Debate Number 2....Are You Watching?

Joe Nation wrote:

Well, okay.

If it's not Kerry, Edwards, Cheney/Bush tied for third,

how did you score the debates so far?

Wait. I know. It doesn't matter, right?

Yeah, uh huh.

Joe

After the first round:

Cheney, Edwards, Kerry and lastly Bush.

After second round:

Kerry, Bush, Cheney and Edwards. (I did see a tie in the second debate... but Kerry gets the nod because of the first).

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Well, okay.

If it's not Kerry, Edwards, Cheney/Bush tied for third,

how did you score the debates so far?

Wait. I know. It doesn't matter, right?

Yeah, uh huh.

Joe

No, wrong...yet again.

I don't believe debates should matter, but acknowledge that to some degree they do, and that in this race the first debate was very influential.
It's importance though isn't derived from substance, but style. Kerry appeared very much in control, not because he had the better ideas or facts, but because he was confident and articulate. Bush's ideas and facts didn't fail him in round one, his ability to speak clearly and confidently did.

The proof of this style over substance argument is that if Kerry had said every word he uttered in round one, in the stilted, peevish manner of Bush, he would have lost.

It would be nice if these debates were a true and thorough airing of the issues with each candidate's facts and assertions tested and challenged, but they are not. They are simply a recitation of the talking points developed by each campaign. The only way someone "wins" is if they put on an obviously better show than the other.

Every performance thus far was better than Bush's first.

Some sort of cumulative scoring seems forced and pointless.

Kerry, clearly cleaned Bush's clock in round one.

I gave Cheaney the nod over Edwards, but not by all that much.

If the second debate had actually been the first, I would have called it pretty much a draw. However, Bush was able to look much better and Kerry slipped a little from looking just as good, and therefore overall I give that debate to Bush.

What is important to note though is that the second debate did not at all neutralize the effect of the first debate, and neither will the third, unless Kerry somehow turns in a terrible performance - which is very unlikely.

Bush had to perform better in the second debate and he will have to perform at at least the same level in the third one. If he turns in another first round performance, he will be toast.

The first debate put a sudden and violent stop to a developing Bush momentum. It was hugely important to Kerry.

I suppose its possible that Kerry could crash and burn in round three and if he does so it will be because he tries to play it safe. I doubt very much this will happen though. I also doubt that Bush will crash and burn too, but if I had to bet on one of them going down, I would bet on Bush.

Frankly, I can't wait for the elections. I think I've overdosed on all the spin coming out of both camps.

0 Replies

"Frankly, I can't wait for the elections. I think I've overdosed on all the spin coming out of both camps."

AMEN!!

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

[
I don't believe debates should matter, but acknowledge that to some degree they do.

Finn, this is OT, and I apologise for addressing you in this thread like this, but without pm functioning, what else can I do? <ahem> BPB started another thread entitled, "I'm Wrong I'm Mistaken I Don't Care I Don't Apologize," it's near this one, I think I was the 3rd responder... anyway, I wanted an old saying a lawyer once told me when giving me debate advice, and for some reason, I am under the impression you are a lawyer... At the very least, a damn fine debater, and perhaps you know the saying...? Take a look, wouldja mind???

0 Replies

Hey, this is the fun part of the American election cycle.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
[
I don't believe debates should matter, but acknowledge that to some degree they do.

Finn, this is OT, and I apologise for addressing you in this thread like this, but without pm functioning, what else can I do? <ahem> BPB started another thread entitled, "I'm Wrong I'm Mistaken I Don't Care I Don't Apologize," it's near this one, I think I was the 3rd responder... anyway, I wanted an old saying a lawyer once told me when giving me debate advice, and for some reason, I am under the impression you are a lawyer... At the very least, a damn fine debater, and perhaps you know the saying...? Take a look, wouldja mind???

"Success requires no apologies; failure permits no alibis."
Napoleon Hill

0 Replies

The debates are necessary to "educate" the undecided voters, because they're still not sure who they prefer as our president. As many of us see the two candidates, they're not be 'best' this country can produce, and frustrates many of us.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The debates are necessary to "educate" the undecided voters, because they're still not sure who they prefer as our president. As many of us see the two candidates, they're not be 'best' this country can produce, and frustrates many of us.

sad but true, c.i.

but i do think it's a good thing to see the candidates gabbing a little instead of relying solely on print and sound bites.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The debates are necessary to "educate" the undecided voters, because they're still not sure who they prefer as our president. As many of us see the two candidates, they're not be 'best' this country can produce, and frustrates many of us.

I suppose that if someone had never listened to anything coming out of either candidate's campaign or mouth, they might be educated by the debates, however anyone who might rely upon the debates for their sole or primary introduction to the candidates is probably not going to make a well informed choice under any circumstances.

The only thing new that was delivered by either candidate were the preplanned replies prepared for the expected attacks of their opponents: "I'm not a flip flopper;" "I didn't mislead the American people."

Both candidates spoke with soundbites in mind, either in terms of repeating ones that had been in use on the campaign trail, or introducing new ones they hoped might become staples.

The debates are entertaining in the way watching someone walk a tightwire is entertaining. There's no real art or athletics, just the excitement born of knowing the walker can fall.

They can be important, but for unfortunate reasons.

Being articulate and quick on the uptake are admirable traits, and ones my ideal president would possess, but I just don't see them as important enough to be the deciding factor in a voting decision.

0 Replies

Finn, Without the debates, most people do not understand the speaking skills of the candidates, and they'll vote by guess and by golly. I'm not sure which is the better choice.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Finn, Without the debates, most people do not understand the speaking skills of the candidates, and they'll vote by guess and by golly. I'm not sure which is the better choice.

I think it's easy to argue that the candidates have not shown speaking styles all that different from the ones they use during prepared speeches, but since when is speaking skills more important than ideas and established records of decisions made and actions taken?

If one is voting on the the basis of speaking skills, one is voting by gloss and by glimmer.

0 Replies

Finn, The importance of ideas between Bush and Kerry are so muddled, it just creates more confusion. Tell me this isn't so. The only thing left are speaking skills and body language.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Finn, The importance of ideas between Bush and Kerry are so muddled, it just creates more confusion. Tell me this isn't so. The only thing left are speaking skills and body language.

I see a sharp contrast between the two men in terms of ideas, actions, and style. I don't need the latter to inform me about the former.

0 Replies

You are in the distinct minority. Even many of the political pundits agree with my position; that not much will change no matter who is elected on November 2. The rhetoric from both sides make more people confused than enlightened. Bush: The war in Iraq is progressing well. Kerry: I would have handled the war differently. We are now two years into the war, Mr kerry. How would you do things differently?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You are in the distinct minority.

As usual.

Even many of the political pundits agree with my position; that not much will change no matter who is elected on November 2. The rhetoric from both sides make more people confused than enlightened. Bush: The war in Iraq is progressing well. Kerry: I would have handled the war differently. We are now two years into the war, Mr kerry. How would you do things differently?

I believe very little of what Kerry is saying. I believe a Kerry adminsitration will be quite Liberal in nature and noticibly different from Bush's. Therefore, for me the choice is clear for reasons other than style.

0 Replies

Quote, "I believe very little of what Kerry is saying." That's the same problem I see with Kerry. Too many promises with a republican controlled congress doesn't proffer a good mix.

0 Replies

Debate Number 2....Are You Watching?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know