CNN/GALLUP POLL: Bush Lost Debate; Retains Double Digit Lead Over Kerry on Iraq, Terrorism

USA Today | Sept. 30, 2004 | USA Today/CNN/Gallup

[marktuoni]

Heck, I voted for Dole thinking that I was going to be pleasantly surprised by the outcome....needless to say, I wasn't.

This year it is marktuoni's bizarro world counterpart at DU to feel the same way!

[LLBeet]

Kerry was too glib and did not fool anybody, but, if Bush won't say it I will: a Kerry presidency is a danger for America. The guy will say anything to get elected and has no idea of how to lead the country, except maybe through "global testing", LOL.

[sefarkas]

I heard most of (~45 min from 9:30 to 10:15 EDT) the joint-news conference on the radio. I saw the end on Fox. Bush was whinning. It sounded awful. Bush was not as calm and confident as I have been led to believe. Electioins are decided on impressions as much as issues at this point. The impression was bad. :-(

[Trippin]

I think Bush was a little frustrated in the debate because he clearly wanted to unleash on Kerry but no doubt his "handlers" told him not to. Personally I think Bush did OK. Unlike many others here I was not optmistic that this was going to be a good debate for Bush anyway. I knew Kerry was going to come out with all the hyperbole and rhetoric fit for a Moore film, and the only way to counteract that type of deception is by being brutally honest. This means saying things like the mission is absolutely critical but it's a tough fight amd more soldiers will die, more civilians will die, etc.

Hopefully Americans will understand that Kerry is the type of guy who simply switches positions at the slighest sign of difficulty. For heavens sake, that is not what America is about. If the cause is just, and the task is diffult, we don't run like Kerry does!

[CurlyBill]

Absolutely. The story that comes out of this debate is the "global test" comment, and the fact that Kerry marginalized the efforts of our friends in this war. Bush also scored some big points when he told asked Kerry how he would get other countries to join us in what he called a "grand diversion."

[rightinthemiddle]

Now that I've had time to sleep on it, I think things went pretty much as we expected:

Kerry was a smooth debater willing to say anything as former Mass. Gov. and Kerry Senatorial opponent Bill Weld predicted.
W. was W...consistent, on-message and speaking like most of us speak. This is not W's ideal forum. We hoped he would be something he is not and deliver the "knockout" to Kerry last night; he didn't. We hoped Kerry would say something immediately and obviously stupid to the undecided voters. He didn't.

As many of us discussed, the media jumped out and declared John Kerry the "winner," even though I'm not sure how you "win" a debate like this. As we expected, the media gushed over Kerry's "commanding and presidential" presence and said the race "was on." College professors are on the radio and in the newspapers, awarding the "debate" to Kerry on points.

Now, the Bush team can get back to doing what it does best: Campaigning. Kerry's many contradictions will become great fodder for new Bush ads; slowly, slickness will give way to substance, and those "undecideds" might change their minds...again.

On the contrary, W. didn't give the DNC and the Kerry campaign much to work with...they're already releasing a video of W's reactions during the debate, but the American people have seen all those before. Is that all they've got? Will they fault him for being too consistent? Too focused? What's new?

I became annoyed during the debate. Annoyed at the dog & pony show, the media bias and the silly emphasis placed on 90 minutes of posturing for the cameras. I think the President was annoyed as well; he shouldn't have had to be there.

I've decided the modern way of choosing our president doesn't have much to with the candidates, but it says a lot about us as individuals. These lazy "undecided" voters seem to think candidates are obligated to earn their votes by saying something profound, or by catering to some single issue. They seem to want everything presented on a platter, just like they put their finger to their chins and "choose" what they want for dessert at their favorite restaurant.

I think we know why the vaunted "middle" in this country has never formed a successful political party...they really don't believe in much of anything, which is why the become nice targets for the Democrats.

Perhaps they need to see elections as their duty to be informed and cast their vote for the right person. Perhaps they need to think of their country instead of themselves.

Well, you "undecideds," we'll spend a few more weeks kissing your rear-ends. W. will still be out there, trying to earn your precious vote instead of concentrating on bigger issues. More money will be spent, the media can rub themselves with glee and we'll have two more "debates."

And you still won't be able to make up your mind. So, just pick the one you think wears has better hair.

[rightinthemiddle]

You should learn to type better. (talking to myself)

[ThreeYearLurker]

True, but the spin after the debate is almost important as the debate itself.

[discostu]

I only watched about 15 minutes of the "debates", because they generally bore me to tears and I had relatives in town. From what I saw Kerry had a very smooth and polished delivery of the gobbledygook that is his "message", while Bush had a very rough and choppy presentation of the facts that are his message. All things being equal it would be a push, but all things aren't equal. For the last 44 years style has beaten substance in debates, under the modern scoring system Kerry won the debate handily. But the truth is we won't know until Monday, the true winner of a debate is determined in the polls, under the new hyper-modern scoring system we'll find out next week.

[RWR8189]

A not quite sure how I missed this last night Gallup Ping

FReepmail me if you want to be on or off the list.

[liberlog]

Kerry's performance reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Kerry's positions are internally inconsistent. They are also inconsistent with his life experience.

[Notwithstanding]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm

[Mo1]

True, but the spin after the debate is almost important as the debate itself.

And what was the Dems chief number 1 attack on the President ... He smirked

Oh yea .. that just tops Kerry's "Global Test" comment .. and his wanting to give Iran fuel for their nuke missiles

[hosepipe]

[ Kerry sounded like he read from a script... He is the quintisential politician... will lie right to your face ... blah blah blah... and I'm John Kerry and you should just trust me blah blah blah... He is an empty suit... George W Bush came off as Human and humble and decisive and REAL... So the question is do you want a president that is a leader and real or do you want a fake empty suit... ]

Cudos.. The best analysis on this thread so far.. I beleive..

ACTUALLY.. your analysis is the difference between both parties too... and generally the difference between the politicians in both parties.. also the difference between socialism (of all types) and capitalism... never thought about it in that way.. but you've captured the essence of whats going on here..

BTW: its the difference between the left wing (in any category) and virtually everything else.. liberalism is indeed an empty suit... appreciated by other empty things.

[Integrityrocks]

Let's think like the Dems do...... Bush's less-than-electric performance was just a set up. He's trying to play down his talents in this debate because he's got the popular vote on the war, hands down. Its the economy that he has to convince swing voters on. That's when Bush will take Kerry by surprise and whoop him. Kerry is now feeling fat and sassy and "complacent" about his ability to debate.

[Raven281]

Pres. Bush is an emotional guy. He wears his heart on his sleeve so to speak. Of course he was angry. He's human. It's not like he was obnoxious like Al Gore in the 2000 debates.

[John_7Diamonds]

Well people are not going to support kerry thru the discovery of his unfittness for duty and then say he lost the debate.

His supporters are crazy to begin with and the undecideds are just plain stupid.


John

[GeorgeW23225]

Right you are!! The "Global Test" response to the pre-emptive strike question will haunt Kerry until he dies. (which I hope is soon) politically speaking......of course

:-)

Seriously, since when has a slick, slimey debating nerd ever been elected President??? Besides, Kerry didn't even have his so called "facts" right. The President corrected him on numerous occasions. If Kerry was so bright, why did he blame the President for the lack of body armor for the troops??? That only opened him up for the President to rip him for the flip/flop Kerry made on the 87 Billion funding for the troops. Not too bright Mr. Kerry. In all honesty, I thought this debate showed just how stupid Kerry is. Not to mention being an elitist, international snob..........

BUSH WON !!!

[Libertina]

I heard that President Bush has been down in Florida helping the hurricane victims, I think he looked tired and ticked off. A good rest and a bit more rehearsal will do wonders for him :)

[DarthVader]

Great post! W has already begun to eviscerate Lantern Face with this Global Test issue. And when the Washington Compost says that W won the debate they see the writing on the wall. Kerry is such a pompous bloviating fool.