taxes. And certainly I'm not excited about paying more taxes. But I haven't worn shoes with high heels since September 11 because I'm afraid I might have to walk home someday (and I hope that's the least of my worries if I do). I am concerned that we have not trained our first responders, that nuclear and chemical plants are no more secure than they were September 10, and that loads of cargo come into this country uninspected every day. George Bush should agre that addressing these things is important, but he chose to respond to the point by talking about how to pay for it.

I guess that's why so many folks in the "Blue States", who are more likely to have to worry about being personally affected by another terrorist attack, don't support Bush.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Also did I read that Kerry said he'll defend America only if it passes a global test? What the heck does that mean?

What he said was that he would strike pre-emptively if he felt the US were at risk, but he said he would not do it if our motives were suspect, i.e., if it looks like we're in it for oil, not to protect ourselves from an imminent attack.

 

[Geoff_M]

As in 2000, now that the dust is starting to settle we may be getting a different read than that of the Talking Heads and blogshpere of last night. Here's the results of the Gallup/CNN post-debate poll of 615 voters:

2004 Sep 30

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

Advantage Kerry by 28%

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

Tie

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

Advantage Bush by 3%

Was more believable
Kerry: 45%
Bush: 50%

Advantage Bush by 5%

Was more likable
Kerry: 41%
Bush: 48%

Advantage Bush by 7%

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

Advantage Bush by 17% (!!!)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237

Kerry clearly did a better job "selling" himself last night, but it looks like most people ain't buying it as of now. Looks like Kerry's got a lot more selling to do in the next 30 days.

As for the CNN "snapshot" poll, that's a unscientific poll and the DNC had a massive e-mail campaign in the last couple of days pointing supporters to web sites to go a vote for Kerry as the 'winner" after the debates.

 

[robinb]

That's an interesting spin on a poll with the headline "Kerry Wins Debate".

It doesn't matter what the party faithful think. The nation is split close to 50/50 just as it was 4 years ago. It's the "Independent" voter who hold the cards and they like Kerry:

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate -- [ROTATED: John Kerry (or) George W. Bush]?

BOTH/ EQUALLY (vol.)
NEITHER (vol.) No
Kerry Bush opinion
% % % % %
Overall 53 37 1 8 1

Rep 17 71 1 10 1
Ind 60 29 * 10 1
Dem 87 8 0 5 0

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by tidoublegger
According to a CNN.com quick poll today blah blah blah

Completely irrellevant, in that the survey didn't control for the voting status of the respondent (ergo, are you already decided or are you still undecided?)

The ONLY voters who matter in this election are the HANDFUL of undecided voters in the shrinking universe of battleground states. Last night, both ABC and Both CBS released quickie reaction "flash" poll of these critical undecided "fence-sitters." The CBS survey showed 44 percent said Kerry won, 26 percent said Bush won and 30 percent said it was a tie (ergo, 56% of the target universe did NOT give Kerry a win). The ABC numbers were similar in that 45 percent gave the edge to Kerry while 36 chose Bush and 17 percent said it was a tie.

So much for the "research" todoublegger posted.

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by robinb
It's the "Independent" voter who hold the cards and they like Kerry:

What are you smoking?

Last night, both ABC and Both CBS released quickie reaction "flash" poll of these critical undecided "fence-sitters." The CBS survey showed 44 percent said Kerry won, 26 percent said Bush won and 30 percent said it was a tie (ergo, 56% of the target universe did NOT give Kerry a win). The ABC numbers were similar in that 45 percent gave the edge to Kerry while 36 chose Bush and 17 percent said it was a tie.

Bottom line: the majority of "independent" voters are still undecided or leaning towards Bush, only a minority showed a preference for Kerry last night.

So keep dreaming, Robin.

 

[Geoff_M]

That's an interesting spin on a poll with the headline "Kerry Wins Debate".

Well for what it's worth, that was also the same headline after debate #1 for Gore in 2000, Dukakis in 1988, and Mondale in 1984. "Winning" a debate and garnering votes afterwards are two different things.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KarenC
What he said was that he would strike pre-emptively if he felt the US were at risk, but he said he would not do it if our motives were suspect, i.e., if it looks like we're in it for oil, not to protect ourselves from an imminent attack.

When have we EVER pre-emptively struck for "suspect motives", i.e, oil? I've read a number of your posts. I know you're not so gullible as to believe we went into Iraq over oil, are you?

Sounds to me like Kerry is all too happy to abdicate our soveriegnty to some corrupt body.

 

[castlegazer]

I was elated at the outcome of this debate. It truly did bring home to people that Kerry is not vague in his stances and has remained true to his original position on the war in Iraq. I watched with less than a fully objective point of view, but felt that, while Kerry was initially nervous, Bush slouched and umm'ed himself to look very unprofessional, let alone unPresidential, in this debate. President Bush also did not deliver points as effectively in my opinion.

Originally posted by RobinMarie

I thought he explained what he meant by 'global test' pretty well.

He most certainly did. What he is alluding to is the fact that the UN is now in a stance to declare the war in Iraq illegal. There are International Laws that need to be abided. We can not, as a country whose President is termed the "Leader of the Free World", ignore international laws and treaties.

 

[robinb]

Originally posted by mikeymars
What are you smoking?
{snip}
So keep dreaming, Robin.

Obviously not the same stuff you're smoking .

This is from the same poll that Geoff quoted.

When asked:
Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate -- [ROTATED: John Kerry (or) George W. Bush]?


60% of the Independent voters said Kerry
29% said Bush
10% said neither
1% said no opinion

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by cats7494
We watched the debate last night...and we thought Kerry by far did better. He had a broader knowledge base that he used in his answers. I am looking forward to the other debates...especially the one on domestic issues.

Indeed! I mean, he even referred to a Nazi terrorist camp in one of his answers. Why? I dunno. But, hey, gotta love a man you knows his trivia!

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by castlegazer
He most certainly did. What he is alluding to is the fact that the UN is now in a stance to declare the war in Iraq illegal. There are International Laws that need to be abided. We can not, as a country whose President is termed the "Leader of the Free World", ignore international laws and treaties.

Not to turn this into a debate on Iraq, but I just don't get this "illegal" war stuff. Saddam was in clear violation of the cease fire agreement that ended hostilities in the first war. That alone makes the war unambiguously "legal" in terms of international law.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by robinb
Obviously not the same stuff you're smoking .

This is from the same poll that Geoff quoted.

When asked:
Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate -- [ROTATED: John Kerry (or) George W. Bush]?


60% of the Independent voters said Kerry
29% said Bush
10% said neither
1% said no opinion

I'm hardly going to consider the opinion of a group of people that, year after year, can't decide what they believe.

 

[dmadman43]

He most certainly did. What he is alluding to is the fact that the UN is now in a stance to declare the war in Iraq illegal. There are International Laws that need to be abided. We can not, as a country whose President is termed the "Leader of the Free World", ignore international laws and treaties.

This isn't the same UN that had been ripping of the Iraqi people and the rest of the world in the "oil for food program" is it? If so, what credibility do they have in this issue?