Posted on 10/01/2004 9:26:42 AM PDT by Snake65
Spoke to a veteran Republican consultant who’s been around politics a lot longer than I have this morning. He’s much cheerier about Bush’s performance in the debate than I am, and so much more optimistic than my NRO colleagues that they would probably want to test him for Prozac. He points to the instant poll results and explains that for all of Kerry’s more concise language and illustrative anecdotes, Kerry failed to do what he needed to do - boost his numbers on likeability, trust, toughness, etc. Kathryn posted these numbers in the Corner:
***Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job Bush 54/ Kerry 37
***Likable Bush 48/Kerry 41
***Believable Bush 48 / Kerry 45
***Agreed with you more on the issues you care about Bush 49/ Kerry 46
***Had a good understanding of the issues 41/41
***Expressed himself more clearly Bush 32/Kerry 60
On Iraq: Before Debate: 54 said the president would do a better job handling Iraq than Kerry (40)
After: 54/43
This guy - who’s done debate prep before and has a good instincts for this stuff - also suggests that we who follow politics have different expectations for Kerry, as well as Bush.
“Because he didn’t look as bad as the Hobgoblin we’ve seen on the campaign trail, we’re all impressed,” he said. “If you do analysis on who scored the most points, Kerry wins - but if you look at who had the strongest points, Bush brought out the central contradictions in Kerry’s position… Usually the numbers don’t break during the debates, but this year you might see a breakout. You can’t quite tell when it’s going to sink in that Kerry has untenable positions. But Bush hit him with so many haymakers, and did it in such an offhand way, we almost didn’t notice.”
Maybe this guy is right. You would think that for all of Kerry’s smoother style and clearer statements yesterday, viewers would have found him more likeable, believable, or tougher. Maybe we’re all wrong, and Kerry did blow it.
I seem to recall that in 2000, few pundits were talking about Gore’s odd “you want a piece of me, punk?” strut over to Bush’s side of the stage, at least in the immediate post-debate reaction. And yet, today, it is remembered as one of Gore’s worst missteps.
I thought Kerry did a better job of presenting two sides and making it look like one than he has in the past. I was also annoyed that he thought we were stupid enough to not get the implications of his "global test" statement. It is a direct contridiction to the rest of his reply.
People are going to remember what the president said. It was clear and he kept coming back to his main points.
Most of the numbers cited don't support the contention that Bush did well and might even start to "break out."
As for the consultant's comment that "... we almost didn't notice," it's an odd way of putting positive spin on a debate. I don't buy it.
Bush did a good job, and Kerry was spinning his false statements. Go to HughHewitt.com for a great analysis of the debate. There are a lot of points that, I hope, will be made against Kerry in the media - like: Global test for our security, Iran nuclear fuel, etc. Rush is talking about these points now.
***Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job Bush 54/ Kerry 37Those numbers are about right. Kerry won the debate, but he's still not a likable guy. Kerry was also too metrosexual-looking to come across as tough guy.
***Likable Bush 48/Kerry 41
***Believable Bush 48 / Kerry 45
***Agreed with you more on the issues you care about Bush 49/ Kerry 46
***Had a good understanding of the issues 41/41
***Expressed himself more clearly Bush 32/Kerry 60
On Iraq: Before Debate: 54 said the president would do a better job handling Iraq than Kerry (40)
After: 54/43
"He points to the instant poll results"
Would be benefical both to his own credibility and Republican hopes if he would be so kind as to divulge the source of aforementioned poll along with how it was created.
Kerry picked up two points on Iraq; he's still 21 points behind on who can handle it best.
That was the object of the debate, wasn't it?
The RNC is about to release an ad of Kerry's contradictions during the debate. It will continue to hammer home that he is inconsistent.
I was not impressed with Bush's performance last night, but nobody's going to remember his performance if Bush can continue to pound home that Kerry is still unclear on Iraq, because he is.
I thought they both just "spoke" the party line. Neither seemed to be leader material, just the caricatures used to project a political facade.
"Most of the numbers cited don't support the contention that Bush did well and might even start to "break out."
Agreed! IMO Kerry won the debate on style and preparedness, but lost badly on demeanor and obvious character flaws.
I don't think Kerry won the debate. But even if he did , and I strongly sense that he thinks he did, there is a difference between besting the President in a debate, and being able to be President. What irks me about Kerry last night is that he seems not to understand this. He talked a good game, which is an achievement for Kerry. But, as the oldest cliche in the book holds, "talk is cheap." Kerry does not understand this vital principal, which Joe Sixpack does: It's one thing to say it, it's another to do it. That Kerry, at his advanced age, has not learned this basic lesson of the playground, speaks volumes of the man's readiness to be President.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS POST:
"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232070/posts?page=51#51
Bush built the container or the house to destroy Kerry.... Kerry is running water---- Bush let him run freely as he prepared the frames of the container to keep the aqueous behavior of Kerry... the house was successfully built...it is ugly and dirty work, that is why Bush worked so hard and let Kerry run.
The container was built on three key principles:
1. Kerry is a flip-flop politician
2. Kerry is a globalist proUN proWorld Court
3. Kerry is anti/weak on defense and poor for morale
Bush contained and framed these key "currents" of this liquid chameleon Kerry. Bush can now beat the hell out of Kerry within the house in which Bush framed. Kerry can't move. The only way for Kerry to escape is by exploding the frame, which will destroy his campaign... he'll have to embrace these "currents"....
Bush has won, he was winning the debates... not the debate.
And you won't hear this until that dark mousy curly haired Krauthammer speaks on Fox... then all the news hacks will pick it up.... and I don't get paid for this... those stupid losers in the beltway press get all the doe.
Oh, because I can't spell
51 posted on 09/30/2004 10:45:26 PM CDT by Porterville (Men have learned to shoot without missing ...and I have learned to fly without perching on a twig)
Kerry's biggest liability is that he is a flip-flopper - and it's awfully difficult for that to be obvious over the course of 90 minutes (though Kerry managed to flip and flop all over on whether Saddam Hussein was a threat or not). President Bush made no mistakes, that's what counts. Liberal Democrats always get adoring press coverage after debates, it is an inevitable part of the process of electing Republican Presidents.
He may look metrosexual, but man how about that tan and those nails.
Ha!
Kerry got smoked, clear and simple. I went on here before I saw the debate (the second airing), and I was appalled to learn Bush 'lost.'
But when I watched it, it was a very, very different story. It was after though that the media immediately started saying Kerry won.
All Kerry ever had were criticisms, the only things I got from Kerry is that he would double special forces, bi-lateral talks with NK, 'global test' and would stop testing of bunker buster nukes.
He complained about OBL being in torah bora, who knows if he was there? He said Iraq was not part of terror war, Bush outlined why it is so strategically important for the war on terror. Bush also proved that Iraq was at the front by saying that the borders must be closed (Kerry's own point) as it is that important to the terrorists.
Bush cleaned up, completely and totally. He was himself, for good or ill, but he was also brilliant.
Kerry was all over the place, mostly incoherent and painful to listen to.
I could go on, but those that think the debate was lost. I respectfully ask that you watch it again.
Democrats always convince themselves that it's all just a game...they need to "look presidential" and "sound like a leader" and have lots of "facts and stats"...even if they happen to be wrong.
They truly ARE the masters of style over substance. In this world of terror and uncertainty, that game plays less well than it did when Clinton had it down to a fine art.
Kerry seemed to me like an illusionist, trying to look slick and polished, but behind the practiced lines and groomed appearance there was absolutely nothing substantial.
The people who are impressed by that sort of routine are already Kerry supporters, or flakes who are momentarily impressed and then don't bother to vote.
Gallup Post Debate Poll. Most thought Kerry won, but I still say he gave the Bush camp ammunition for at least three good ads.
1. Kerry doesn't trust the US with nuclear weapons.
2. Kerry seeks "global" green light to defend US.
3. He debated himself on whether Iraq was a mistake or not.
Several points to keep in mind:
1. Kerry supporters are split about 65-35 on supporting the war. He spoke more to the 65% last night leaving the 35% in the cold although his doubletalk on this point may leave them wondering.
2. Kerry was more in a chat with Jim during his remarks. Bush was fairly consistent in addressing his responses to the American people.
3. The global test remark will become a defining moment in this debate similar to Zell Miller's comment at the Republican Convention about "Kerry would let Paris decide" when American troops would go into conflict. We will see that unusual test dissected in the coming days.
4. Kerry showed weakness in responding to the "liar" question making it tougher from now on to elevate the "Bush lied to the American people" point. Maybe his answer was an attempt at courtesy.
Our local paper(liberal editorial stance) had five undecided voters watch the debate. Two now lean toward Bush, one now leans toward Kerry and the other two are undecided. Also a survey of students who watched the debate at a nearby state university were pretty much putoff by Kerry's style. This is a major point because Kerry's style does leave room to get many more voters to vote for him since he comes across as the longwinded pompous debate student.
Bush knows how to talk to the common man. Kerry does a good job with the elite. Unfortunately for Kerry there are a lot fewer of the latter.
"John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event. Almost half of the viewers said they felt more favorable about the senator because of the debate, and 60% said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than did President Bush.
"Independents chose Kerry by a two-to-one margin, 60% to 29%."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.