1
   

Everyone ready for Bush/Kerry debate #2?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 12:29 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
It's still, a Bush victory.

I dunno.

I thought Cheney had actually won in the veep debate, and the ABC poll did have him winning (be it only by a plurality) - but two other polls showed that undecided voters, specifically, thought Edwards had won. So I dunno.

Another thing to keep in mind is this. On the one hand, I think no challenger in recent history has come back from being behind at this time in the race and won after all - apart from Reagan. The status quo is generally simply not well suited for what a challenger needs to accomplish.

But with Bush, we do have something of an exceptional situation. Look at the development of his job approval ratings:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush-job-ratings_2001-2004_average.gif.

Here's a president who's not been able, not since 2001 in any case, to actually maintain any level of popularity for any length of time. The record is one of a continuous slide downwards, interrupted by intermittent bounces back up of decreasing size that were brought on by specific, eye-catching events. 9/11, the start of the war against Iraq, the capture of Saddam, and finally, the Republic Convention. Each of those gave Bush a boost - and immediately afterwards, he went sliding down again.

Normally, in a graph like this, you would see some to and fro that come down to a man's popularity going up and down within certain bandwidths. But with Bush, there's this overriding trend that seems to suggest that he can lift himself up by doing something spectacular - but as soon as the daily news is just that, he slides and slides.

Looking at it that way, you could argue that even just the daily grind of bad news from Iraq, middling news on jobs and the usual type of revelations-driven news stories would eventually bring Kerry to the lead again even if he himself achieves nothing particularly noteworthy (job approval is often taken as a good predicter of voting results). The question then is only if the lines will cross each other again in time for the elections.

I mean, I think Bush will still win. The elections are soon. But it's good to keep in mind that here's one President for whom a mere continuation of the status quo has never been kindly, so far.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 01:02 am
nimh wrote:


Here's a president who's not been able, not since 2001 in any case, to actually maintain any level of popularity for any length of time. The record is one of a continuous slide downwards, interrupted by intermittent bounces back up of decreasing size that were brought on by specific, eye-catching events. 9/11, the start of the war against Iraq, the capture of Saddam, and finally, the Republic Convention. Each of those gave Bush a boost - and immediately afterwards, he went sliding down again.

Perhaps the political dynamics of the country have been similar to those of
the past but, in my lifetime, I don't think I've seen a more polarized electorate, and there is no reason to believe the situation won't continue for years to come.

Should Kerry win, he can expect low approval ratings as well, and a nation where at least 33% of the populace think he is a vile scoundrel, and another 20% or so think he ain't no great shakes.

In the words of the immortal Pogo: "We have seen the enemy and he is us."


I mean, I think Bush will still win. The elections are soon. But it's good to keep in mind that here's one President for whom a mere continuation of the status quo has never been kindly, so far.

Should he win (and I agree with you that he will) the dynamics change dramatically. If Bush Haters thought he was bull headed when he had a second term to seek, just imagine how he will act in a second term when all bets are off?

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 01:03 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
nimh wrote:


Here's a president who's not been able, not since 2001 in any case, to actually maintain any level of popularity for any length of time. The record is one of a continuous slide downwards, interrupted by intermittent bounces back up of decreasing size that were brought on by specific, eye-catching events. 9/11, the start of the war against Iraq, the capture of Saddam, and finally, the Republic Convention. Each of those gave Bush a boost - and immediately afterwards, he went sliding down again.

Perhaps the political dynamics of the country have been similar to those of
the past but, in my lifetime, I don't think I've seen a more polarized electorate, and there is no reason to believe the situation won't continue for years to come.

Should Kerry win, he can expect low approval ratings as well, and a nation where at least 33% of the populace think he is a vile scoundrel, and another 20% or so think he ain't no great shakes.

In the words of the immortal Pogo: "We have seen the enemy and he is us."


I mean, I think Bush will still win. The elections are soon. But it's good to keep in mind that here's one President for whom a mere continuation of the status quo has never been kindly, so far.

Should he win (and I agree with you that he will) the dynamics change dramatically. If Bush Haters thought he was bull headed when he had a second term to seek, just imagine how he will act in a second term when all bets are off?


should be...as above
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 02:33 am
Don't know if anyone mentioned it or not but I couldn't believe that little incident where Bush had some kind of run in with the moderator. I mean this is the President of the US acting so rude. Yet people just let it slide and give Bush marks because he controlled his facial expressions a little better. He is such a jerk.

I think it is hopeless because we actually have people who like him.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 03:40 am
Revel
That would have been difficult to miss and I agree that it was extremely rude. I may be wrong, but I think Bush lost some ground on that little tantrum. There's no doubt that this is going to be a very close race. We'll see what the last debate brings us on Wednesday.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 05:25 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There is an enormous difference between watching a particular network and placing any faith in the utterly unscientific polls of their websites.


I didn't connect the CNN result with the whole poll. I post just an update of this...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 06:00 am
Montana wrote:
Revel
That would have been difficult to miss and I agree that it was extremely rude. I may be wrong, but I think Bush lost some ground on that little tantrum. There's no doubt that this is going to be a very close race. We'll see what the last debate brings us on Wednesday.


that move served him well with the people who already like him......that false sense of bravado and simplistic way to fix everything with a hammer even if a screwdriver is called for is what endears him to his base.

I mentioned on another thread that in a situation where he couldn't use his position as president to pull such a move I don't think he'd have the balls for the job...but that's just my opinion and my opinion doesn't matter at this point, nor does the opinion of his supporters. The question is how did that move, and everything else, resonate with the undecideds? It's in their hands now. Along of course, with Diebold, ESS and brother Jeb. :wink:
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 06:04 am
On my way to Virginia to work a wedding....you guys will have to armchair quarterback the debate without me........be brave....
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 07:30 am
Bear
Good point. God only knows which way it'll go.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 02:44 pm
I still have this window open since this morning with news media headlines on the debate (Google news search) ...

These are the ones that implied a judgement on who did better:

"Bush Fails to Stem Kerry Momentum in Second Debate, Polls Show", Bloomberg

"Tough fight leaves race open", BBC

"Bush comes out fighting in second debate", Telegraph (UK)

"Bush stronger in 2nd debate", San Jose Mercury News

"Bush more poised, but substance trumps style", San Diego Union Tribune

"Kerry wins on points, but misses the knockout", Salon

"Kerry keeps Bush on defensive", Seattle Post Intelligencer

"Round 2 to Bush", Arizona Republic

"Both candidates score points in second debate", News-Leader.com, MO

"Pundits see Bush win in second debate", Washington Times

"Analysis: Kerry on the offensive; Bush plays to his base", Minneapolis Star Tribune

"Bush Comes Out Fighting in Second Debate", Scotland on Sunday

"Kerry, Bush come out swinging in second debate", Sydney Morning Herald
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2004 02:53 pm
Looks like a graph that reflects what an addict would go through during withdrawal.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:00 am
OK!!

I've been largely locked out (phone problems) and I bet you can guess I have been going crazy not being able to talk about the debate. I've read a few threads, I can't figure out which is the "main" one, will just go here.

First, there were about 4 times when I jumped up and started cheering for Kerry. That didn't happen the first debate. He really nailed some stuff. (I have the transcript open in another window, [all TWENTY-ONE PAGES], will find the parts I mean.)

Second, there were also about 3 times I jumped up and imprecated him to do or say something other than what he was doing or saying. The two I can remember were when he was given that opportunity to say he wouldn't be raising taxes for everyone, "In short, uncomplicated sentences" or whatever it was and he came right out, good start, but then got off on wonky tangents... he couldn't just SAY it, a full sentence, look in the camera, hold it for a beat, THEN go on the wonky tangents.

The other was the rebuttal to the "mistakes" question. I mean, what a plum target! Bush's response was AWFUL. It should have been jumped all over. It's so representative. NO mistakes except for appointments and he doesn't want to name them on national TV??? Give me a break, dude. Kerry so should have quoted "the buck stops here." Give it some historical context. Pay lip service to hard decisions, etc. Lead up to it with the awesome responsibility of being president. And then whammo, and glare at Bush after doing it.

What he did say was strong; "catastrophic mistake" etc., but it was the same thing he'd been saying all night. I was up there waving my hands in his face yelling "say something NEW! Jump on it!!!" Frustrating.

"Gut-check time" was good.

OK, other comments:

- People here were talking about partisans, (abortion, mistakes), the audience *wasn't* all purely impartial undecideds -- there were equal numbers of leaning toward Kerry and leaning toward Bush, then some smaller percentage of true undecideds.

- I thought Bush's expressions while listening were absolutely hilarious. His effort was so apparent. The fixed, expressionless look. Meanwhile, everything was wafting across his eyes and forehead clear as day. He could NOT stop blinking. He tried so hard, and just couldn't do it.

Then, when he would lean down to take notes, he'd let the mask slip for a second in the transition -- "going from 'listening mode' to 'notetaking mode' now" -- and he'd do this tooth-grinding thing and his nostrils would flare, with mucho blinking throughout.

- The wood joke was funny in delivery but made no sense. Kerry's point was precisely that no, he's NOT a small business owner, that's what's so ridiculous about how Cheney and Bush are talking about 900,000 small business owners being effected -- Cheney and Bush are themselves considered "small business owners" in that formulation.

Just checked factcheck.org, Bush DOES own that company:

Quote:
Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company."  Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.


I better pause, will come back.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:09 am
Didn't Kerry say "Listen to your guts." ? Hoot! I had to look twice to make sure it wasn't Bush. Kerry had a couple of Bush-speak moments.

Kerry's sophomoric laughs and facial contortions were decidedly unPresidential. (In case you didn't notice what he was doing--so entranced with Bush's reactions.)

As for Bush coming off his seat over Kerry's statement that we were in Iraq unilaterally--going it alone--at first, I thought Bush should follow the rules, but it came off as a positive with a lot of people who are tired of Kerry and the Dems characterizing the war as unilateral--as if you aren't France or Germany, you are inconsequential. I'm glad Bush reacted to that as he did.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:11 am
Here's one of the cheers, in an exchange about the environment.

Quote:
KERRY: The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto, and I was part of that. I know what happened. But this president didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen, and we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years.

You wonder, Nikki, why it is that people don't like us in some parts of the world. You just say: Hey, we don't agree with you. Goodbye.

The president's done nothing to try to fix it. I will.


Loved how he linked back to what the questioner had said many questions ago, loved how he remembered her name, loved how he validated what she was saying, and said it all concisely, and brought it back to proactive. That was goood.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:16 am
(General question, brought to mind by the previous post)

How can you assail Bush for refusing Kyoto, when Kerry did as well?

If Bush didn't formulate Kyoto, when did it become his responsibility to re-formulate it?

When Kerry admitted he was against Kyoto, it gave Bush points. His charge that Bush should have UNILATERALLY taken over Kyoto and retooled it showed how shallow Kerry's complaints against Bush are.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:21 am
Quote:
How can you assail Bush for refusing Kyoto, when Kerry did as well?


For exactly the reason Kerry said.

Bush didn't even try to fix it, didn't try to work with people. Just walked away.

Unilaterally??? Wha..?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:22 am
Interesting take, Soz. I was starting to wonder where you were. I gather you score that one a Kerry victory as well?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:23 am
I think most of the other parts I liked have already been covered. This was good:

Quote:
KERRY: John, you heard the president just say that he thought he might try to be for it.

Four years ago, right here in this forum, he was asked the same question: Can't people be able to import drugs from Canada? You know what he said? "I think that makes sense. I think that's a good idea" -- four years ago.

Now, the president said, "I'm not blocking that." Ladies and gentlemen, the president just didn't level with you right now again. He did block it, because we passed it in the United States Senate. We sent it over to the House, that you could import drugs. We took care of the safety issues.

We're not talking about third-world drugs. We're talking about drugs made right here in the United States of America that have American brand names on them and American bottles. And we're asking to be able to allow you to get them.

The president blocked it. The president also took Medicare, which belongs to you. And he could have lowered the cost of Medicare and lowered your taxes and lowered the costs to seniors.

You know what he did? He made it illegal, illegal for Medicare to do what the V.A. does, which is bulk purchase drugs so that you can lower the price and get them out to you lower.

He put $139 billion of windfall profit into the pockets of the drug companies right out of your pockets. That's the difference between us. The president sides with the power companies, the oil companies, the drug companies. And I'm fighting to let you get those drugs from Canada, and I'm fighting to let Medicare survive.

I'm fighting for the middle class. That is the difference.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:26 am
Hiya Bill,

Yep. I think Bush did much much better in this one than in the first. He likes to pace, he likes to be able to make eye contact with his audience. I think he was a little unnerved a few times by the lack of reaction, but overall this was much, much more conducive to his strengths.

But Kerry did well on style as well, and did much better on substance IMO.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2004 09:28 am
Re unilaterally. I think the world community would have been even more appalled at the gall of Bush to take their Protocol and fix it to his preferences, rather than just say this Protocol is unworkable for the US. They brought it--shouldn't they be allowed to make the adjustments, if they are inclined to do so?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 11:34:07