RSSLast nights debate
Oct 14
Seemed less eventful than the first one (I missed the second because of being on a plane) There weren’t any real “zingers” by either guy. I think it was less eventful because Bush is very vulnerable on Iraq and his “diversion from terror.” The proof of his failed policies is there for everyone to see. On domestic issues he can still lie like he did back in the 2000 election, and some people apparently believe him.
Kerry did well and was definitely appealing to women and minorities. Bush did better than the first debate although his coaching on not looking angry wasn’t perfect. His smiles and smirks often looked very forced and not genuine.
Another interesting point was that Bush tried to slam Kerry for offering only criticism and not a solution. Bush, however, never mentioned how he would do anything in particular, just that he “had a plan.”
Here’s the data showing that Kerry won the debate in the polls.
Bush was also caught in yet another blatant lie. Bush said the comment about him not being concerned about Bin Laden was an “exageration.” Here’s the video of him saying those exact words.
Also, on the bright side I know of one undecided voter at my work who was completely swayed to Kerry by the second debate. His comment was “this is the guy in charge of our nuclear weapons?” Cheers.
Oct 14, 2004 @ 11:28:14
I haven’t looked at the “results” of the debates, ie. the effect it had on the polls, yet. I will shortly, since our friendly neighbourhood moderator has courteously posted a link. However, I want to make this post based solely on my own experience.
Bush was scary last night. He seemed a lot more competenet this time, but only because he was doing a bizarre parody of Kerry, right down to the smirking and scribbling. You knew it was a parody because he did both at the same time. While Kerry was speaking, he would smirk in Kerry’s direction and scribble wildly without even looking down at what he was writing. But I’m sure his handlers told him to do that.
And every time he said he had a plan or a solution, it sounded cogent, except that it was the plan that Kerry described in debate one. He described “his” ideas for malpractise and tort reform as if they weren’t exactly the policies Kerry’s been campaigning on.
When 50% of the population are mindless drones who’ll believe anything, those are exactly the type of tactics that’ll get Bush elected.
It was a scary debate because Kerry started off so badly that I was tempted to change the channel. His opening remarks were uninspiring rehashes of earlier debates. No matter what question was asked, the answer was “X million Americans have lost their health care.”
I realize he was trying to nail down the seniors’ vote, which is pivotal because that’s the only demographic that you can count on to turn out and actually vote. But seriously, debating Bush should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Don’t make it any harder than it has to be.
Kerry redeemed himself, I think, as the debate wore on. He proposed a few new ideas. He had some new statistics. He became more confident. He didn’t fall into the trap of calling Bush on his obvious lies.
Bush tried to goad him into an arguement by quoting Kerry’s voting record out of context (voted for raising taxes X times) and Kerry matter of factly corrected him (voted against raising taxes 6X times). I think this demonstrated a difference in character between the two men that renewed my faith in Kerry as a presidential figure.
At the end of the debate I still felt that Bush had won some victories within the demographics he was shooting for. The craziest thing about this election is that the two men are campaigning to different demographics. Kerry wants undecideds, seniors, fiscal conservatives, and peaceniks. Bush wants social conservatives, religious conservatives, rednecks and paranoids. And in that respect, I believe both men won.
=Dan