Poll: Guess what?

[Brian Lee]

Yeah - I couldn't keep it all straight...I thought the Republicans always were the red guys (or was that the Communists???) and the Demos always wore blue. But maybe I got thay mixed up with polkadots or something......aw for hells sake, I need more beer!

Seriously, the debates are a good thing for most of America, but as many here no doubt feel, it really seems like the 'lesser of two evils' to me as well. Kerry's certainly got the edge so far in my mind. It's sad to me however, when there are only two points of view presented and the public is forced to make a choice. What happened to the moderates? The green party? The independants? The WHIGS?!?!

[SirNick]

What about my favorite alignment, Libertarian!

[Redwolf]

You know, a friend of mine brought up an interesting perspective the other night, when we were discussing the upcoming debate. She said that, to intellectuals, Bush tends to come off looking less than brilliant in these formal debates, but to the "common man" (whatever one perceives him to be), he comes off looking more like the guy next door (whereas his more polished opponents...Kerry in this case and Gore in the last election) come off looking "stilted," "formal," and "Ivy League." I had her comments in mind as I watched the debates last night, and I really think she has a point. Kerry reminded me of nothing so much as a high school or college debater (I was on the debate team all four years of high school and two years of college, and also served as a debate judge for a couple of years). He could have been any one of guys I debated or judged over the years...the same facial expressions, the same posture, the same tactics. And, knowing as I do all too well that formal, competative debaters often do not agree with the position they are required to defend, I found myself (perhaps unfairly) questioning his sincerity. And I also found myself wondering how he comes across to the average Joe, who maybe doesn't have the same background I do. Does he seem "too slick"? "Too rich"? "Too Ivy League"? I don't know. I do think that, if he hopes to garner more support from working class Americans, he should come across as a little less "polished."

Who won the debate? Well, for all that Kerry is the more polished debater, speaking as a debate judge, last night I didn't see sufficient evidence to alter the status quo. We'll see how things go on domestic issues, since that's likely to be the kicker for me anyway. If I had to vote tomorrow, I'd probably write in my dog!

Redwolf

[susnfx]

She said that, to intellectuals, Bush tends to come off looking less than brilliant in these formal debates, but to the "common man" (whatever one perceives him to be), he comes off looking more like the guy next door (whereas his more polished opponents...Kerry in this case and Gore in the last election) come off looking "stilted," "formal," and "Ivy League."

I'm absolutely no intellectual and you couldn't get any "commoner" than I am, but Bush still comes across to me as less than brilliant. I don't want a guy next door as president.

Susan

[ChrisLaughlin]

Well... I'm going to be completely honest here.

I walked out of watching the debate half-way through because I was so frustrated with Kerry. It wasn't that Bush did well, it was that Kerry should have done better.

I felt every single question in that first half was a perfect opportunity for Kerry to hit a grand slam but ended up hitting doubles instead. Granted, he DID hit doubles, but he SHOULD have been hitting grand slams on every single one of those questions.

I have a masters degree in international law and I absolutely love debating. During that first half I would have been overjoyed to come across either Bush or Kerry as a debate opponent. Honestly... both of them had so many good opportunities and just flubbed it. In our debates at my university we had 40 students from all over the world, many of them experienced policymakers and international lawyers/human-rights lawyers, going at it tooth and nail. It is absolutely essential to be at the top of one's game at all times and to pounce on any weakness or inaccuracy whatsoever, to be clear, direct and go for the jugular by letting the facts speak the truth. Kerry let the facts speak the truth, and won because of it and because of an extremely weak opponent, but he was nowhere near the top of his game. I expected more from the captain of the Yale debate team (I should expect more from Bush as well, but he has done a pretty good job at lowering our expectations over the last four years).

After I left the room half-way through the debates I went for a walk for an hour and then came back to watch the second half (we have TiVo, so it was recorded). The second half was totally different. Kerry got his stride. He was clear, confidant, concise and courageous. Over and over again he won decisive victories by countering Bush's empty, angry rhetoric with clear, straight facts. In the face of those facts Bush became increasingly agitated. His face started getting red, his face began to twitch, he started leaning over the podium to shout at the moderator and his voice became hoarse. In the face of simple facts he could not win, so he repeated over and over and over again his two or three talking points - "Kerry is a flip-flopper", "Kerry is sending mixed messages", "Kerry is a pessimist". In the face of the facts Bush was completely unable to respond with intelligence or credibility. How could he?

He has stacked the deck against himself. His war in Afghanistan is a failure (Osama STILL not caught, warlords back in control, opium crop bigger than ever). His war in Iraq is a total disaster by any standard with the situation getting worse every day. He has no plan to fix his mess in Iraq except to "stay the course" - a course which led us into this disaster in the first place and leads our courageous troops every day deeper into the hell Bush has created. Bush has broken the military. He has alienated and angered the entire world. He has broken our alliances. He has lost us the respect of the international community. He has enraged not only the Muslim world, but the entire world. He has created a new breeding ground for terror and terrorists. Bush has, in his arrogant, stubborn foolishness fulfilled Bin-Laden's wildest fantasy - he has played right into his hands. The worst part is that instead of recognizing his mistakes, Bush just stubbornly, arrogantly, foolishly keeps driving at full speed straight into the wrong lane, as if persistance and certainty while speeding in the wrong lane is going to make that traffick reverse directions. His policies endanger not only him, but the American citizens who are locked in that car with him and also the people in the cars we are careening towards. It's almost as if he is a drunk driver. In the real world someone who speeds in the wrong lane while intoxicated is arrested, imprisoned and is not allowed to drive for a long, long time. It's high time we removed Bush from office, elected a real leader with wisdom and good judgement, and kept Bush from causing so much harm to our country ever again.

That said, Kerry needs to do better in the next debate. America and the world are counting on him.

Peace,
Chris

[Walden]

I'm absolutely no intellectual and you couldn't get any "commoner" than I am, but Bush still comes across to me as less than brilliant. I don't want a guy next door as president.

They're both East Coast upper-crust, when it comes down to it. Both Yale. Both acting parts, one supposes.

George W. wants to come across as Andy Griffith, but he delivers his lines more like Barney Fife, sometimes... all jumbled up, and shoots his self in the foot.

The Senator, on the other hand, serves a party that bills itself as the champion of the lower classes and the minorities. He's trying to take the Alan Alda approach. Like Hawkeye, went to war and served, but spent the last five seasons trying to prove what a nice guy he is, and espousing every PC cause, along the way.

[Ro3b]

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell GWB is no more guy next door than his navy-blue-slacks-with-little-whales-on-them-wearing father. The guy went to Yale, he's worth umpty-million dollars, he grew up in the bosom of political power and prestige. Fat lot of good it did him. He WENT TO YALE and he still has trouble managing basic subject-verb agreement. He doesn't talk that way because he's Joe Average; it's because he's lazy, sloppy, and unreflective.

[ChrisLaughlin]

While we're talking about polls:

Of all the major candidates in debates analyzed by Gallup since 1992, Kerry's "More Favorable" figure is the highest. Here's Gallup:

"How has your opinion of XXXXX been affected by the debate? Is your opinion of XXXXX more favorable, less favorable, or has it not changed much?"

More
Favorable

Kerry 2004 Sep 30 46%

Bush 2004 Sep 30 21%

----------------------------------
Gore 2000 Oct 17 29 %
2000 Oct 11 24%
2000 Oct 3 27 %

Bush 2000 Oct 17 31 %
2000 Oct 11 40 %
2000 Oct 3 34%
-------------------------------------
Clinton 1992 Oct 19 27%
1992 Oct 11 29 %

Bush Sr 1992 Oct 19 29%
1992 Oct 11 13%
----------------------------------------

Notice how in 2000 Bush's "More favorable" figure was higher than Gore's in all three debates. This was the sense in which Bush "won", despite Gore having "won on points" at the time.

Not so this time. On the same measure, Kerry won 46-21.

That's a decisive victory for Kerry, the kind we are going to get used to seeing during the coming debates and even more so with John Kerry as President of the United States of America.

[Walden]

While we're talking about polls:

Of all the major candidates in debates analyzed by Gallup since 1992, Kerry's "More Favorable" figure is the highest. Here's Gallup:

"How has your opinion of XXXXX been affected by the debate? Is your opinion of XXXXX more favorable, less favorable, or has it not changed much?"

More
Favorable

Kerry 2004 Sep 30 46%

Bush 2004 Sep 30 21%

----------------------------------
Gore 2000 Oct 17 29 %
2000 Oct 11 24%
2000 Oct 3 27 %

Bush 2000 Oct 17 31 %
2000 Oct 11 40 %
2000 Oct 3 34%
-------------------------------------
Clinton 1992 Oct 19 27%
1992 Oct 11 29 %

Bush Sr 1992 Oct 19 29%
1992 Oct 11 13%
----------------------------------------

Notice how in 2000 Bush's "More favorable" figure was higher than Gore's in all three debates. This was the sense in which Bush "won", despite Gore having "won on points" at the time.

Not so this time. On the same measure, Kerry won 46-21.

That's a decisive victory for Kerry, the kind we are going to get used to seeing during the coming debates and even more so with John Kerry as President of the United States of America.

You're sounding more and more like a Kerry Campaign speechwriter.

[ChrisLaughlin]

If he hired me I think he'd do a lot better

[DCrom]

If he hired me I think he'd do a lot better

That might well be true. In style, if not substance. But you'd have to sell him on taking positions and holding them.

I actually have agreed with a lot of Kerry positions. Pity he seldom holds them for long.

Sorry - I'll move any further comment onto the main political thread

[Lorenzo]

Hey, anyone. Was your love, hope, and trust in Kerry so strong that you missed the outright lie(s) he told during the debate?

I walked out on the debate about 2/3 of the way through (I had another appointment). But, this morning, I heard some distant radio morning news program playing back-to-back clips from Kerry last night and Kerry about a year ago. There's no reconciling. One has to be a lie. It was all about whether he had ever called Bush a liar about the Iraq war. He had, and apparently forgot when Jim L. asked him to be specific about the Bush lies. Kerry said something like, "Well I've never used that harsh term, and tried not to, but the President has been less than candid..."

Bush may have told several lies during the debate also. You have to know how to lie in politics, apparently, and how to get out of them or be evasive enough to fool most of the people most of the time.

The partisan system in this country is broken. Any faith in it is probably based on false hope.

[Darwin]

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell GWB is no more guy next door than his navy-blue-slacks-with-little-whales-on-them-wearing father. The guy went to Yale, he's worth umpty-million dollars, he grew up in the bosom of political power and prestige. Fat lot of good it did him. He WENT TO YALE and he still has trouble managing basic subject-verb agreement. He doesn't talk that way because he's Joe Average; it's because he's lazy, sloppy, and unreflective.

A friend of a friend (no, really) was in prep school (Andover) with GWB and found him spoiled and unpleasant then.

However, I see that Dubya and I share a number of preferences, based on the list at http://compassionate.conservative.com/bio.html

Bush Favorites (that I could agree on):

Color: Blue
Sandwich: Peanut Butter & Jelly
Snack: Fritos (but not Cheetos)
Musicians: The Everly Brothers & Buddy Holly

So, he's probably not quite evil incarnate.

Still, I can't imagine any chain of events that would lead me to vote for him--which is why I didn't bother to watch the debate. Nothing either one says will change the current state of the economy or the current state of national security, and I already know who is largely responsible for both, along with the support of his party, which has a majority in both the House and the Senate.

If I have to choose between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend", I'll go with the taxes. My wife and I have never liked being in debt. We've even paid cash for most of our cars. I've had a credit card for about 20 years, and I think I've used it twice. We did take out a loan to buy our first house, but paid it off early.

So, I'm extremely predjudiced against what has happened with the national debt over the past four years, and I only see one person/group to blame. Republicans these days aren't against spending money, they're just against paying cash.

[franfriel]

Oh Dale, please remove my embarassing duplicate poll from the list.

As I have so gently been told, one is enough.

Thanks!

Fran

[SirNick]

I can't believe that anyone who has been multi-millionaire for a large portion of their adult life can have the slightest perception of what the average person wants or needs. That speaks for both of the gentlemen that bent the truth for their personal agendas last night.