 |
|
|
quote:
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...
|
|
| |
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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).
quote:
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?
quote:
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. |
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
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
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bill O'Reilly stated that if Bush didn't win this debate, he'd lose the election. Well, there's no way the CW is going to be that Bush won the debate. At the very best, it can be spun into a draw for the president, and that's not a win.
The key news items and memorable moments coming out of the debate all reflect badly on Bush:
1. Angry yelling at the audience (the pundits are jumping on this)
2. His "internets" gaffe, which made him look out of touch with popular culture
3. The bizarre "NEED SOME WOOD?" moment, which showed both him losing his cool and his not knowing his own finances, as what Kerry said was 100% accurate.
Bush's advantage in this debate was supposedly its format, which he is allegedly more comfortable in than Kerry. He also was supposed to relate to the audience better than Kerry. Neither advantage materialized, as Bush came in second on both counts.
In many ways, this reminded me of Debate 3 from 2000, this time with Bush being like the hyperactive, desperate-sounding Gore. Bush's angry interruption of Charles Goodwin will be played up a lot, too.
Kerry wasn't great, mind you, but he made no big mistakes that will repeat in the press. He dodged too many questions for my taste (but no more than Bush did, for sure), but he remained cool, calm and confident while still going after Bush's record aggressively. He still looked more presidential than the president.
I expect that, coming out of the weekend, the story will be that Bush failed to slow Kerry's momentum, whether the debate is viewed as a draw or modest Kerry win. The worst-case scenario for the Bushies is that the label for debate 3 becomes "Bush's Last Chance." |
I agree with this analysis. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
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. |
Hmm, you know, these guys HAVE to repeat thing endlessly, even mindnumblingy to have a chance at driving one small issue home.
I very much doubt you people even know or even suspect how ***** up American politics are, not even British politics come anywhere close.
quote:
The debates will have a big impact, but their biggest impact is how they are spun after each debate.
|
This proves my point I believe, exactly when did we start listening to pundits , who to **** cares what they have to say...
They know bugger all and are all working with a very large personal agenda.
--
Good article btw.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
doesn't matter. Bush is still going to win the election. He's still ahead in the polls. |
Not quite. The latest polls show a tie race, and some (like the AP, Zogby) give Kerry a slight lead. What's more, Kerry picked up even more strength in the battleground states. Latest polls have Kerry with solid leads in NJ, PA, MI, and OR, as well as small leads in FL, OH and WI. It's tied in IA, MO, NM and NV. What's most troubling for Bush is that Kerry is now in a statistical tie with him in CO.
Zogby's latest electoral analysis gives Kerry an edge in the EC, so this race is still very much on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2004 23:30
Attachment: 
|
