“You are way overrating debates. No elections were won or lost based on debates...”
Um, er........ever hear of Kennedy/Nixon in 1960? Ford/Carter in ‘76? Bush Sr. caught checking the time on his wristwatch against Clinton in 1992?
Debates can have impacts on elections. It’s the public’s rare opportunity to see the two offerings side by side, actually exchanging with one another. Debate gaffes can be killer.
You may like your bumbling, stumbling, mumbling idiot better than “theirs” but if the general public sees the alternative no better then it doesn’t really matter what you think.
If Perry were to win the nomination and then get up there 3 times in a row against Obama with performances like these........he would be hammered and rightly so. People don’t want another W. and he’s just about as close a copy you’ll find in this collection of GOP hopefuls saving the poorer stage presence and grasp of the English language.
Kennedy won because the media made him the young, energetic, prince with his camlot family. Has nothing to do with the debates.
Ford lost because of Watergate and people did not want to elect a Republican President in 1976. The Poland is not part of Warsaw comments has nothing to do with his defeat.
George H W Bush did not lose the elections in 1992 because he looked at his watch. Bill Clinton was this young energetic guy and the media sold him as they did to JFK before him and Obama after him.
As I said before a candidate lose or win the elections long before the debates that occur few weeks before the elections.
You know Perry and Bush are nothing alike. Perry would be able to hold his own with obama and his teleprompter. Just say no teleprompter for the debates.
I do not recall Obama’s debate performances but I know he can’t give a speech without a teleprompter.