Your Reactions to the Second Presidential Debate

[Pekka]

Oh yeah I made some critique over Bush's faces when Kerry was laying the rap on him.. I have to be pragmatic and say that I didn't like Kerry's faces either during Bush onslaughts. It was the forced smile, which in itself isn't too bad, but I think he went too far with it. Not disrespectfully, but kind of akwardly. I think he would have been better off with just a little smile every nwo and then and then just stone face expressions during Bush's turn. So I think neither one of them really won that facial expression during opponents comments competition.

But I like the way Bush takes the center of the battling ring everytime, the closing handshake he kind of turned it quickly too, so he'd be in Kerry's corner and thus dominating the space with his presence. And hell yes it's important factor to the game! And if Bush wins, it will be because of this... I said so early on and keep saying it, it's an advantage. It's stage presence and physical interraction domination, initiative takers game.. Kerry knows it, so Bush has taken the second wave of fast closings and does little distractions, very subtle, so he always wins the distance. Only super people can notice this, like myself.

[Edan]

The third debate is going to be the least-watched,

Probably true (although with yesterdays debate being on a friday, the nxt one might have higher ratings simply because it isn't on the worst TV night of the week), but I'm guessing that many of the undecideds are going to be watching:

1. They're undecided. Unless they've given up on the debates being useful for their decision (cause the candidates avoid answering the questions), they'll probably watch.

2. According to ABC, of the 280 questions submitted by the 140 audience members for yesterdays debate, 210 of them were on domestic issues, so the undecideds that are left may consider domestic issues more important (and may tune in to the last debate because of that).

[Boris Godunov]

I thought this was a pretty fair analysis:

By George E. Condon Jr.
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

October 9, 2004

ST. LOUIS - After eight days of unrelentingly bad news, President Bush needed some good news. In his second debate with Sen. John Kerry last night, though, the best the president got was that he held his own.

Bush was clearly stronger, more poised and less irritated than he was in the first debate last week in Florida. But Kerry counterpunched effectively and probably did nothing to lose the converts he won in Miami.

"This debate solidified the voters who came to (Kerry) a week ago," said Frank Luntz, a political analyst who assembled a group of largely undecided voters in St. Louis to watch the televised clash.

"Bush's passion and focus were much more compelling than last week," said Luntz. "But he fell short in wooing back the swing voters that he lost" during the first debate. [...]

Kerry also missed no opportunity to remind an audience of more than 50 million Americans of the headlines of lost jobs and missing weapons of mass destruction.

"Bush is not able to break away because of the bad news," said pollster John Zogby. [...]

Judging from focus groups, Zogby said voters are more decisive about Bush, whether for or against him.

"But Kerry has not come close to closing the deal with them," he said.

With his second strong debate performance, Kerry is moving closer to doing just that. [...]

Among the group of undecided voters gathered by Luntz, Kerry passed this test. Before the debate, nine of the 21 voters saw Kerry as an aloof patrician; afterwards, all nine had changed their minds.

In the group, 14 said Kerry won the encounter, while three said Bush won and four were undecided. The voters liked Bush's intensity. But they liked Kerry's positions better, particularly on Iraq and the federal deficit.

At the end of the evening, Chris Sortwell, 47, a private equity investor who said he had benefited financially from Bush's tax cuts, said he went from undecided to leaning toward Kerry.

"If there's a bar for how you want your president to behave and think, Kerry cleared it," said Sortwell. "Bush did better (than in the Miami debate), but he didn't get to where the bar should be."

Regardless of everything, Kerry and Bush need to come up with some new answers for next week. They've run the course on the stock answers and tend to just repeat their stump speeches. Kerry is a little better than Bush in this regard, but not much. Last night was, after the fireworks of the first half died down, fundamentally boring and predictable.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Bush perfomed poorly again, although the best sound bite was "I own a Timber company? I didn't know that! (pause) Wanna buy some wood?"

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, but that's going to come back to haunt him now...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Yes. I think he answered that question as well as he could considering it was quite loaded.

That's the sort of character questions one expects on an interview these days.

No, Mr Bush will not get the job with that answer.

[Pekka]

Well does he own one or not? Because if he does, then it was huge self ownage. If not, then it was just a joke that maybe didn't carry as good as it should have.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well does he own one or not? Because if he does, then it was huge self ownage. If not, then it was just a joke that maybe didn't carry as good as it should have.

Yes, he does. What Kerry said was 100% accurate.

"President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99 percent of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)" (Factcheck.org; 9/23/04)

[Pekka]

Ouch

[Edan]

IMO, Kerry did better than Bush, though with Bush's significant improvement from last week it ends up a tie or a minor Kerry win.

I think the bottom line is this:

Bush probably solidified his support, preventing his numbers from slipping. He may have slowed down Kerry's momentum, but he probably hasn't stopped it, and definately hasn't turned it around like he needs to. Those voters who moved to Kerry after the last debate probably arent likely to move (err... flip flop?) to Bush because of last night.

Assuming there are no suprises outside the debates, Bush needs to win this last debate. Probably by the same margin that Kerry won the first debate.

[Pekka]

Edan, that's interesting way of thinking .. You think Kerry did better than Bush, yet it can end up a tie for you? wtf?

But yeah..it'll be tight game. I think if Bush wins the last debate, he'll win the presidency.. if he loses it, then it's the matter of how big losing.. if just something that is arguable tie, then Bush wins presidency. If he loses big, then Kerry wins presidency.. this is my opinion, not a fact.

When is the next battle of the VPs?

[Boris Godunov]

VPs don't have another debate, they only get one.

Bush must win the next debate, no doubt about it. If it's a tie like this one is a "tie," then Bush is going to lose. He needs for a decisive win that the pundits will agree is a win. If not, I think he's going to find it almost impossible to recover and win the election, which has been breaking Kerry's way for a week now.

[Ming]

These "debates" will have little effect on the eventual outcome of the election. You guys are making it sound like the whole election is based on the outcome of these debates... Yeah, right...

The tide will continue to change right up to the election.
We have yet to see what the true battle field will be just before the election. The numbers will continue to go up and down until then... and the debates will be long in the past and almost forgotten. All the shots haven't been fired yet

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming
These "debates" will have little effect on the eventual outcome of the election. You guys are making it sound like the whole election is based on the outcome of these debates... Yeah, right...

The tide will continue to change right up to the election.
We have yet to see what the true battle field will be just before the election. The numbers will continue to go up and down until then... and the debates will be long in the past and almost forgotten. All the shots haven't been fired yet

Are you depreciating the all-importance of my presidential debate threads, mister??

[Edan]

Originally posted by Pekka
Edan, that's interesting way of thinking .. You think Kerry did better than Bush, yet it can end up a tie for you? wtf?
[/qb]

Well, I don't think Kerry won by a solid margin (just like Bush, he avoided answering . The score this time was more like a B to a B- than a B to a C like last time. Bush was also able to artculate some of what he had so badly flubbed last time. With that and the lowered expectations for Bush, I think a tie is the way it will be percieved.

But yeah..it'll be tight game. I think if Bush wins the last debate, he'll win the presidency.. if he loses it, then it's the matter of how big losing.. if just something that is arguable tie, then Bush wins presidency. If he loses big, then Kerry wins presidency.. this is my opinion, not a fact.

A tie in a debate tends to help the challenger, as it makes the alternative he offers put on the same level as the incumbent, and makes him look presidential.

Honestly, I think Bush has to get a solid momentum going his way, to win. Most of the undecideds will probably break for Kerry, so Bush has to counteract that now.