Debate Prediction

"In general, the debate will be controlled by W and Kerry will look like an afterthought. "

I think you were exactly right, except you have to switch the names. Then it'll be okay.

Well, it wasn't as skewed as you predicted. Each candidate had a couple of points they wanted to hammer home and thus repeated too many times. Bush's was something like: you can't expect lead a war to victory that you've called "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." Kerry's was to stress how important a summit was to winning in Iraq and also how we need more allies with significant numbers of troops on the ground in Iraq. That latter point is, I think, inarguably true and Kerry is perfectly right to say that will never happen with Bush in office, but I'm not sure the chances jump significantly with Kerry. Maybe it goes from 0% to 10%, I don't know.

I didn't hear any major verbal gaffes, but there was the five minutes I missed halfway through where my bowels, upon figuring out that one of these chamless losers was going to win the election, declared that they were in dire need of emptying... and afterwards I started drinking. The minor verbal gaffe tally was suprising close near the beginning but Bush ran away with it in the end.

Overall, I'd call this debate a push, which is bad news for Kerry, because he needed a clear win. He really lacks the killer instinct needed to win a debate. Bush trotted out some very well crafted, prescripted responses to some of the predictable questions and almost made them sound improvised. Kerry seemed to be shooting from the hip more and not doing quite as well. I'm not sure Kerry is as smart as he thinks he is. After about the 30th time that Bush emphasized how consistent he was I really expected Kerry to say something like, "Being consistent is well and good, but my opponent has been consistently wrong. Wrong on WMDs, wrong on ..." you get the picture. At one point he tried to say something like that, but it really didn't come out all that clearly.

Anyway, it was interesting watching my first presidential debate in which I was genuinely cheering for neither candidate. It's really amazing how much more you notice and just how patently dishonest and unneuanced the candidates are, especially in this bullshit timed 2 minute, 90 second, 30 second format. As if American politics weren't shallow enough.

Quote of the night from our household:
Andy: "Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass they are not."
Corrie: (Laughs bitterly) "No. They suck."

(Okay, I'm late for class, so no spell checking for you.)

Yeah, I think I was pretty consistently wrong in my analysis. I'd also call it a push. I'm not sure that's bad news for Kerry as Bush is supposed to be strongest in the foreign policy questions, and might have more trouble in the debates to come. But Bush has definitely improved in his debating technique, even if his technique tends to be, "I'm right you're wrong, suck on an egg." At least he has a technique.

After seeing the newest W campaign ads, I absolutely can't believe Kerry's advisers weren't ready for the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong shoes" barrage. Despite Bush emphasizing it at least 6 times (by my count, maybe more), Kerry never responded. Given the way W's people emphasized it in the campaign ads, it should have been obvious they would push it in the debates. Having some sort of response would have taken the wind out of Our President's sails and provided a push through the rest of the debate. Ignoring it meekly and changing the subject was lame.

I thought Bush did a credible job of saying the same thing over and over, thereby developing his "consistent and calm" image. He didn't make a lot of sense, but then that's not his strong suit.

Kerry made sense a couple of times, but despite what he says, I think he wilted when given opportunities to really challenge. He had the right things to talk about (troop support, North Korea, economic cost of the war (although I think he should have pushed this much more), and Osama Bin Laden) but he didn't do it very effectively. When you've got 2 minutes you've got to make a point strongly and clearly. He's gotten better, but he's still not very good.

My cousin Jeff and I were also struck by how incredibly lame both candidates are. Two comments from Jeff. 1) If you ever watch CSPAN (I don't have cable, so I don't) and see the Prime Minister's Questions with Parliament in England, you realize that even if you think Tony Blair is a bit of a weasel, at least he understands what is happening in his country and will fight for it. It's amazing the abuse that English Prime Ministers have to take at these regular meetings (once a week, once a month?). Neither of our candidates would have a prayer in that room.
2) There are a lot of smart people in our country. How'd we end up with these two jokers?

A third from me: Screw you, Iowa.

"I'd also call it a push. I'm not sure that's bad news for Kerry as Bush is supposed to be strongest in the foreign policy questions, and might have more trouble in the debates to come."

True, but there's the theory that people really only watch the first debate. I think that's what the Bushies are banking on.

Another interesting thing I heard was that there is a common perception that Kerry won the battle of body language. People seemed to think that Bush looked like he really didn't want to be there. I guess I saw some of that, but honestly, I couldn't stomach watching them and the stupid little progression of lights, and tended to listen from the kitchen.

Kerry's mention of North Korea was badly done, in my opinion. Bush took a lot if heat for not engaging North Korea and for not preventing them from aquiring nuclear weapons. Kerry should have begun that debate from that angle an kept it there leaving Bush to lamely insist that 6 way talks were the only hope. Instead Kerry came in with and stuck with "bilateral talks" leading me to exclaim, "You think you're going to get anywhere with North Korea without China's help? Are you insane?"

Kerry seems to shoot himself in the foot on issues he should be able to cream Bush on. The war cost a lot, many people are against it. But Kerry can't seem to mention that without the "We're opening fire houses in Iraq while we're closing them at home" line which I find patently offensive. A few days after I first heard that line and wondered if I was merely crazy for being offended, Chris Hitchens criticised the line in Slate (probably far better than I could on my own, so here's a link):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104549

Also, while I'm piling on Kerry, how could he let Bush mention the Patriot Act without criticizing it? It's one of the key reasons I'm not voting for Bush this time. Sheesh.

I would say that this was not a push. If you look at the vast majority of Americans that watched this debate, they probably have little history or understanding of a lot of political events. They saw this as their chance to get a quick education for the upcoming election. So what did they see?

Well they saw a frustrated and inarticulate Bush and a smiling, confident, articulate Kerry.

I thought both could really use some work. I mean come on, what happened to the actors that want to be president. They give a real good debate. Oh wait Kerry must have been trained.

Well my grain of salt.

"If you look at the vast majority of Americans that watched this debate, they probably have little history or understanding of a lot of political events."

Yeah, sometimes I do forget that not everyone obsessively follows the campaign...

I haven't been following this campaign very well, but living in Canada has provided some really interesting views on American politics. American-baiting is a national passtime here, and I have yet to meet anyone (not just on-campus, as that's overwhelmingly liberal, but out in the community too) who, upon learning I'm from the States, doesn't immediately ask "So are you voting against Bush?" When I mentioned that I'm from the part of Michigan that the government keeps putting in Canada on maps, one person said, "Ooooh, so you're a Canadian who can vote against Bush!!"

Just a slice of life as it's found here...

Dave, I suggest you do.

This was the only chance W had at a 'slam dunk.' These were his bread and butter issues, and from what I understand, he had begun to unravel by the time I tuned in. I only listened to the last 20 minutes from an NPR broadcast, so I acknowledge that my understanding of the earlier portion is hearsay, and from a flaming liberal at that, yet I find it difficult to believe he performed much over-par during the earlier, excruciating minutes. Wanting to be fair and balanced, I chose to listen to both sets closing remarks, and if it sounded like Kerry was more composed, and less reactionary, then I can only suppose it looked that way as well. No less than 40% of how we communicate as humans is through body language, so the likelihood is more than fair-to-middlin' that our Fellow Americans were influenced.

Hate to be doomsayer, here, Bree, but I think a lot of this election will depend on whether people believe the "calm, resolute, committed" line that W is selling. If they think that being consistent is more important than being right, then I'm not certain it matters that much how he is in the debates. Of course he looks annoyed during debates: People are questioning what he did when he "knows in his heart" that he's right.

Personally that kind of reasoning scares the living hell out of me, but it seems to be polling pretty well. So I'm not convinced that a lot of people care all that much, if they're buying the line.

http://candysecrets.blogspot.com/2004/09/daily-show-news-for-lazy-person.html

Holy cow. Look at the comments. My cousin's husband has a lot to say.

Ouch.

To your credit, Ish, I have heard a frightening number of people remark that they're too frightened of "changing boats mid-stream", and will vote for Bush even against deep fears about his administration and philosophies, because we are mid-commitment from a military standpoint.

Polls indicate that Bush has lost 8 percentage points in the last week, but that could be attributed to a shift in atmospheric pressure, seismic vibration... unfortunately, we've already seen that less than a monumental landslide is still a "surmountable margin."

I won't say the race is over by any means. But I think at this point it will take more than W. looking foolish on TV to change people's minds. (He's been doing that for 3 and a half years.)

Its possible this bounce will carry thru and we'll see Kerry take a dominant position. I'm skeptical, though.

It's really impossible to predict this election. You never know what random thing may influence people last second. I've been planning to vote Libertarian for a while as I do not appreciate the Bush administration's utter contempt for the Constitution. An NPR story I heard this morning about the ridicoulous tactics they've been using to vet crowds at Bush campaign rallies made me angry enough to actually consider votting for Kerry/Edwards... not that I've started liking Kerry... at all.

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4076497