USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP POLL: Bush 49%, Kerry 49%, Nader 1% | Bush JA @ 50%

[West Coast Conservative]

Just announced on CNN.

[nathanbedford]

No I do not think he was properly prepared or else he would have avoided elementary gaffes of facial expression, body language and eye rolling which any high school drama coach would have corrected. The first rule of this is we are dealing in theatre not disputation, and mastering the basic rules of self-presentation is not too much to ask from a candidate who solicits hundreds of million of our dollars for this campaign and then vitiates their effect with a boorish demeanor.

One Sunday pundit said he did not even rehearse with video and analyse the tapes. This lapse is hardly credible given its seriousness but the tendency to dismiss the ground rules of this theatre seems to be genetically inherited from the father.

Having said all this, much of it does not matter because debates do not win elections IN MOST CYCLES. But now Bush has left himself vulnerable to a pummeling in the next two. Months ago I predicted Bush would lose these debates citing his tendency to affect that deer in the headlights look.Given that this result was so predictible, it is remarkable that Bush was so needlessly self-defeating.

Lets hope the normal historical pattern holds and the debates do not matter that much.

Here is what I posted previously:

Yes, Bush lost the debate, what of it?

Vanity | October 1, 2004 | NathanBedford>P> This is what I have drawn from the theatre last night.>P> First, as I had predicted many months ago it was Bush, not Kerry who was likely to flub the so-called “debates.” Second, Bush has performed down to my expectations. Third, since I made my dire predictions, a new factor has entered the mix, The Swift Veterans for Truth who have changed the values in the equation. In fact, it is these amateurs (many of whom are democrats) who have stripped Kerry naked in his main claim to be a war hero. They have left Kerry vulnerable and flailing and they have demoralized his base. Bush, not Kerry, has done much last night to undo the good the Vets have done. Now Kerry is poised to creep to a victory after he bests Bush twice more in ensuing debates.

All of this is true, except that the Swift Boat Vets have done more than merely give Bush an edge, they have given him a higher moral plane. For all his failings in technique and especially in demeanor, (yes, Bush looked petulant, so?) Bush never stepped down off that higher plane. As Governor, Dukakis learned to his sorrow we do not elect presidents because they are competent but because they might be great. Of the two men, only George Bush has the chance to be transcendent.

It is a commonplace to observe that we are not about electing a technocrat but it is not a commonplace to observe that Kerry’s whole claim is that he can wage war more competently or, sotto voce, “I will stop waging war at all.”

But all of this is to cut the pastrami way too thin. The only point of the whole exercise is to pick a President. Or, in this cycle, to decide whether to fire the one we got and hire on a new guy. Nothing happened last night to persuade Americans that the guy we got is wrong for the job. We know what we got. We know that mistakes in the conduct of combat happened far away in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that Bush might not conduct a perfect war but we know that he will ultimately bring us home. We do not know that about Kerry. We can’t be sure.

George Bush is our President. We do not unhorse our Presidents out of pique or whim (except perhaps in 1992) but only out of conviction that we are going somehow wrong. Kerry did not make that case, although this “wrong way” question is the only vulnerability in Bush’s internals. Actually, Bush, with all his failings and limits was the one with vision: Islam in democracy and peace. At the end of the debate Kerry had only said “me too“ or “me less” or “me better” but never “here is the new way to a new dawn.”

[WoodstockCat]

Please wait on your great analysis till the state polls shake out.

[gop_gene]

The President has been going over debat strategy since last summer. He was properly prepared.

Do you mean to say that he purposely made a point to let Kerry tell so many falsehoods and not call him on it? That he purposely "threw" the debate to Kerry? That he purposely set out to appear reticent, tense, and unconfident? I'm sorry, but I find that hard to understand. If that's a "strategy," it's got to be one of the most bizarre I've heard of.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you mean to say that he purposely made a point to let Kerry tell so many falsehoods and not call him on it? That he purposely "threw" the debate to Kerry? That he purposely set out to appear reticent, tense, and unconfident? I'm sorry, but I find that hard to understand. If that's a "strategy," it's got to be one of the most bizarre I've heard of.

I think President Bush did not have his best game of the season but I don't think it changed very many votes. I think the sampling of the two most recent polls do not match the sampling they used before. We knew this would happen. Bush is still ahead and Kerry is still trying to defeat him. We fight on.

[Miss Marple]

No. He was prepared as to the facts, and the talking points he wanted to put out. However, if you will go back over the debate transcript, you will see that Kerry was very clever in putting his worst comments in his rebuttals. A couple of times Bush requested time to refute something, but he couldn't do too much of it without looking like he was asking for extra time or breaking the rules.

As far as his stammering...well, I do the same thing when I am PO'd. It can't be helped.

The President got his points across, and as Kerry's goofy comments are repeated, Kerry's little bump will disappear. Plus, Bush gave them NO sound bites they could use.

President Bush has never pretended to be an eloquent speaker nor a grand champion debater. He is a plain-spoken man who is more oriented towards action rather than words. Expecting him to suddenly turn into Olivier is just unreasonable.

Karen Hughes said they had been practicing all summer. The problem, she said, was that Kerry kept changing his position. President Bush had to have many responses at the ready, since Kerry had so many different positions. Kerry only had to have one, since President Bush is constant.

[Jorge]

Darkpoodle377; DOn't give me that "nice try" crap like the Gotch journalists. Yours was a defeatist, whineyass poll, and I called you on it. DOn't whine to me when you're caught being a crybaby.

You're trying to make me laugh on purpose. Right?

You first claimed I was criticized on what I said about Bush losing the debate because I was wrong.

Then a few posts later you admitted Bush lost the debate.

Then you switched it to the claim that I questioned "the whole campaign based on ONE small element".

Now that you can't find anything to back up that accusation you have resorted to yet another position, that you "called" me for being a "crybaby" in general.

This is good. When every other argument fails, resort to name-calling.

[Enlightiator]

You nailed it, thats why I never got to excited about the Gallup polls, they had too many Repbulicans in the last couple polls.

The same was true of the Newsweek poll a few weeks ago that had Bush up by 11% - far too many Republicans in the survey sample. Interesting.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

If anyone thinks it would have been possible to put Kerry away in one debate, they are certifiable. Kerry has always posed a real threat as a debater. Kerry won on style. OK. But:

There are two more presidential debates. There is a VP debate. The debates will be over by the middle of the month. Then the dash for the finish line.

Bush has paced himself superbly, thus far. A great convention. A stellar turnaround. Great enthusiasm on the campaign trail. Taken the battle to traditional democratic strongholds.

There is still ample time to finish strong and win. The debate surge will subside. Everyone knew going into this that this was going to be a battle royale. I'm motivated to get it on.

Tomorrow GW will be in Des Moines to sign the bill extending tax relief. Lord willing, me and the family will be there in a town hall format to cheer our guy on. Now is NOT the time to get wobbly. This is the time to dig in and fight. We do not have the luxury of calling a pity party. MARCH ON PATRIOTS!

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Look. I agree. I went to a Christian Coalition dinner last night. Everyone there realized that this is going to be a tough one. Our opponents HATE everything that GWB stands for and they will stop at nothing to defeat him. That's why despite how far behind they got, they continued to attack. However, I am not suggesting that we counterpunch with hate. Instead, we must sock it to em with the truth.

Anyone who wilts under the results of one round of lackluster poll results is a wilting weenine. Any man who fades under this momentary setback is a wuss. All those that back our president need to reamin resolute and focused. This gloomy attitude would not be tolerated by Patton, Eisenhower, Marshall, US Grant, Bobby Lee or Chesty Puller.

I guess what I'm saying is this: we are still within reach of victory. Now is NOT the time to give up. Cinch up your straps. Pull up your belts and let's get back in there and kick some heiney.

Thank you. That is all.

[ubaldus]

A 50-50 popular vote tie will almost certainly lose FL and give the election to Kerry.
Florida this year is going to vote 1-2% more D, than the nation as a whole: more blacks, hispanic vote split (no Elian this time around), Jewish vote is still 80% for Kerry.
W will need to win the popular vote by at least 1.5% to carry Florida. Actually, getting WV+NV+WI+IA+NM may be easier (that's plan B, I suppose).
Things look bleak - I think Kerry is a favorite at the moment. And I actually thought the debate was a tie!

[HitmanLV]

Fair enough, but let the record show you backed away from my wager.

[woodyinscc]

If that's a "strategy," it's got to be one of the most bizarre I've heard of.

Stay tuned, Edwards will have to defend all of Kerry's positions in their debate. Cheney will make mince meat out of them. He will do it calmly, deliberately, and with a razors edge of clarity. If Edwards attacks, Cheney will shove his points right back at him. Edwards will be wondering who the trial attorney really is, after the debate is over

[Darkwolf377]

You first claimed I was criticized on what I said about Bush losing the debate because I was wrong. Then a few posts later you admitted Bush lost the debate. Then you switched it to the claim that I questioned "the whole campaign based on ONE small element". Now that you can't find anything to back up that accusation you have resorted to yet another position, that you "called" me for being a "crybaby" in general. This is good. When every other argument fails, resort to name-calling."

The call of the loser--"You're calling names! WAAAAAAA!" after calling me DarkPoodle. Your lack of manners in raitonal debate is as obvious as your lack of intelligence.

I never changed the argument--from the start I AGREED he lost the debate--I repeat, I AGREE with that, you get it now?--I wrote that in my FIRST post. I was attacking your overall whining and your inability to see beyond JUST the debate, which was present form your first post.

I guess that's too much for you to handle, though. I guess people like you--who can't see beyond what's right in front of you--can't grasp any kind of dimension in the campaign beyond the obvious. So you have to keep posting your little whiny posts.

That YOU are the one who's calling names--and then whines when someone else does it--shows you're not even interested in discussing the ISSUE, as you're so hurt because someone dared challenge your silly assertions.

I guess I gave you too much credit. My mistake. Now go back to crying.

[Jorge]

President Bush has never pretended to be an eloquent speaker nor a grand champion debater. He is a plain-spoken man who is more oriented towards action rather than words. Expecting him to suddenly turn into Olivier is just unreasonable.

Nobody was.
I've heard this excuse from the WH Comm director several times on TV this weekend that "Bush is a plain-spoken man".

The problem in the debate was not having coherant answers at all, plain spoken or otherwise, to almost anything Kerry said in the last half of the debate.

And what ticks me off was that Kerry was spouting total BS that could have been easily refuted with even minimal preparation for the debate.

[riri]

and it looked like he was ready to explode.

Yeah, I agree. My husband and I both wondered why he was so irate. I mean there are all the obvious things like the chronic BS he was spewing. But none of it seemed to make sense. Surely, he couldn't have been taken by surprise to see Kerry come out there fully armed, enough to invoke that type of respnse.

I am serious when I say, there was a time or two when he seemed to lose his train of thought that I thought he was going to walk off.

But, ofcourse, the media (even Fox news) is theorizing that he never has anyone challenge him, he is surrounded by yes men, etc.

[Eva]

Here's some info on the Newsweek poll. I guess we have to really examine the dynamics of all the polls before taking them seriously.

From the Kerrey Spot:

UPDATE: The blog Political Vice Squad says the Newsweek poll is skewed from its earlier one. They decreased Republican sampling by 5 percentage points and increased Democratic sampling by 6 percentage points. Furthermore, on the first of the three nights, the poll was limited to the "Pacific and Mountain time zones." In other words, registered voters from the following states completely were excluded: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, and the entire old South.

[riri]

He was properly prepared

Then what happened?

[Jorge]

The call of the loser--"You're calling names! WAAAAAAA!" after calling me DarkPoodle. Your lack of manners in raitonal debate is as obvious as your lack of intelligence.

"loser", "lack of intelligence"?

Now you're going to lecture me on "manners"? You are too funny.

And so I made a typo on your screen name. How nit-picky.

I never changed the argument--from the start I AGREED he lost the debate--I repeat, I AGREE with that, you get it now?--I wrote that in my FIRST post.

No you didn't. I had to back you into a corner to get you to admit it. It took 3 posts, you were so stubborn.

I was attacking your overall whining and your inability to see beyond JUST the debate, which was present form your first post.

Now it's my "overall whining. Forget the specifics you lost the debate on.

What does "present form" mean?

[Darkwolf377]

Now you're going to lecture me on "manners"? You are too funny. And so I made a typo on your screen name. How nit-picky.

Darkwolf is mistakenly typed as Darkpoodle?

You're a liar. Bye.

[Jorge]

Darkwolf is mistakenly typed as Darkpoodle? You're a liar. Bye.

OK THEN! I confess. I did it on purpose.

You are just too clever for me.