Let's analyze this paragraph from the Newsweek poll

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote, "According to the poll, 61 percent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 30 said Kerry won, 19 percent said Bush won and 16 percent said they tied. The number of debate viewers surveyed was 770."

How could anyone perceive that Bush won the debate from last Thursday night? 19 percent said Bush won. How is that possible? Let's discuss this further to get at the bottom of these numbers. We should discuss what is important in any debate. 1. Answering the question, 2. stating facts, 3. giving direct answers, 4. body language, and 5. courtesy (or following the rules).

Anybody may begin.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,776 • Replies: 39

No top replies

poll
Of course if you polled US citizens on who won the civil war you would probably get more than 19% that claimed the South won.

0 Replies

That be true - I'm afraid.

0 Replies

But, (and there's always a but) what does that say about that 19 percent?

0 Replies

Quote:

But, (and there's always a but) what does that say about that 19 percent?

They hunt possum on a regular basis?

0 Replies

I got this handy advice from The White Trash Cookbook: "Before cooking your possum, first make sure it's dead. It could just be playing possum." I really wish I had made that up, that's A-list material.

0 Replies

CI, the true believers think Bush can do no wrong.

0 Replies

They are all blind and brain dead: the loss of life inIraq increases every day, while we spend billions every month in an occupied country, and bin Laden is free to roam Afghanistan.

0 Replies

Re: Let's analyze this paragraph from the Newsweek poll

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "According to the poll, 61 percent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 30 said Kerry won, 19 percent said Bush won and 16 percent said they tied. The number of debate viewers surveyed was 770."

How could anyone perceive that Bush won the debate from last Thursday night? 19 percent said Bush won. How is that possible? Let's discuss this further to get at the bottom of these numbers. We should discuss what is important in any debate. 1. Answering the question, 2. stating facts, 3. giving direct answers, 4. body language, and 5. courtesy (or following the rules).

Anybody may begin.

I don't think Bush won, but they did. I gather that you support Kerry for president. I find this nearly incredible, but accept that you see things differently than do I. I'll get over it and I suggest you do as well. All of my arguments will not assure a 100% vote for Bush come 11/2 and all of your arguments will not result in a 100% assessment that Kerry won.

It would, however, be interesting to hear from someone who believes Bush did win.

0 Replies

Finn, This is one of those catch 22 situations where we have two losers running for the highest office of the world. I've seen what damage Bush has done during his four years. He still doesn't have any plans on Iraq or Afghanistan, and situations in those two countries are getting worse. My only option is to seek change to see if anybody else can improve the situation for our country. That only somebody happens to be Kerry. Do I have confidence in all the promises he has made during his campaign? Absolutely not, but I'm willing to give him a chance just to seek some change for any improvement. Getting worse should not be an option under Bush.

0 Replies

"Stay the course" is no plan.

0 Replies

Quote:

It would, however, be interesting to hear from someone who believes Bush did win.

I posted one minute after the debate ended that I thought President Bush nailed it. I made notes during the entire 90 minutes, but only on Kerry's comments. (I've known for years what my president's stance is on the issues - so only needed to hear whether Kerry finally took a position).

In reading the notes again today - I still think Kerry lost. Not once did Kerry mention his senate career in which he consistently voted against military spending and defense appropriations. How does he justify lamenting that the troops don't have body armor when he voted against the $87 billion?

To end the war in Iraq, he wants to "hold a meeting." He was great at telling what he would do, but had nothing to say about anything he's actually done. He can't. He's done nothing.

His remark about the war in Iraq being a "grand diversion" so enraged my neighbor (a longtime staunch Democrat) whose son is serving there, she's starting a campaign to force him to apologize not only to the troops, but to all parents that have sons and/or daughters serving. She thinks he's immoral as well as incompetent.

He insulted our allies. He also lowered morale by saying our troops are making sacrifices in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are there fighting in the here and now. They deserve better from him.

He could have stopped with the "grand diversion" comment, but he sunk even lower in my estimation by proposing his "global test" theme. There is no way he can sell this to voting America. Period.

0 Replies

Just Wonders, You are blind to what is happening in the "real" world of politics, and you should learn more about issues before you make attacks on one side or the other. The fact about the $87 billion: "George W. Bush threatened to veto $87 billion in funding for operations in Iraq. If the money wasn't provided in exactly the way Bush requested, he threatened to veto the bill. In other words, Bush did the exact same thing that he is criticizing Kerry for doing. Bush argued for a particular set of requirements for how the money would be appropriated and was willing to oppose the funding package if he didn't get his way. (CBS News)"
Please do your homework before making charges that is one-sided.

0 Replies

Quote, "(I've known for years what my president's stance is on the issues - so only needed to hear whether Kerry finally took a position)." That's the reason why you have your head in the sand. It's not difficult to find opposing facts on most search engines. I highly recommend you use it.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Quote:
It would, however, be interesting to hear from someone who believes Bush did win.

I posted one minute after the debate ended that I thought President Bush nailed it. I made notes during the entire 90 minutes, but only on Kerry's comments. (I've known for years what my president's stance is on the issues - so only needed to hear whether Kerry finally took a position).

In reading the notes again today - I still think Kerry lost. Not once did Kerry mention his senate career in which he consistently voted against military spending and defense appropriations. How does he justify lamenting that the troops don't have body armor when he voted against the $87 billion?

To end the war in Iraq, he wants to "hold a meeting." He was great at telling what he would do, but had nothing to say about anything he's actually done. He can't. He's done nothing.

His remark about the war in Iraq being a "grand diversion" so enraged my neighbor (a longtime staunch Democrat) whose son is serving there, she's starting a campaign to force him to apologize not only to the troops, but to all parents that have sons and/or daughters serving. She thinks he's immoral as well as incompetent.

He insulted our allies. He also lowered morale by saying our troops are making sacrifices in the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are there fighting in the here and now. They deserve better from him.

He could have stopped with the "grand diversion" comment, but he sunk even lower in my estimation by proposing his "global test" theme. There is no way he can sell this to voting America. Period.

I agree with your assessment of what Kerry actually said, but I have to notice that you have not commented upon what Bush said, and not paying attention to what he said, because you already know what he thinks is somewhat disingenuous.

This was not a true debate,and it would have probably been even worse for Bush if it had been.

This was a performance. Kerry performed very well, and Bush performed very poorly.

I have always failed to see what true significance there is in a candidates being able to talk on his feet. That Kerry "won" the debate doesn't at all mean that his proposed policies "won." His positions and plans all still have the same holes and same unreliability they had pre-debate. What he "won" was a performance battle. He looked more relaxed, more in control, more "presidential," than Bush. That he is not as worthy as Bush of being president is not something I would dispute, but on that night, and in the context of what is looked for in presidential debates, he won.

0 Replies

Last night I overheard someone say they should drop the "C" from CBS...LOL.

imposter - I always try to respond to a post without making personal comments. Feel free to disagree with me, but leave my eyesight (which is 20/20 by the way) out of it, please. Thanks.

0 Replies

Finn - I understand what you're saying, but I think there were a lot more who watched to see what Kerry's position was than to hear what Bush had to say.

I actually listened more than "watched", so I'll take your word that Kerry was more relaxed. That's not important to me, at least not as important as what he said.

I didn't like much of what he said.

0 Replies

You claimed you knew the facts of your president. They are not facts.

0 Replies

When anybody can't see the opposing view, it's called "bias," and I'll challenge bias all day long.

0 Replies

I didn't watch the debate, C.I., only the rehashing of it, but I will make this observation. Let's assume for a moment, that Bush had a "fox" plan. If he looked as bad as everyone says that he did, that could bring false complacency to the Kerry camp. Often, it is the jester that is a mage, if you understand what I'm saying.

0 Replies

Let's analyze this paragraph from the Newsweek poll

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know