| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2004 01:06:27 AM · #1 |
Early Returns:
CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37
CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30
ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17
---------------------------------------
"As far as the debate goes, I don't see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry."
-- Joe Scarborough
"I thought the President was repetitive and reactive."
-- Kate O'Beirne
"I think Kerry did pretty well tonight, he was forceful and articulate."
-- Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 01:40:53 AM · #2 |
He did alot better than that; impressive.
CNN Pole
Kerry = 78% 132623 votes
Bush = 18% 29940 votes
Total Votes: 169216
CBS Pole
Kerry = 91%
Bush = 8%
CNBC Pole
Kerry = 77%
Bush = 23%
Total Votes: 10731
MSN Pole
Kerry = 70%
Bush = 30%
Total Votes: 605715
ABC Pole |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 01:46:18 AM · #3 |
Even conservative bloggers agree that Kerry kicked butt:
I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout.
-- //powerlineblog.com/archives/008023.php
I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.
Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate.
-- //polipundit.com/index.php?p=4296
I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly ΓΆ€” much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy ΓΆ€” not Joe Political Junkie ΓΆ€” I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry.
-- //www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200410010114.asp
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 06:28:48 AM · #4 |
I have to admit to getting tired of Bush repeating himself. My wife and I found ourselves chatting during these moments and we noted that we wished he'd say something new.
However, neither candidate really addressed how bad things really are in Iraq, and neither spoke on how they would 'win' the war with any specifics, though both said that they would.
I did like the debate format, which disallowed comments to each other. They could only speak on the issues and to Jim Lehrer. There will be another debate on domestic issues in a few weeks. I'll be looking forward to that.
The real winners of the debate are the American People, who were able to hear and contrast both positions for the first time side by side as each candidate was required to be succinct and lucid. Well, succinct at least.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 06:30:37 AM · #5 |
By the way, views on debate 'winners' has a tendency to change, often drastically, within 72 hours of its ending, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the long term.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 06:32:59 AM · #6 |
| Also bear in mind opt-in polls are not representative of the population. :) |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 06:35:04 AM · #7 |
The difference between the poll numbers here is the first set are based on scientifically valid random samples. The second are based on those who voluntarily go to the web site and vote. The first set of numbers are probably more accurate.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 09:46:50 AM · #8 |
Over a million votes from just 2 of those sites and the ratio is still the same. :)
I swear, why the hell do they wait to the last minute to debates. There should be no ads, no TV commercials, no BS; just debates. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 10:37:28 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Over a million votes from just 2 of those sites and the ratio is still the same. :)
I swear, why the hell do they wait to the last minute to debates. There should be no ads, no TV commercials, no BS; just debates. |
I agree completely.. take the money out of the equation and we might actually see a "real" and fair representation of who we're voting for. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 12:52:39 PM · #10 |
faces
Orgies are good :-)
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 12:58:15. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 01:53:21 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Even conservative bloggers agree that Kerry kicked butt:
I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout.
-- //powerlineblog.com/archives/008023.php
I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.
Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate.
-- //polipundit.com/index.php?p=4296
I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly ΓΆ€” much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy ΓΆ€” not Joe Political Junkie ΓΆ€” I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry.
-- //www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200410010114.asp |
I generally agree with pretty much all that, except possibly for the certainty of a bounce. One overnight poll I heard kept Bush with a 4 or 5 point lead (51-46 before the debate, 52-47 after). And I'd certainly pull up a bit short of saying Kerry "kicked butt". :)
Strictly focusing on this as a stand-alone event, Kerry definitely out-performed Bush, and Bush very much fell flat. The problem Kerry will continue to have (at least to those who've followed the coverage and leans anywhere right of left) is believability - much of what he said sounded good and was fairly well delivered, but even at my most generous I was left wondering how much of it he believed, and how much I could believe him. (Of course, I understand, you have the same issue with Bush.)
Putting aside David's platitude about Americans being the real winners (true, but not what any of us partisans are looking at (: ), the early winner (as David pointed out) won't be known for a few days, and the real winner won't be determined until Nov. 2.
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 13:55:00. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:04:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
He did alot better than that; impressive.
CNN Pole
Kerry = 78% 132623 votes
Bush = 18% 29940 votes
Total Votes: 169216
CBS Pole
Kerry = 91%
Bush = 8%
CNBC Pole
Kerry = 77%
Bush = 23%
Total Votes: 10731
MSN Pole
Kerry = 70%
Bush = 30%
Total Votes: 605715
ABC Pole |
Aw, c'mon, can't you at least pretend to have a little objectivity? All but the ABC one specifically say they aren't scientific, i.e. worthless. It's just as valid as Sean Hannity's poll earlier this week when 97% of the respondants believed Kerry got his tan from a can. Funny, but meaningless. I generally hate internet polls, they're so useless.
Of course, you didn't include the numbers from the ABC poll which looked much more realistic (and also showed that even those more balanced numbers were highly skewed on partisan grounds), and don't reflect any effect on the vote by the debate (that must be the source of the numbers I heard this morning, mentioned in my last post).
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 14:04:37. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:06:53 PM · #13 |
From Last Night's Presidential Debate:
BUSH: My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
---------------------------------------
And here's what the president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, said recently (March 2004) about the Iraq War:
ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.
--[ //www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.htm ]
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:11:50 PM · #14 |
Truth watch: Both candidates use self-serving oversimplifications
Calvin Woodward
Associated Press
Sept. 30, 2004 08:40 PM
WASHINGTON - President Bush spoke as if al-Qaida leaves senior positions vacant when its top operatives are taken down, boasting in his debate with John Kerry that three-quarters of the terrorist network's leaders are gone. His Democratic opponent spoke as if only the rich got a tax cut under Bush, when in fact taxpayers in all income groups did.
Self-serving oversimplifications marked the first presidential debate as Bush and Kerry made their case on Iraq and the broad canvas of foreign policy.
Bush twice suggested al-Qaida is a vastly diminished force at the top, saying at one point that "75 percent of known al-Qaida leaders have been brought to justice," and at another, Osama bin Laden is "isolated - 75 percent of his people have been brought to justice." But al-Qaida is still considered a mortal danger in part because it refills its ranks and leadership. The president was actually referring to deaths or arrests of operatives who powered al-Qaida when it mounted the Sept. 11 attacks, not those behind the organization today.
Earlier this year, the CIA estimated two-thirds of those leaders were gone. Bush upped the proportion to three-quarters in his national convention speech in August, based on intelligence findings that were not publicly detailed.
Bush also mischaracterized Kerry's position on withdrawing troops from Iraq: "My opponent at one time said, 'Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months.' "
In fact, Kerry said he would hope to begin a withdrawal in six months, not complete it. His aim would be to finish the withdrawal in four years if conditions allow.
Kerry stretched in accusing Bush of spending too little on homeland security and too much in giving tax cuts to the rich. "This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security," he said. "And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut - and that's who gets it - long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security."
Bush's tax cuts were across the board, not just for rich people like Kerry and himself.
Kerry, as he often does, said the United States has spent $200 billion on the Iraq war.
An analysis by FactCheck.org at the Annenberg School for Communication found that the true cost to be under $120 billion so far and that Kerry reaches his figure by counting money scheduled to be spent next year, money that hasn't been requested yet and money for Afghanistan operations and U.S. cities.
The Democrat apparently misspoke when painting a dark picture of the chaos in Iraq today. He said of Iraq, "we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up."
He apparently meant terrorists, not weapons of mass destruction, were crossing the border.
He also misspoke when he referred to looking at KGB records in Treblinka Square in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubyanka Square.
Kerry called Bush on another statement - the president's assertion in reference to Iraq that "the enemy attacked us ... and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people."
As Kerry pointed out, Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States. And the administration has backed away from earlier claims of a direct link between bin Laden and Saddam.
Bush blasted Kerry for calling the Iraq invasion the wrong war at the wrong time and said foreign leaders would never follow a president who talked that way. But major U.S. allies opposed the war from before the start.
Kerry may have overstepped in accusing Bush, in essence, of letting bin Laden get away.
"Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora," he said. "We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too."
There has been no definitive conclusion bin Laden was in the caves of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. and Afghan troops surrounded the complex and U.S. warplanes blanketed the area with bombs. But U.S. military and intelligence officials believe he probably was. And U.S. forces did largely rely on Afghan forces on the ground to go after him.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:24:39 PM · #15 |
Bush won in my pole. But I guess that is because I am voting for him...
Message edited by author 2004-10-01 14:29:30. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:31:28 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
just debates. |
would you say the same if Bush "won"?
PS I got a great pic of Bolo for you. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:42:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
From Last Night's Presidential Debate:
BUSH: My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
---------------------------------------
And here's what the president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, said recently (March 2004) about the Iraq War:
ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.
--[ //www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.htm ] |
1. Whatever Kwasniewski may think about the war, it doesn't change the historical fact that they were (and are) part of the coalition, and that in dismissing their participation, Kerry denigrated the country and their sacrifice.
2. I'd be interested to see/hear more of the interview in context. The use of the pronoun "they" is ambiguous, and the use of an english idiom in the translation ("took us for a ride") is unusual. (Of course, I don't speak, understand or read Polish, so I'd always be at the mercy of the translator.) |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:09:44 PM · #18 |
One of the things I was suprised by is that Kerry said we have taken over 90% of the casualties... this is a complete LIE. Iraqi indigenous forces fighting side by side with us have lost over 700 men... that makes us less than 50% of the total lost.. if your not going to count the Iraqi Forces, then don't count the casualties taken by the French Resistance during WWII.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:22:37 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
One of the things I was suprised by is that Kerry said we have taken over 90% of the casualties... this is a complete LIE. Iraqi indigenous forces fighting side by side with us have lost over 700 men... that makes us less than 50% of the total lost.. if your not going to count the Iraqi Forces, then don't count the casualties taken by the French Resistance during WWII. |
The core of one of Bush's most powerful criticisms of Kerry (though not well articulated) last night: for the purpose of spinning the war in the most negative light, he keeps insulting everyone else involved (except the terrorists and Baathists, of course), and belittling their contributions. It's easy to talk about building coalitions, but there's no real evidence he can actually do it (and quite a bit that he may not be able to).
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 03:34:17 PM · #20 |
Another observation I've had for some time, but haven't gotten around to posting yet: Almost four years ago, after the election mess was over and Bush/Chenney were preparing to take office, they voiced some concern that the economy was already showing signs of weakness and possible recession (which, for those with short memories, it was). The Clinton allies quickly jumped all over them and castigated them for talking down the economy, and how bad that was for them to do that to the sitting president. (Never mind that it was the economy they were about to inherit and they would be the ones to have to live with it if their comments did, in fact, somehow negatively effect it.)
Fast forward to 2004: While still not stable, conditions in Iraq have continued to improve for the last year and a half, and by the information posted by MadMordegan in another thread, great strides are being made in improving the infrastructure, if not the security, of Iraq. (And improving the infrastructure will go some way to improving the security, as it gives the citizenry something they can look to for stability and something to fight for.) But for a year, the left, the democrats and (when he feels like it serves his interests) John Kerry have been relentlessly hammering away at the war effort, spinning every shred of news (or ignoring it when it can't be spun) to the most negative degree possible, for one sole purpose: to defeat George Bush. This has had a very definitive effect of emboldening our enemies.
Where is the outcry about John Kerry "talking down the war", as there was about George Bush "talking down the economy"? |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 04:12:45 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Where is the outcry about John Kerry "talking down the war", as there was about George Bush "talking down the economy"? |
Don't you know? There is a double standard.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 04:19:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
just debates. |
would you say the same if Bush "won"?
PS I got a great pic of Bolo for you. |
Ive been saying it all along.
And email me that pic! :) |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 05:09:51 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
One of the things I was suprised by is that Kerry said we have taken over 90% of the casualties... this is a complete LIE. Iraqi indigenous forces fighting side by side with us have lost over 700 men... that makes us less than 50% of the total lost.. |
Actually not, that would be a twist/distort/mislead, pick your term.
What Kerry had said was:
"But you can't tell me that when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and below that the four others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn't anybody out of the hundreds, that we have a genuine coalition to get this job done.
You can't tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started -- it was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That's it. And today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs."
He was speaking about the Coalition; in which Iraq is not a part of, acording to the White Houses own list found here. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 05:34:27 PM · #24 |
It just looks like he was listing countries and their troops involved, not which countries were part of any specific Coalition. Where did he say that we are 90% of the coalition casualties? It sounded like he was speaking about casualties as a whole, especially since he included 90% of the costs. My guess is the 90% of the cost is wrong as well since Iraqi Oil is going to be paying for much of the rebuilding process. Since he left out both the Iraqi Indigenous Forces and their casualties, I think that is a slap in the face to those Iraqi soldiers willing to stand up and fight side by side our own troops for their freedom.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2004 05:36:39 PM · #25 |
|
