Who won the debate?

[scarpa43]

...is it really fair to automatically assume that he was putting on a show? Ya know, it is possible to find somebody every once in a while that's capable of thinking on their own. Not saying I know for sure Kerry was, just pointing out it was a possibility. *shrugs*

I was not trying to imply that Kerry is not capable of thinking on his own, after thinking about it a little, I think that he might have been writing so that he was not just staring into space like Bush was.
I think that made Bush look bad, anytime Kerry was talking Bush was staring at nothing and reacting with his facial expressions, but Kerry would just nod and take notes or whatever.

[RoadDawg]

I think Kerry won that round. Overall the debate was repetative. I didn't know Foreign Policy dealt with just the war on terrorism/Iraq. Overall it did answer some questions on Iraq/Afghanistan that I was interested in hearing. Can't wait for the other 3 debates (VP's included)

[taylor492]

Bush's redeeming quality was his ability to look into the camera when he was speaking. It really felt like he was talking to you directly. Like he wanted to talk to you. I just dont get that impression from Kerry.

But it seemed like everytime Kerry said something critical of Bush(which was alot), Bush would kinda do this tight-lipped face, that wasnt very flattering. Kerry is a better public speaker on paper but i like to hear Bush speak because he seems more personable.

Anyone else notice how Bush kept saying "my opponent"?

[i_baked_cookies]

Doesn't matter who won, all that matters is who lost: US.

very well said mr wallen

[Albinonewt]

Bush won by default.

Neither did so much better then the other that any kind of meaningfull win was scored. Plus, the majority of viewers turn off after half an hour or so, and Bush was doing much better then Kerry at that point.

Kerry is the challenger, his views relativly unknown, and is down in the polls. He needed to land some serious blows in this debate and he didn't.

[Kai]

Bush won by default.

Neither did so much better then the other that any kind of meaningfull win was scored. Plus, the majority of viewers turn off after half an hour or so, and Bush was doing much better then Kerry at that point.

Kerry is the challenger, his views relativly unknown, and is down in the polls. He needed to land some serious blows in this debate and he didn't.

I dunno... I was watching the debate with some Bush fans. There were several times when even they had to pull the "ooh, burn" face.

[Lohman446]

The problem Kerry has is the same one Gore had.

Gore and Kerry are both classically excellent debators. Think of what we think of Bush and his public speaking skills.

Many expected Kerry to win - and he did. Now he did better than Gore did, but its kind of like a Patriots Lions game. If the Patriots win by 7 points they still win, but they don't beat the point spread.

I don't think Kerry gained anything from this win, I will be interested to see the next poll figures. Kerry entering these debates... well there his chance to loose, I don't think winning them gains him anything. I honestly think more is at stake in the VP debates.

[OysterBoy]

I noticed Bush contradicting himself several times.. 'You cannot have a President who changes from situation to situation' , and then, 'You need to have a President who will change depending on the threats, such as the Al Queda and the Sadam Loyalists', or something to that effect.

[Steelrat]

Gotta love the faces he made. Rolling the eyes didn't work for Gore, didn't work for the President either.

[evan123]

I would have to agree with the part on Tony on how people can critque his already job while you can't do that to Mr. Kerry. Kerry happens to contradict everything he said for instance saying how the military was un-supplied in Iraq when he disapproved on the billion dollar tax to help troops get supplied. He also said that focus should be towards al-Queda and made is sound like we have done nothing towards them in which we have gotten 75% of the most important al-queda leaders. It must have been very nerve-racking to be in President Bush's shoes considering the questions seemed to be all negative towards him. Though this may sound i love bush, i don't i just think that the debate was biased in questions and the fact that they can pick at stuff he has done which you can't do towards Kerry.

[Kai]

I would have to agree with the part on Tony on how people can critque his already job while you can't do that to Mr. Kerry. Kerry happens to contradict everything he said for instance saying how the military was un-supplied in Iraq when he disapproved on the billion dollar tax to help troops get supplied. He also said that focus should be towards al-Queda and made is sound like we have done nothing towards them in which we have gotten 75% of the most important al-queda leaders. It must have been very nerve-racking to be in President Bush's shoes considering the questions seemed to be all negative towards him. Though this may sound i love bush, i don't i just think that the debate was biased in questions and the fact that they can pick at stuff he has done which you can't do towards Kerry.

It's not like Kerry has never held a public office before. I mean... The entire Bush defense consists of picking at what Kerry has done in the past. The questions just aren't concerning the same job.

You guys act like this is the first debate in which the president has had to defend his actions against a challenger who has never been in the oval office.

Edited for clarity.

[MaChu]

Ok, the real debate is later, Cheney vs Edwards. Both are very educated and well spoken, it should be very nice to see

[FactsOfLife]

I waited a couple of days before posting in this thread.

I did a couple of things I normally don't do in most political threads, I went and looked at the profiles of the posters.

Sort of a half assed AO demographic.

My impression of the replies here is the younger posters seem to favor Kerry considerably.

The older posters almost to a man favor Bush.

The younger posters all had basically the same response to the debate:

Kerry had a better, more polished delivery, and was the better debater.

Bush gave a solid if unspectacular debate, and stayed on message throughout the debate.

Most of the posters that gave the win to Kerry based their response on a general negativity to Bush and his debate performance rather than Kerry's superior debating style, and/or substance.

Majority of posters that liked Bush's debate performance gave their answer in a more positive tone towards the President's answers/substantive messages, and very little was said about Kerry's style of debating. Where there was a point made by someone who had given the debate win to Bush, comments about Kerry's style of debating it was generally positive for Kerry's style.

In negative posts about Bush's debate performance some of the words used were: stupid, chimp. blank faced, pwned(not technically a word).

In negative posts about Kerry's debate performance, some of the words used were: repetetive, contradictory, and one negative comment about his wife. Which is interesting in and of itself, in that lately the liberal First Wives, and Candidate First Wives are extremely polarizing to the general public. Makes you wonder if the public indeed looks at the wife of a candidate as an influence in their decision.

Just some interesting tidbits about the posters themselves.

[Miscue]

I noticed Bush contradicting himself several times.. 'You cannot have a President who changes from situation to situation' , and then, 'You need to have a President who will change depending on the threats, such as the Al Queda and the Sadam Loyalists', or something to that effect.

Wrong.

The first sentence means you need consistency - you can't keep changing your opinion for political reasons. The second sentence means you have to adapt to the situation and respond appropriately - and this can mean adopting new ways to deal with unique problems... there are not one-size fits all solutions. These are two mutually exclusive ideas and are not contradictory.

Contradiction is when you say the war is good, and then the war is bad, and then the war is good, and then the war is bad...

[Miscue]

I waited a couple of days before posting in this thread.

I did a couple of things I normally don't do in most political threads, I went and looked at the profiles of the posters.

Sort of a half assed AO demographic.

My impression of the replies here is the younger posters seem to favor Kerry considerably.

The older posters almost to a man favor Bush.

The younger posters all had basically the same response to the debate:

Kerry had a better, more polished delivery, and was the better debater.

Bush gave a solid if unspectacular debate, and stayed on message throughout the debate.

Most of the posters that gave the win to Kerry based their response on a general negativity to Bush and his debate performance rather than Kerry's superior debating style, and/or substance.

Majority of posters that liked Bush's debate performance gave their answer in a more positive tone towards the President's answers/substantive messages, and very little was said about Kerry's style of debating. Where there was a point made by someone who had given the debate win to Bush, comments about Kerry's style of debating it was generally positive for Kerry's style.

In negative posts about Bush's debate performance some of the words used were: stupid, chimp. blank faced, pwned(not technically a word).

In negative posts about Kerry's debate performance, some of the words used were: repetetive, contradictory, and one negative comment about his wife. Which is interesting in and of itself, in that lately the liberal First Wives, and Candidate First Wives are extremely polarizing to the general public. Makes you wonder if the public indeed looks at the wife of a candidate as an influence in their decision.

Just some interesting tidbits about the posters themselves.

Yeah, youth and stupidity versus age and wisdom.

Well... you guys have the age thing, I dunno about me yet.