Who one the 1st president debate?

lokstah

ABC News shows a 45% / 36% Kerry victory, and contrary to Bikerman and Skydive's claim, is running a parallel poll which suggests that voting preferences haven't changed quite as much ( 51% / 47% in favor of Bush, as opposed to 50% / 46% in favor of Bush before the debate).

davidmc

Sounds like you're mind was already made up before the debate even started. This is quite apparent. Kerry had the 9-11 commission report on his side!!!!!!!!! How can you justify that assertion. Bush was all over the place & when he was'nt, there was silence. And what do you mean by "less interested in details". Some of those "so called" details could lower the # of casualties(save lives) flowing out of iraq!!!!!!

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

Bikerman2004

I'm not stating who won(one) or lost. I just find it interesting that those opposed to Bush all have the exact same thoughts on the debate.
By all means, let the debate on the debate continue. Let's just try to do it without our ideology glasses on.

limerickman

I think that view is a bit rash.

I illustrated Bush's mispronounciation of names to illustrate just how little Bush
appeared to actually know about foreign affairs, outside of the cliches he used throughout the debate.
Recall how Bush when interviewed in 2000, couldn't even name the prime minister of Pakistan.
The subliminal message here is that Bush doesn't have the apptitude to grasp
issues nor has he the ability to articulate what he intends to do with his disasterous foreign policy.

Everyone has an accent - people may mispronounce words : when your president is unable to even articulate the fact that it was Al Qaeda and not Iraq who attacked the USA, then the electorate will pick this up.
Bush lived down to my expectations - unfortunately.

Bikerman2004

Really! Its quite apparent your mind has been made up since about 1980.
Hmmm.....Details.....Would be nice if Kerry would tell us some about what he will do if elected. If you believe people care more about the detail facts a person knows, rather the principles and beliefs of a person, then you won't be surprised in November.

Bikerman2004

I think its a bit rash to think Bush didn't misspeak. But then again you need to cling to any hope.

lokstah

This is the interesting heart of the matter. As we've heard time and time again in the lead up, the crux of the modern debate is a contest of presentational style -- an ability to engage your opponent, engage the moderator, and most of all, engage the audience. It's not about facts or plans, so much as it's about inspiring confidence in the electorate that you've got plans under your belt, and you've got accurate facts well-filed in your skull. That's presentational.

I'd watched the 2000 debates, and I've seen clips of Bush's debates with Ann Richards. The general consensus regarding those contests is that Bush entered each heavily branded as an inarticulate, intellecutal underdog, and was able to turn the tables in dramatic fashion. He'd combine a joke and a smile with an easily digested, predetermined soundbite, and though never appearing brilliant, he'd always appear more in control than his stiffer, wordier opponent.

Yes, bias abounds, but the read I got from last evening's debate was of an attempt at the same strategy, but with fewer gains than expected. Perhaps that's due to Kerry's positioning as a double-reverse-underdog; so many expected Bush to run circles around him. The president's reliance on soundbites was more significant than usual; nearly every other question saw him erect a word bridge (sometimes smoothly, sometimes wobbly) to get back to an accusation of "inconsitent position," "mixed messages," or claims that the war was "hard." The repetition crossed an elegance threshold into sounding a bit dim. The Bush team seems to have found the limits of that technique; I suspect he'll repeat himself less often next week.

On top of that, Bush seemed far less comfortable than usual, and certainly less comfortable than he did against Gore or Governor Richards. He leaned forward, stuttered and paused frequently, seemed to lose his temper at points, and sighed loudly at least twice. These aren't cardinal offenses, but for a man whose key strength is his easy, everyman cool, they made a difference. Kerry kept his composure quite well, and the abrupt time limits prevented him from getting too... well, boring.

If debate victories are about strength of presentation, I don't think the poll numbers we're seeing regarding last night are a mystery.

lokstah

Are we still talking about Moolas? No, I don't think that's too significant, but to be clear, I counted him pronouncing "Mullahs" as "MOO-lahs" at least twice; he wasn't misspeaking.

Lonnie Utah

I posted this in another forum....

According to communication experts we humans communicate as follows:
- 7 percent is verbal (the actual words used),
- 38 percent is voice (or tone of voice).
- 55 percent is nonverbal (or body language),

So let's take the words out of it. We all know the Kerry and Bush sound bites anyway. I challenge you to watch the following clips, with the sound off and comment on the strengths and weakness of Bush/Kerry. Who has the stronger persona non-verbaly. I've watched them a few times and it's really interesting. I tried to find more of the split screen stuff, but couldn't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6145009

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.

Bikerman2004

I think he misspoke about Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Mis-pronouncing and mis-speaking are separate.

lokstah

Got it.

For the record, one truly clear blunder I recall Kerry making was a pretty massive one; he's probably kicking himself over the "global test" remark regarding preemptive strikes. He made a solid argument, but blew his credibility on that matter to bits with that word choice.

He will pay for that one.

Lonnie Utah

I disagree. To me all he meant by that was that military actions outside of self defense would have to pass the U.N. That's all. It's what every other president before this one has done.

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.

lokstah

I'm suggesting the "global test" remark was a blunder in terms of this debate, not necessarily in philosophical, academic, or even factual terms. Personally, I'm an internationalist, and Kerry's got shades of internationalism in his policy as well.

But the claim that Kerry would outsource American national security issues to foreign authorities has been an effective campaign talk-point for Bush. I sincerely doubt Kerry and his strategists ever felt it would be helpful to say anything which could be construed as a surrender of crucial national defense matters to the global community -- it would be juicy campaign fodder for the Bush team. It would be a soft spot in Kerry's debate strategy, and would require him to spend more time explaining himself. It would walk right into Bush's more nationalist rhetoric.

I suspect the president will quote Kerry on that issue in several upcoming speeches.

Bikerman2004

I think he could have chosen better words. Americans don't like the idea of having to pass a global test. I know what he meant but he just used the wrong words.