Posted on 09/30/2004 10:19:04 PM PDT by 11th_VA
There was no clear winner in Thursday night's first presidential debate, according to interviews with experts across the country.
"It’s more relevant to talk about the winner in terms of expectations," said Shanto Iyengar, a professor of American politics at Stanford University. "Given the fact that this was President Bush’s home turf -- national security and terrorism -- he should have dominated. He didn’t. It’s a positive outcome for Kerry."
Yet winners in debates are determined not in the minutes following, but in the 24 to 48 hours to come.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia
Amazing. Maybe my perceptions were overly harsh. I'll take it.
Cripes that was fast. Right after the debate, C BS was reporting that Kerry won the debate with "undecided" voters 3 to 1.
As I have said several times, I thought Kerry was, overall, a little better on style, and Bush, while clearly not on the top of his game tonight, was nevertheless much better on substance.
I'm with you though my friend. I was so down after this debate but called a dem buddy who said he was down too. It's so hard to care so much... And feel so powerless watching your guy debating...
I think in two days we'll be feeling better.
It's the Spin, Not the Debate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232218/posts
You & Dickie Morris reached the same conclusion...I concur.
This didn't stop CBS from presenting their little "focus group" where they had some sort of "emotional" monograph (as opposed to "polygraph") machine where people (hand picked by Dan Rather's Court Fact Checker, no doubt) recorded their positive and negative feelings. Of course, Kerry fared better.
I'm watching the replay....no way Kerry won.
Well Said!
What did Dick Morris say on Fox after the debate? I missed him.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "And the Debate Winner is -- Lemony Snicket"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Kerry is the talker. Bush is the doer. See my page for the formal definition of the word "sophist" (hope I'm not making a self-indicting statement here :-)
>>What did Dick Morris say on Fox after the debate? I missed him.
Dickie said Kerry won on style, Bush on substance, and not much else worthwhile.
As partisans, we want to see our guy scratch the eyeballs out of the other guy. I personally would have loved to have seen Bush verbally bitchslap Kerry around and then take it outside afterwards where W could have smacked the botox right out of Kerry's frankenstein-looking face. But that's not going to happen.
Bush needed to look Presidental. He couldn't be an attack dog. I am sure Cheney will look more like one come next Tuesday.
Bush did what he needed to do. Got a couple of good soundbytes for the next news cycle and got out of dodge. No real knockouts either way. Although, it proved to me how much of a lying sack of cow dung Kerry is.
We should both be very worried. :)
I am still really down. It's not that I think Bush did extremely poorly, I think that Bush missed a huge opportunity to knock Kerry out. When it was over, I said to my friend that I thought Kerry came out way ahead, and he was surprised and thought that Kerry didn't do that well.
I guess we just expect a lot from our candidates, but I still believe strongly that Bush missed a huge opportunity. When Kerry said he opposed the bunker buster bombs, Bush should have said "Well, that's not surprising - he also opposed the f-15, f-16, b-1 bomber, patriot and tomahawk missles, etc."
I think the smart Democrats will want to call this a draw and hope it gets buried soon. Those who want to claim Kerry victory will need to explain where Kerry scored points and that can't be done with sincerity.
As much as Bush let Kerry get away with a lot, Bush nailed him on several things.
STYLE: Bush 3 Kerry 6
SUBSTANCE: Bush 7 Kerry 2
Kerry gave the wonks and pundits what they like. But he also told the public a few things he'll probably wish he hadn't. For instance, he won't make a move without the world's authorization (global test), he's still a nuclear-freeze freak ("why are we researching nuclear bunker buster bombs?") and, when asked what his "plans" actually were, he was either unable or unwilling to answer. For example, when asked what his plan for Irag specifically was he immediately referred to his website--the same website that he claims has all his military records on it but does not since he hasn't authorized the Navy to release them to himself or anyone else for that matter.
Mr. and Mrs. John Q aren't interested in surfing the web for answers, particularly when a simple answer to the question would have sufficed. My guess is that in a few days the polls will say John Kerry won the debate--but George W. Bush still leads over him.
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.