Debates

cxt · Post by **cxt** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 7:15 pm

Worst part of last nights presidential debates.

Actually took place this morning.

I was watching a morning show and they were speaking with a group of folks--just regular folks.

Guy was asked whom he thought was the winner---and he said.

(my paraphrase)

"Kerry--because Bush FAILED TO RESPOND TO ANY OF HIS DIRECT QUESTIONS"

AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!

As I recall there were NO DIRECT QUESTIONS ASKED BY ANYONE.

Again, if memory serves

(and PLEASE if I mis-remember this SOMEONE let me know)

One of the most hotly debated topics the last week or so was the fact that the "rules" of the debate specifically stated that NO DIRECT QUESTIONS WERE ALLOWED.

Pundits have been mocking the debate for weeks because they are not really debates--more like "sound bits."

I'm not stressing because of whom he thought won--stressing because of WHAT he thought was the crucial factor.

ie-something that never even "really" occured.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:03 pm

Much of the whole process is inane, cxt.

Unfortunately I was on a plane inbetween Minneapolis and Richmond when the event occurred. So on my way from the airport to home, I was on my XM radio from station to station (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.) listening to the "analyses" and the spin from all the biased parties to see if I could discern anything from the debates.

As for primary source material, all I got was the sound bites. And all we get hammered in our heads over and over and over again are the sound bites.

Thankfully my wife watched, and gave me a fairly decent scoop.

And then.... USA Today online announces Kerry as "the winner" because they polled a "focus group" and got their opinions. That lasted...oh...maybe an hour before wiser minds yanked the story off their webpage.

The best I can get - in summary - is that Kerry redeemed himself via decent presentation, and Bush seemed to excel in substance. Wow, what a surprise.

Only one more month of this crap, cxt. Then we can get back to reading the normal garbage in the news.

- Bill

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:16 pm

I saw it, and feel similarly. A few reasonable moments, but did I learn anything? No.

Here's my transcript:
Kerry: You made a mess of iraq
Bush: You'd just lose the war
Kerry: I fought in Vietnam. (repeat)
Bush: Flip-flop, flip-flop. (repeat)
Kerry: You're a bungler
Bush: You have no spine

There was one question I was left with, though. Who is right about Korea? Both arguments (bilateral vs multilateral) seemed fairly reasonable.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:23 pm

You have some aptitude there, Justin. Perhaps you should apply as a writer for SNL.

Korea is quite the enigmatic problem. It's all about the psychotic personality of Kim Jong Il. I have no answer there, given that it isn't cool to take a leader out with a cruise missle...

BTW, the most inane commentary I heard about the first debate came from some representative of a Latino issues organization. He slammed both candidates for not commenting on Mexican immigration and South American trade policy.

Picture driver slamming head against steering wheel while listening to this.

Apparently he (and others) didn't bother to pay attention to the questions asked, and note that the topic of the debate was about Iraq and national security.

Sigh....

- Bill

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:35 pm

I think people called Kerry the winner because GW often had that deer in headlights look , and had to struggle deep within to get a decent answer. I personally thought Bush had a small listening device hidden in his ear so he could get some help (I'm kidding). Many say Kerry looked more presidential as well. When Bush made a swipe at Kerry, the senetor would smile and knod while taking notes on how he would respond. Bush would get an incredulous (dare I say) pi$sed look and flip through his notes(I think it was to a pre prepared answer) and then scribble a few things. Most agree Kerry looked more presidential.

The republicans were happy because GW stuck to one message and that was stay the coarse.

The democrats were happy because GW stuck to one message and that was stay the coarse.

Listening to GW was like listenening to a sermon about good guys VS bad guys. He appealed to emotion more than logic.

But I admit... I am biased. I just can't stand Bush and I too saw what I wanted. Let me say though that the last two times I voted it was for Dole and Bush. I held my nose once for Bush to vote my registered party(plus I disliked Gore), but this time it's for Kerry.

Maybee next time it will be for McCain I'll be voting. Now wouldn't that be a debate to watch. The Vietnam prisoner VS the protester

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:49 pm

I'm not a fair judge of the debate because I'm going on secondary information. I'm merely quoting the analysts, Ben.

McCain has been through the process before, Ben. Like John Glenn, I think he's a great candidate on paper, but falls apart when it comes to running for office.

There was a great article in the USA Today on Monday (front page) outllining the 10 qualities needed to get elected to the presidency. I thought it a fabulous analysis, and the group I was training with (a very smart and eclectic group from coast to coast) had fun talking about it over dinner that night.

Ten toughest things to do in presidential politics

Here they are, minus commentary.

No. 10: 'What I meant to say'

No. 9: Turning your problem into a plus

No. 8: Turning a foe's plus into his problem

No. 7: Changing the subject, successfully

No. 6: Raising the second round of money

No. 5: Getting non-voters to the polls

No. 4: Participating in a presidential debate

No. 3: Surviving a firestorm

No. 2: Making a second impression

No. 1: Handling an October surprise

Very revealing, and on target when you think about candidates who made it vs. those who did not.

And note that debating is ranked only #4 out of 10.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:53 pm

OK, Ben, this is a reasonably objective assessment. It's a Gallup poll using a validated survey instrument, with comparative results from past presidential debates.

Forget the commentary in the beginning. Just read the poll results.

Poll results

Fascinating... How does one interpret these conflicting findings?

- Bill

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:47 am

My Sister got me good when talking about it tonight...

She said, "Well, the thing I know for sure is that Democrats are sexier than Republicans."

I responded, "What makes you say that?"

She answered, "When's the last time you heard of someone getting a good piece of elephant?"

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:22 am

It seems that no matter how ineloquent Bush may look more people trust him. He has that God fearin' old time patriot thing going for him(not that this is a bad quality mind you) I don't doubt he's sincere.. I do however, think he is sincerely wrong about a lot of things.

Let's see how people feel after they debate economic issues.. or rather present soundbites of their economic plans. Not that these are even real debates anyways

BTW Bill, LOL about picture driver slamming head against stearing wheel.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:15 pm

It's a very interesting phenomenon, Ben. If people's strong political feelings didn't come into play here, it might be easier to see. I'm reserving my own opinions here for now. I want to see if others see what I see.

There is precident, but you have to be older or have studied your history to remember/know this.

- Bill

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:15 pm

There is precident, but you have to be older or have studied your history to remember/know this.

Please elaborate on this a little. I think I see what you are getting at but am still a little puzzled.

As far as strong political feelings go, I am trying to seperate myself from them. To beleive Kerry will win is only setting myself up for disapointment.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 4:11 pm

Stay tuned, Ben. The most recent Newsweek poll shows the public thinking Kerry "won" the debate by a resounding margin. It also appears to have given him a bit of a bounce. In the words of Yogi Berra, It ain't over 'til it's over.

What I'm thinking of here, Ben, are the elections between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. Eisenhower was the likeable war hero, and Stevenson was the articulate intellectual. Guess who wins the popular vote?

There's more to being effective in the world than I.Q. That's why there's so much research now on the concept of emotional intelligence. True intelligence covers approximately eight different dimensions, and I.Q. tests only measure two or three of them. This is why "geniuses" sometimes fail.

GW is a terrible public speaker, but he has many other redeeming qualities that the public likes. Kerry may win, but he's missing a few cards as well - big time.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:41 pm

Wall Street Journal wrote:...

Debate Tips Leaning Voters
Toward Kerry, Poll Finds

October 4, 2004

The first presidential debate nudged more fence-sitting voters toward Sen. John Kerry than President Bush.

{snip}

The findings come in a online poll of likely voters by Zogby Interactive for The Wall Street Journal Online. The poll was conducted between Thursday evening, following conclusion of the debate, and Monday morning. The poll included 22,100 participants nationwide, giving it an overall margin of error of plus or minus 0.7 percentage point.

{snip}

The poll found 82% of people who leaned toward Mr. Kerry before the debate said they feel more strongly now, while 8.3% of Kerry leaners said the debate had diminished their opinion of the Massachusetts senator. About 56% of people who had leaned toward President Bush favor him more strongly following the debate, while 18% said their view of the president had been diminished.

Mr. Kerry also fared better with undecided voters – those who said they weren't leaning one way or the other before the debate. About 23% said the debate convinced them to vote for Mr. Kerry, and another 17% said they now lean toward voting for him. About 13% of undecided voters said the debate convinced them to vote for Mr. Bush and 11% said they now lean toward the president.

Still, the poll shows that a big chunk of undecided voters are still up for grabs. Nearly 37% of this group said they were unmoved by the debate and remain undecided.

The poll included 762 participants who identified themselves as Bush leaners, 1,115 who said they were Kerry leaners and 531 who said they were undecided before the debate.

- Bill

cxt · Post by **cxt** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:00 pm

Kinda reminds me of the Kenndy/Nixon debates.

Folks who watched the debates said that Kenndy won--folks who listened to the debates said it went to Nixon.

Being bad on TV is a death blow in modern politics.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 4:31 pm

Not chess, Mr. Spock... poker.

GW let Kerry get to him. The man needs to play more poker.

Cheney truly is in another league here.

- Bill