Your Reactions to the Second Presidential Debate

[Boris Godunov]

I have to disagree with Ming. Debates can and do fundamentally alter the shape of a presidential race. It happened in 1960, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 2000.

Considering where the race was 3 weeks ago, it's undeniable that so far, the debates have altered the course of the race. And they're the last chance the candidates have to give their cases to nationwide audiences.

If Bush doesn't emerge next week with a debate win, he'll have 2 weeks to turn around the campaign without any national forum left. That's a tall order. Not impossible, but very difficult to do.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ming
All the shots haven't been fired yet

There's gunna be a shootout? Why don't people tell me these things? There goes Kerry's chances - Bush has the cowboy thing down solid.

[Boris Godunov]

But Kerry's actually been in combat and knows how to shoot a gun. And he's killed people before.

[LulThyme]

Originally posted by Dissident


how so? It's possible she has some personal story related to abortion. But we don't know what that is. It amazes me people are so personal about abortion.

I have never known anyone who has gotten one. Of course, I don't know a lot of people.

you might know one and not be aware of it...
not everyone brags about it and I expect it would be ever worse in the US...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But Kerry's actually been in combat and knows how to shoot a gun. And he's killed people before.

that's the number one thing people forget when they say "OMFG BUSH COULD PWN KERRY IN A FIGHT"

[Drachasor]

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

The debates will have a big impact, but their biggest impact is how they are spun after each debate.

Well, each debate is basically being presented as a Kerry/Edwards victory. The third debate should be a blatant Kerry/Edwards victory and a spun one as well. (Personally, I think that if you throw in honesty and straight-forwardness, Kerry/Edwards have easily won all the debates so far).

The spin and presentation of how they went does affect a number of voters, as has been shown historically. Yes there are other issues, but it is extremely likely that no significant Bush-favoring changes will happen before the election.

-Drachasor

[Shi Huangdi]

If you wanted to look it as a forensic debate contest, maybe Kerry did win. But in terms of the event in the context of the campaign as a whole, this was great for Bush.

https://www.gallup.com

In the context of who won overall, the results was within the margin of error with a two point lead for Kerry. But voters don't go on who they think is a better debator.

First off, in terms of the Expectations game, Bush clearly won. After Kerry defeating Bush in the first debate, the natural expectation is for him to win again. Bush clearly did much better this time and so that plays to his advantage.

In the first debate, Kerry did significant damage to Bush's lead on national security. However, in this debate Bush fought back hard and restored much of his previous advantage. From further data in the polling:

On the Economy, Prior to the debate Bush had a 6 point advantage, which became a tie at this debate. That's good news for Kerry, but there will be another debate on economic issues coming up whereas this was the last debate where foreign policy and national security would be touched on. On the issue of terrorism, Bush had an advantage of 7 points prior to the debate. Now he has a 17 point advantage. On the Issue of Iraq, Kerry had a lead of 4 points prior to the debate. Now Bush has an advantage on 7 points.

On the debate performance itself, Kerry scored a 17 point advantage for having expressed himself more clearly, and a 5 point advantage on having knowledge of the issues, so people clearly view Kerry as the better debator. Bush had a 4 point advantage on being more believable. But on "Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job", Bush had a 13 point advantage on that. So in terms of proving himself strong enough for the job, Bush clearly won.

I don't view it to be the case, but maybe Kerry did win on the substance of the issues, but the substance of the issues is unimportant for these debates. Voters clearly got the image of Bush as the strong leader who defeat the terrorists.

[Sava]

Voters clearly got the image of Bush as the strong leader who defeat the terrorists.

because he's been so successful so far! We have Osama bin... oh wait a minute... and Iraq is free from terrorists!!!! oh wait a minute...

wait Iknow... Bush has stood up to the shipping companies and demanded MORE THAN 6% OF CARGO CONTAINERS ARE CHECKED... OH WAIT A MINUTE...

Exactly what has Bush done to fight terror? At the height of the Afghan campaign, 11,000 troops were in Afghanistan. There are more police officers on Manhattan island. And Bush allowed OBL to escape at Tora Bora when he used the Afghan warlords instead of US troops.

Bush is weak on terrorism... and smart Americans know this.

[germanos]

What strikes me as really weird is the fact the two candidates do not adress eachother. No doubt this is according to the rules that were established, but it looks really akward: they are not facing eachother, and they adress the other in the third person. It's kind of surreal.

Bush makes really funny moves when agitated. If he was black, one might thing he is a rapper who is motoric challanged

Both candidates are quite patronizing towards the public: "thanks for the question" etc :vomit:


I can understand the frustration that is expressed ghere by the American posters: Kerry isn't great, while Bush is just outright dangerous

[Edan]

Perhaps most important from gallup was that Kerry was able to win over independents 53%-37%. It would have been better if there were details about undecideds, but alas there aren't.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Edan
Perhaps most important from gallup was that Kerry was able to win over independents 53%-37%. It would have been better if there were details about undecideds, but alas there aren't.

That's a poll of who won they thought won the debate, not who they now planned to vote for.

[GePap]

MOst undecides usually vote against the incumbent, that is if they decide to vote at the end of the day.

The debates helped Kerry break out of the summer funk that the Republicans had placed him in-in that even if Bush does acceptably again in the coming debate, they turn out a plus for Kerry, but no longer making this election solely about Kerry (a race Kerry could not win).

But in the end, this will be decided by turnout on election day- Bush has created a formidable machine, so Kerry and the Dems. have to solidify this part and make sure that their greater voter registration pays off at the end.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
IMO, both dished it out pretty good. Kerry hammered Bush on the deficit, promising to tax the rich. Bush pointed out that the so-called rich are the small business owners who create jobs.

And Kerry countered by saying he'd make Health Care cheaper for small buisness, which is a massive expense for them.

Originally posted by Ned
Bush hammered Kerry on the global test. Kerry said he was a warrior too, but would lead aliances like Eisenhower and Reagan. (Boy, if there was one theme to Kerry tonight, it was that he quoted Republicans on a host of issues. But twice he made reference to Eishenhower and Reagan.)

So do you support the Bush Campaign when they blatantly lie and distort information, and generally act like the American People should believe any dishonesty they want to say?

The "Global Test" comment was never about giving away US autonomy or ability to act. Rather it was about explaining why action is needed to the rest of the world so they can at least understand where you are coming from. It is being responsible in presenting the reasons for your actions. Bush simply hasn't done this, but then his Campaign spins the "global test" as though it is giving the UN/rest of the world the right to veto American policy.

Do you support that level of a lie and a distortion? I would think even a Bush supporter would be ashamed of this.

Originally posted by Ned
Bush pointed out, however, that Reagan was equally unpopular in Europe because he made the tough decisions on the cold war that the Europeans did not like. Reagan took the decision despite their being upopular -- an obvious dig at Kerry the warrior.

Some of Reagen's policies might have been unpopular in Europe, but that has as much to do with his very conservative domestic stance than anything. Even with his War issues, he was able to handle giving the reasons why well. Just because someone might disagree with you doesn't mean it can't pass a global test. A Global Test is about understanding the reasons/causes, not necessarily agreeing with the action. Bush failed this by pressuring the international community to go to war, not letting the inspectors finish their job, and basically being highly impatient about even needing to deal with other countries that disagreed.

Originally posted by Ned
Bush was far more passionate -- a man animated by conviction. Kerry was suave and intelligent. He is a lawyer and it would have been very good in the courtroom had he chosen to stay on that path.

But Bush's passionate behavior had drawbacks too. At times he did seem angry or annoyed. Sometimes it does seem like being re-elected is a right to him, and not a priviledge (imho).

Originally posted by Ned
So, Bush won the debate, narrowly, due primarily to Kerry's excellence in debate style. Bush had the advantage on the facts and the passion.

Bush lied left and right! Kerry told some mistruths but nearly all of them were minor aspects of his point. Look at the factcheck data. Bush's lies were often gross mischaracterizations of the truth with no factual basis at all. Is this really the type of person you want to be president?

Originally posted by Ned
One more point, and did anyone catch this? Kerry did not emphasize in the debate as he did the day before that sanctions in Iraq were working and that a war was completely unnecessary. The reason? The Daffor(sp?) apparently concluded that the Oil for Food program allowed Saddam to widely corrupt the UN, France, Germany, Russia and even China to support the lifting of sanctions, not their enforcement.

Originally said by Kerry in the second debate
The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked.

While the report didn't conclude this, it seems very clear the sanctions were at least the reason why Saddam didn't start up a new WMD program.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that the Oil For Food program corruptions changed the way *anyone* was going to vote on sanctions. All evidence indicates the security council was intending to stay with sanctions indefinitely. The correct course of action, clearly was to see that the loopholes were cleared up. I'd also note that foreign governments were not directly involved in the corruptions, but rather companies that reside in foreign states; a very different thing.

There is no evidence that the Oil for Food corruptions were ever going to allow Saddam to rebuild his WMD programs. Indeed, Saddam's military got weaker under sanctions, despite the corruption in the program.

Originally posted by Ned
(Not mentioned by anyone that I know of is that Saddam also used the Oil for Food program to finance terrorism, include al Qaeda.) So much for sanctions, sanctimonious Kerry.

There is no evidence he ever financed Al Qaeda as far as I am aware (link to evidence if you have it). The only 'financing' of terrorism Saddam ever did was give money to the families of suicide bombers. Guess what? Saudi Arabia does the same thing.

Oh, and that Al Qaeda camps that were in Iraq? It was in a region that Saddam didn't control because of the no-fly zones.

Pekka, Kerry did very well on style, I agree. He also did a very good job at pandering. But if anyone really cared that this country be properly lead, they must have been apalled by Kerry because all he offered was pandering, not only to every constituent group, but the likes of European public opinion as well. Kerry is no leader. He is a pathetic suck-face panderer.

This is a blatant distortion of the truth. Kerry has never, ever said he would pander. He has said he America should be leading strong, global coalitions. He has said that America, in order to do this, must present reasons others can understand for their actions. Bush 41 and Reagen were able to do this, and they were not always popular among foreign leaders. It isn't pandering to work with others.

Kerry has a very clear plan on how to do things that you can look up. If you don't agree with it, that is one thing. You should not, however, blatantly distort it. Pander to every group? What about the rich? The middle class needs a boost however, the new job growth has largely been in lower paying jobs with less benefits. In some cases the growth is from a number of part-time and temporary jobs. Hence the divide between rich and poor is gonig to become larger if something isn't done. Bush isn't going to do it. Kerry didn't pander, he presented his perception on what problems there are and what solutions he has. Disagree with him if you want, but distorting those positions is dishonorable.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If you wanted to look it as a forensic debate contest, maybe Kerry did win. But in terms of the event in the context of the campaign as a whole, this was great for Bush.

https://www.gallup.com

In the context of who won overall, the results was within the margin of error with a two point lead for Kerry. But voters don't go on who they think is a better debator.

First off, in terms of the Expectations game, Bush clearly won. After Kerry defeating Bush in the first debate, the natural expectation is for him to win again. Bush clearly did much better this time and so that plays to his advantage.

Such a poll would include the effects of "the expectation game."

So ignoring that, Bush lost.

Anyhow, Kerry is never going to convince the hard-line Bush supporters, that's a simple fact. If Bush doesn't act like a complete moron, then they think he won. With independents and swing voters though...Kerry and Edwards are easily coming out ahead in every debate. Those voters are the ones that really matter in how the debate plays out.

-Drachasor

[Edan]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


That's a poll of who won they thought won the debate, not who they now planned to vote for.

Yes, but it means that Kerry's arguments (or style) resonates with them, especially given how the other numbers suggest it was a tie with people thinking the winner is the guy they're planning to vote for. While Kerry may not have pushed them all the way to his camp, they're probably leaning in his direction.