Both Campaigns Stunned by Last-Minute Debate Participant

Yeah there can. As far as I remember, the 1992 exit polls showed Perot voters saying in equal parts they wouldve voted Clinton resp. Bush if Perot hadnt run. And my memory is pretty unreliable, but i distinctly remember writing those numbers down, which always helps.

Dunno about 96 - the remaining Perot voters by then mighta been more overwhelmingly Republican-leaning. But in 92 they was pretty evenly divided.

Wow, you were responding to a reply I hadnt even posted yet!

Yeah, I know that Perot's score meant that Clinton could win with only 43% of the vote.

But the way I remember the numbers, the Perot voters would actually have divided up equally over Bush and Clinton had he not run. So you cant simply add his numbers to Bush's.

FWIW (not much): the MSNBC online poll again has 72% saying Kerry won, 28% saying Bush won. Thats with 612,000 votes in, and suspiciously alike to the same-night numbers the last two times. Considering the amazing continuity in the pattern it probably says more about MSNBC surfers and the respective net volunteer armies than about the actual debate. Expect it to be a bit more closer by tomorrow morning - something like 63/37 or something.

Who won the debate?

OK I'm gonna be lazy & pick these numbers from the comments page on Daly's blog, instead of looking up all the respective websites to find the numbers first-hand. Hope they dont include any mistakes:

ABC News - on a sample that included 38% Republicans and only 30% Democrats / 28% Independents:
Kerry 42%
Bush 41%

CBS News Poll
Kerry 39%
Bush 25%

Gallup/CNN - on a sample that included - EDITED to correct numbers - 36% Democrats, 36% Republicans and 28% Independents
Kerry 52%
Bush 39%

CNN Focus Group, 17 on the panel
Kerry 10
Bush 7

I remember hearing those numbers too, but I never believed it. Ross was advocating mostly republican ideals (not that republicans really represent them themselves anymore...)... Smaller government, fiscal responsibility, tough drug policy etc. It just doesn't make sense that half his support would revert to democrats in his absence. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. I further believe that had everyone voted for Ross that didn't because it was supposedly "wasting your vote", he would have won that election himself. He sure seemed that popular with everyone I knew. And I knew a lot of people who chose not to "waste their vote".

(I agree that poll is useless :wink:)

Hmmm ... my guess is that Perot drew in a lot of voters who didnt necessarily primarily vote on clean questions of principles and ideals. They just liked the fact that here was a third candidate, telling what came across as the tough truths of the day, confronting the lame-ass main parties. They liked a guy with guts who brought up topics the other two would have preferred to shirk and just went in there.

Lot of people vote as much on how a person comes across (in Perot's case: straight-shooter, knows the business, has our long-term interests at heart, wont shirk the difficult questions) as on the extent to which their actual ideals / opinions line up with the candidate's (a Bush supporter should know ... ;-)). Add that 1992 came after four years of Bush Sr. in office, and third party candidates tend to attract primarily the protest vote. Many of those who voted Perot voted Perot cause they were fed up with the status quo. If they were fed up, they werent all that likely to just happily revert to voting for the guy who had actually been in power for the last four years.

Anyway - those'd be some of my speculations on why Perot got a lot of votes that would otherwise have gone Clinton as well. There's a "stabbed in the back" myth quality to the "Clinton only won because of Perot" storyline thats rooted itself in the eight years that followed.

All good and reasonable reasons, Nimh, and I certainly cannot prove my gut feeling on it, but I can't change it either. Perhaps it's because I feel more of the "didn't want to waste my vote" people went to Clinton (you know how wishy-washy them democrats can be :wink:). The media damn sure wasn't shooting to straight that year with the "doesn't stand a chance" nonsense... I still find 19% astounding considering the onslaught of propaganda aimed at the man. We'll certainly never know now, but my gut still insists the Press stole the election from Ross Perot (who had stolen it from Bush) and gave it to Clinton.
I freely admit that I am far from unbiased on this one. I campaigned heavily for Ross Perot. Shouldn't you be in bed by now? (well, maybe you are)

The president of the company walked in for an impromptu meeting and I had to stop listening.

From what little I heard, I didn't hear either candidate break through.

IMO, a lot of the "Bush lost" perception in these debates is related to preconception about him being a bad speaker.

Through these debates my impression is that Bush undercut some of that impression (hence the "wire" stories) and that Kerry undid a lot of the attack ad impressions simply by getting in front of America in a more favorable setting.

To me, these are both ties, as Bush is a better speaker than the cartoonish impression of him and Kerry can't possibly have portrayed himself as badly as the attack ads painted him.

Ultimately, how I think he fared is less relevant than how public perception takes it, and it seems like Kerry's coming out as a winner from these debates by a small margin.

I can only hope it can not only halt his slide but reverse it, and IMO it's at least halting it.

"Pretzel impaired" is a point?

When I swung by my grandma's house I got on her puter real quick to see some numbers, and on the AOl poll it was about that as well, with 16% saying it changed their mind to vote for Kerry, no change in the 70s and 4% a change for Bush.

Wow - do you folks think the debates really will change votes?

They certainly can D. If Bush had put in 2 more performances like his first one, he'd have lost in a landslide. He may have lost my vote with the one. I can't imagine what Kerry could do to earn mine at this point, but I may well find a third party (as usual). There are people I haven't actually met right here on A2K that I'd rather vote for than either of these two. Who do you choose… the nut, the yes-man or Mr. Irrelevant? Pretty sh!tty choices if you ask me.

Sorry Bill, but this made me laugh out loud. I don't see what you're seeing and when you say "Bush seems to be more honest", that just cracks me up. I've never seen a president lie as much as Bush has and I simply can't see honesty and him having anything in common.

I think Kerry won this last debate without a doubt and my reasons are because he answered the questions placed in front of him, while Bush failed to answer several of the questions and kept drifting off to education, as if education is the solution to all problems. There are so many educated people out there right now who can't even get jobs, so what good is that education if there are no jobs available to them after they've spent thousands of dollars educating themselves. Also, Bush, s response on the assault weapon question was pathetic. And of course I couldn't help but laugh when Bush was asked what he would do about obtaining flu shots, he responded by saying he would look to Canada to get some. Now, in the last debate, didn't he say that his reason for cutting the American people off from getting meds from Canada was because of safety issues? What makes the flu shots safe, but not the other meds? He's a bold faced lier who stands behind the drug companies who are the most dangerous companies on this planet. The drug companies don't want Americans buying their meds from Canada because it takes money out of their greedy pockets, so Bush lies to the people by telling them that Canadian drugs are not safe and cuts them off from getting them cheaper.
Bush has told lies upon lies upon lies and I pray for the American people and the rest of the world that he is voted the hell out of there.

Good post, Montana.

Btw, Bill, Whitewater was part of, in fact, the first of, the many accusations hurled at Clinton in order to subvert his Presidency. The first articles on it appeared in the NYT before the first election. Four special prosecutors and 60 million dollars of our money later found just what Clinton had said when first asked about it, "I lost money on an Arkansas land deal." I wish the neo-cons had just been honest enough about their passionate hate for the man and actually marched on Washington to overthrow his administration, instead we had to wallow through false accusation after rumor after false accusation. Their vehement opposition bordered on sedition and, in the opinion of many, made this country politically weaker, certainly setting the groundwork for the divide we face today in America.

What's truly upsetting is that George W. Bush had a moment after 9/11 in which he might have kept us all working together for a long time. He had the chance to be that uniter he keeps telling us he is, but instead, he fell back into this odd -don't need no help from ya'll- position on everything from Prescription Drug Benefits to Iraq, thereby leading to where we are now, split down the middle and un-united.

Regarding the debate: I think someone told George to smile through every answer. His face seemed locked in a robotic grin, and he always looks surprised when he said something that might make sense, like "Wow, did I just say that?" If you recorded the debate, look back at the first fifteen minutes and see if I am just making this up.

Kerry was workmanlike, nothing flashy, lots of numbing numbers that I wonder what or who they appeal to (665,000 blah blah blah in Wisconsin alone.) but he did answer the questions and I think he will make a far better President than the present occupant.

Joe

Joe

I couldn't agree more Joe and thanks.

I'm no Kerry groupie either, but obviously he can do a better job than Bush has. If Bush is voted in for another 4 years, the entire world has plenty to worry about.

Update:


See Timber's post above for interesting details:
- Kerry "won" despite the sample including more Republicans than Democrats (though it must be added that the Independents leaned towards Kerry in greater numbers than towards Bush even before the debate).
- 81% of Democrats thought Kerry won while only 73% of Republicans thought Bush won, with Independents thinking Kerry won by 42% to 35%.
- There was no immediate effect on voter preferences (as there rarely is, any movement in the polls tends to come afterwards)


This was a poll of uncommitted voters


I had the sample info wrong (That's what you get if you take your data from blog comments). According to the Gallup site, the sample was made up of 36% Democrats, 36% Republicans and 28% Independents.

The results are impressive especially in comparison. The same poll had Kerry winning the second debate by only 47% to 45% - and had him winning the first debate by 53% to 37%. So the Gallup poll has Kerry winning this latest one by almost as much as he won the first debate.


Addition:

Democracy Corps post-debate poll (Democratic pollster) says that Kerry won the debate slightly:
Kerry 41%
Bush 36%
Another 11% said "both" and 13% said "neither".

The survey also credits Kerry with a 2-point bounce in his overall poll numbers (47% to 49%). Bush stayed unchanged at 46%. 30% of respondents leaned Republican, 29% lean Democrat.

More info from the CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey:

- 73% of Republicans thought Bush won; 86% of Democrats thought Kerry won. Independents thought Kerry won 54% to 34%.

- "The poll also shows that 42% of viewers said they felt more favorable toward Kerry as a result of the debate, while just 15% felt less favorable. By comparison, 27% of viewers felt more favorable toward Bush, and 17% felt less favorable."

- Kerry "beat the president by more than 10 percentage points on caring "about the needs of people like you" (53% to 41%) and having "a good understanding of the issues" (49% to 37%). [..] Kerry also had a 7-point advantage on Bush on which candidate "agreed with you more on the issues you care about" (53% to 46%)." On "showing he shared your values", Kerry won by a narrow 4 points. Kerry was deemed slightly more believable (by a 3% margin), but less likable (by a 5% margin)

- 55% of viewers said afterwards that Kerry could handle healthcare better, 41% Bush. "Kerry edged Bush on the economy by five points (51% Kerry, 46% Bush), the candidates essentially tied on education (Kerry 48%, Bush 47%), and Bush had a 3-point advantage on taxes (50% Bush, 47% Kerry)."

Montana, Joe,

Okay you guys, take a pill each. Both of your predispositions are shining so brightly it is difficult for me to see your reactions to this debate.

That's not to say I don't have predispositions of my own; they just don't seem as overshadowing (to me). Perhaps because I'm not as interested in electing or dispelling either candidate as you are.

Montana, dear, I'll start with you. :wink:

See, this is where you lost track of the context of what you quoted. My "Bush seems to be more honest" comment is a guess at how someone who doesn't follow politics would view them, from last night's performance alone. I believe a significant portion of "undecided" are people who don't know much about the men. The opinions of many well-informed folks like you and Joe, as you've clearly proven in your responses, were not swayable. Look around the board and you will see the majority of people, from both sides of the fence saw their candidate as the winner. I didn't say Bush was honest... I said he appeared that way. Stubborn, resolute to a fault, avoiding questions that he doesn't want to answer, and yes, even stupidity can be interpreted as more honest... Especially when he's up against the answer-man, who can be all things to all people, has a decent-to-excellent answer ready for most questions and can state that he never changed his position on Iraq with the same conviction that he says he loves his children. Effortlessly spitting out facts and figures, while impressive to the choir, may further alienate the terminally ill-informed and the retention-challenged. Think about 2 car salesman:

One a down-home type who says things like it aint perfect but it sure runs good, don't it?

The other effortlessly spits out facts and figures while doing a splendid job of describing why it is the perfect automobile.

Which one would strike the average bloke as more honest... and which one might he find a bit intimidating?

Now, it's only my opinion... but I think the hardest punch landed in this fight was Bush's reminder that the Senator voted against Gulf War 1. His timing on that one was impeccable.

When I said "Kerry got a little winded there in the middle and forgot to check his cadence"; I was referring to his snobby Senatorial tone that he's done such a masterful job of masking better and better with each performance. When he takes a hard shot, it seems to slip out... and while it has nothing to do with his leadership skills, it's still like scratching the chalkboard to a lot of us Midwesterners.

One more thing about honesty. When a stupid person makes a mental mistake, it will usually be described as an honest mistake. When a smart person makes a mental mistake, aren't you quicker to think he's lying?
Politics is perception.

The second hardest blow of the night, just IMO, was when the men were asked what they learned from their wives. Bush answered first, solid, got a couple of laughs in before Kerry could respond. Then, when he did answer; his answer, inevitably brought up images of his wife. Tactless wealthy hag Vs. well spoken lady...
It's little wonder why the usually slower of the two men got off first and with better seemingly more spontaneous answers. This was in the late rounds of the fight... perhaps Bush's moderating friend placed it there on purpose?




Joe, we could argue about Clinton till the cows come home and never reach common ground. He is without question, IMO, the best politician we seen speak this campaign season… but that don't make him the best man. I still believe Whitewater was side-tracked by the more sensational Monica ordeal… and frankly I suspect the Clinton's leaked Monica so it would be. I'm not interested in debating that debacle at this time.

My point was; had my assessment been correct, and 2/3rds (or so) of Ross Perot's votes went to Bush, Clinton would never have become President. Whitewater and the bimbo parade, regardless of merit, would have prevented his name from being on a second ticket. With all his charisma, the Democrats were not going to field a man with all his baggage twice (baggage= perception that he: draft dodger, didn't inhale, womanizer, possible crook, couldn't even get re-elected governor in his home state etc. etc. etc.) He simply wasn't the kind of man who gets more than one shot.

As for your assessment of Bush's performance during the debate, I didn't think Bush was as bad as you, but certainly not as shiny as Kerry. If you look just above you'll see my newest perception; Nut Vs. Yes-man. Nothing illustrated this more clearly than that faith question. Bush looked like a nut, and Kerry looked like he was lying. I believe the people will pick the nut over the liar.

That's kind of the nature of predispositions, ain't it? ;-)

Noam Scheiber makes some good points. And does anyone detect a pattern here?

<moved to other thread>