Depends on the meaning of "facts". Even Brian Williams on MSNBC just said that several NBC producers watched and started fact checking candidate's assertions and he cited examples from both. Surprise! Bush's stood up to sourcing and Kerry's were "creative".
We in this house all thought Bush won but conceded Kerry did well stylistically. I submit that many an American thought by the end--perhaps just subliminally--that they would not care to spend the next four years listening to or looking at Kerry.
I saw that .. and bectcha if they do some more fact checking they'll find Kerry lied out his rear end on many many issues
LOL! What a generous critique of the Senator's bald faced lies.
Prairie
This is a bit of what I was hinting at earlier today. We all were starting to expect a solid Bush homerun against a stiff, hostile Kerry. Therefore, Bush's baseline expectation was high. All Kerry had to do was to appear something other than his normal, satanic self. Bush clearly didn't hit a homerun, and Kerry seemed almost lifelike. BUT, in the court of public opinion, neither of those accomplishments (or lack thereof) amount to much. Do you shift your vote because someone seemed to rise from the dead? Did anyone not already voting for Bush shift away from him because he didn't hit a homerun? I remember this site after every one of the Bush/Gore debates. It was doom and gloom. Even worse than tonight. Our expectations are high. Probably too high. My wife called tonight. She is a Bush fan but not fan of politics. She thought Bush did great. Her impressions are almost always representative of the general public on things like this. Time will tell.