Is it official then that Kerry lost the second debate?
Can't tell by this poll, but it does seem clear that Cheney helped the cause quite a bit. Bush's recovery in Wpost and Rasmussen tracking polls began right after the Cheney-Edwards debate.
But that is not the case. The presidency is not about who is the better debator. It is about who is the best leader. That is why, even though Kerry is perceived to have the upper hand in these debates (though Bush did much better in the second one), he is not making much of an impact with the electorate.
I do believe Kerry has done well in the debates simply because he did not make any major gaffes. Like Dukakis in the 1988 campaign when he gave that mechanical, passionless answer about how he still wouldn't support the death penalty, even if his wife was raped and murdered. Other than that question, Dukakis pretty much outdebated Bush Sr. But it didn't matter. The election isn't about who is the best debator or we would have an endless succession of dweebs serving as our president.
I think that presidential debates ought to be scrapped altogether. They do not serve any purpose anymore except as an opportunity for one candidate or the other to be snakebitten by a canned soundbite - like the one Bentsen laid on Dan Quayle. Or the one that Reagan laid on Mondale (about not holding his "youth and inexperience" against him).
The origin of candidates debating each other harkens back to an earlier time, before there was a mass media and when most Americans never had an opportunity to see or hear a presidential candidate. Back in the 1850s, Lincoln and Douglas would debate each other in front of huge crowds, for example.
In today's world, the presidential candidates get plenty of exposure and by the time the "debates" start in October, people are already tired of them.
I wish President Bush had refused to debate Kerry. He would have taken a lot of flack for it and he would have opened himself up to charges of being a coward. But I don't think he would have suffered any loss of support over it. Sooner or later, somebody has to stand up to this crap and say enough is enough.
The Dallas Morning News said that the debate was a tie and that Kerry was more influential on undecideds.
How did they know that? Because they are the DMN and they always know stuff like that.
The fact is that I personally know that Bush won the debate decisively.
I was on the live thread (as best I could) and this is the most critical bunch of people in the world. Oh, yeah, they were rooting for Bush like make, but they weren't gonna cut him a freakin' bit of slack.
These people are hard. Very hard.
So, that's how I know that Bush won the second debate and don't even think about arguing with me.