Gallup did a quick poll last night; This was a foreign policy debate and after it was over, the number virtually remain the same. Which goes back to the Kerry won style points, can't dispute that, but neither changed any minds. http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237 PRINCETON, NJ -- John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event. Almost half of the viewers said they felt more favorable about the senator because of the debate, and 60% said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than did President Bush. Democrats rallied behind Kerry's performance by 87% to 8%, while Republicans rallied behind Bush's performance by a somewhat smaller margin, 71% to 17%. But independents chose Kerry by a two-to-one margin, 60% to 29%. Among viewers who indicated in the pre-debate survey that they intended to vote for Kerry, 93% thought Kerry won the debate and only 3% said Bush did. Bush's supporters were not as convinced their candidate won -- choosing Bush by 68% to 19%, with 11% saying it was a tie. Men and women expressed virtually identical views in favor of Kerry. Despite the positive assessment, viewers said they favored Bush in handling the war in Iraq and serving as commander in chief, little changed from opinions expressed before the debate. And a majority of viewers said it was Bush who better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job. The poll shows that 46% of viewers said they felt more favorable toward Kerry as a result of the debate, while just 13% felt less favorable. By comparison, just 21% of viewers felt more favorable toward Bush, and 17% felt less favorable. However, viewers did not change their minds about who would do a better job in Iraq or better serve as the country's military leader. Prior to the debate, viewers chose Bush over Kerry in handling the Iraq war by 54% to 40%. After the debate, the comparable figures were essentially unchanged, 54% to 43%. Similarly, viewers pointed to Bush as the candidate they would trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief -- before the debate by 55% to 42%, and after the debate by 54% to 44%. Viewers leaned toward Bush on which candidate agreed with them on issues, who was more believable, and who was more likable. And by 54% to 37%, viewers said Bush better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job. These results are based on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted Thursday night immediately after the end of the presidential debate, which ended at 10:30 p.m. Eastern time. Respondents in the sample were first interviewed Sept. 28-29, when they indicated they expected to watch the debate and that they were willing to be called when the debate finished. In that pre-debate survey, 52% of the viewers who were included in Thursday night's sample said they supported Bush and 44% supported Kerry, similar to the vote preference measured among likely voters in the Sept. 24-26 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats. All results are based on telephone interviews with 615 registered voters, aged 18 and older, who watched the presidential debate Sept. 30, 2004. Respondents were first interviewed Sept. 28-29, 2004, when they indicated there was some chance they would watch Thursday's debate and were willing to be called back. For results based on the total sample of debate watchers, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
btw, among all the bashing of bush for not being able to pronouce kim jong il, did anybody notice kerry's claim to have visited treblinka square in moscow? uhmmm, treblinka, treblinka...where have i heard that name before? and as a person of jewish heritage, you'd think he'd know. now Lubyankaya square sounds like some place the kgb might have been...
A better question is....how do you determine who won? By how they looked? By what they said? Kerry's style was good, but he cannot explain his plans in two minutes...he can just say "I have a plan". I want to know what the plan is, and will have to go to his website to read it. Bush looked like he'd rather be watching Baseball Tonight. His grimaces and lip-biting while Kerry was speaking were ten times worse video/sound bites than Gore's "heavy sighing" in 2000. I think the "Town Hall" style of debate will benefit Kerry. Regardless, the next two debates are suddenly one hell of alot more important than they were 24 hours ago. Kerry should get a bounce from these debates. This election will be a tossup, and just as close as 2000.
I liked what the ABC polls showed last night. Kerry won handily but when the same people asked who they would vote for before and after the debate Bush gained a point. That was odd. And welcome.
I'm really glad to see that some of the conservatives on the board are willing to see the obvious distinctions made in the debate. Either we aren't are partisan as I thought or Bush did a really embarrassing job. I'm still cracking up about "He forgot about Poland". Saying Poland is the third most powerful country supporting us in Iraq is not something the American public will take positively in any way whatsoever. One thing I did like was that Bush is willing to put a lot of faith in China to handle North Korean matters, something republican leaders would never have done in the past. Hu Jintao must be glad to hear that the US trusts them so much now. The only catch is that I don't see that boding well with people who are still in the mindset of "China is communist so everything they do is bad". Surprisingly, for the first year ever, the security and international relations focus only discusses China as a partner. Bizarro world indeed.
I never competed in debate in high school. I don't know much about what it takes to win a debate. The only forum I know for that is before a jury of 12 people. I'm telling you right now...in my understanding of what wins a debate, Bush won. And I say that as someone who watched last night still largely undecided. Bush seems to come across with conviction...Kerry does not. At least in my opinion. Frankly, I had heard these arguments so many times here that I knew the candidates' responses before they made them. But Bush just appears to be real. I promise you, I'd rather have him talking to a jury than Kerry...that's certainly not the test for a presidential debate...but then again, i don't know what the test is for a presidential debate. Interesting that my opinion on this is so different from everyone else. Even those who admanatly support Bush.
I thought Kerry was more polished, but, he did a lot of attacking, but not much answering. I still don't have a clear understanding of what he proposes to do.... Bush is going to win, if Kerry does not start talking policies. DD
You need to read the transcript of the debate. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.1/index.html Remember they only had 2 minutes or less to answer. For that time, Kerry said more than you think. Obviously more than Bush repeating words, ideas and bumbling a good part of the time.
I'm an undecided and last nights debate really didn't help me much. I thought bush was more straight forward and kerry didn't answer with any substance so I'd give a slight edge to bush. That said I came away thinking neither man really has a good plan to solve the situation in Iraq which really bothers me.
It's tough. I really don't think it's the homerun for Kerry like some of his supporters are saying in this forum. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Bush won. Like RMTex says, how do you judge the "winner" anyway? If you judge by style, clearly Kerry won. If you judge by substance, of course you are going to go with the guy you agree with. What does it all mean? In the end, both sides will claim victory and very few if any opinions will change. The important question is......can the Astros continue their home win streak and win the wildcard?
I loved the quote from this girl's blog over at VH1: "Watching Bush talk always gives me that feeling like when you're watching an alcoholic uncle give a toast at a wedding - you're just kind of hoping he'll get through it without messing up too bad, but he inevitably does."
God , I hope so, but unfortunately if they do, I can't go to a playoff game until the 2nd round. I am going to be out of state all weekend next weekend....no Texas/OU, and no Stros in the playoffs if they make it. Family function.
You know, Hitler had a lot of conviction. I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, I'm just making the point that just because someone has singled minded conviction doesn't mean they're right. Kerry had a great line, "you can be certain and wrong". Bush is definitely certain, is he right is the question. As far as who won the debate, I think Kerry did what he had to do. He stood up tall for himself, he spoke clearly, and he definitely came off as smarter. You have to come off as smarter than Bush to have any chance. As far as Bush is concerned, he stutters and people are used to that so I don't think it matters anymore. He definitely held his own, and he came off a lot more knowlegable than he did in the 2000 debates. I give a slight edge to Kerry because Bush did seem a little agitated at times, but he did better than I thought he would. As far as people saying there isn't much of choice, that maybe so but as far as these debates are concerned, I thought this one was a lot more informative than any of the 2000 debates. The 2000 debates were a joke when the candidates really didn't seem like they had a lot of differences. At least there was real policy talk and real critique of each other in these debates.
I hope you realize there's a margin of error with polls. And if polls are truly stupid, then the US is in big trouble, as both of our presidential nominees rely quite heavily on polls for their campaigns. Basically, all we know is that like Gore, Kerry can win debates and still have it not mean anything. Unless Dubya makes some horrible blunder, the guy can just recite his 20 annoying memorized passages all the way to another 4 years. *Sighs*
Come on, pgabriel... this isn't the 1930's, and you're just lobbing a softball for the conservatives here, no doubt being a bit nervous about their guy after last night, to take a swing at. Let it go. Here's a whole host of reactions to the debate that were favorable to Kerry, from a surprising number of conservative outlets and talking heads, as well as some who could be seen as leaning the other way. Readers, read on: The National Verdict is In: John Kerry Wins First Debate Washington, DC — The reviews are in and according to the talking heads and today's news it is clear that at last night's debate America saw John Kerry as the next President of the United States. Kerry's strength, conviction, and steady command of the facts left no doubt that he can lead the fight on terrorism and finish the job in Iraq. Kerry beat expectations, he looked presidential, and he proved his foreign policy credentials. But don't take out our word for it: KERRY'S THE WINNER – HE BEAT EXPECTATIONS Joe Scarborough: "John Kerry won the debate. Karl Rove: John Kerry won the debate." [MSNBC, 10/1/04] Peggy Noonan: "Mr. Kerry did himself some good in that he seemed focused, to my mind, for once." [Fox News Channel, 9/20/04] Sen. John McCain: "I think that Kerry did a good job." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Fred Barnes: "Kerry did very well and we will have a presidential race from here on out" [Fox News Channel, 9/30/04] Howard Fineman: "Kerry won the event." [MSNBC, 10/1/04] Mark Whitaker, Newsweek: "I think Kerry won on style in this debate." [CNN, 9/30/04] Joe Scarborough: "It was John Kerry's best performance ever…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." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Ron Reagan: "Kerry was the clear winner." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Bill Kristol: "I think Kerry did pretty well." [Fox News Channel, 9/30/04] Andrea Mitchell: "Kerry began to narrow the gap." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Chris Matthews: "I thought it was smart for Kerry to keep going back to saying that 90% of the casualties were American. For the President to deny that is going against American perceptions." [MSNBC, 9/30/04] Craig Crawford: "Kerry was good about not being put on the defensive. There were many opportunities he may have wanted to respond to the mixed messages that Bush kept talking about, he would just kind of laugh and let it go and make his points. He won the cutaway shots." [MSNBC, 10/1/04] George Stephanopoulos: "Kerry has momentum coming out of here." [ABC, 9/30/04] Boston Globe Headline: "Kerry stays focused, projects strength" [10/1/04] Los Angles Times Headline: "TV Analysts Give Kerry an Early Lead in Quest for Spin" [10/1/04] Kerry "…may well have struck undecided voters as not much like the Republicans' worst caricatures. He spoke plainly, politely, but did not shrink from direct and pointed criticism of Mr. Bush's policies." [New York Times, 10/1/04] "I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly — much worse than he is capable of doing. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate." [Jay Nordlinger, National Review Online, 10/1/04] "Sen. John F. Kerry won Thursday night's debate on foreign policy by a comfortable margin…." [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/1/04] "Kerry won the debate, according to three polls. Gallup said a phone survey called Kerry the winner by 53 percent to 37 percent for Bush. A CBS News instant poll said 44 percent called Kerry the winner and 26 percent picked Bush. In an ABC News instant poll, 45 percent said Kerry won; 36 percent picked Bush. Both political parties said they had encouraged supporters to participate in instant surveys." [Bloomberg News, 9/30/04] "You could tell who won this debate with the sound off. Every time John Kerry spoke, the split-screen showed President Bush looking like he took a swig of milk three weeks past the expiration date. Kerry beat the president Thursday night on the one issue that defines this election: the war on terrorism." [Tommy Tomlinson, Charlotte Observer, 10/1/04] Roger Wilkins, George Mason University history professor: "‘Kerry did what he had to the whole way through. He was crisp. He didn't meander as he's done. He was clear and in command of facts and he was focused." [USA Today, 10/1/04] "But in terms of presentation, Kerry seemed to have more success Thursday night projecting the ‘clarity' he and his campaign have been seeking to convey." [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/1/04] "John Kerry has a reputation, invoked so often that it invites parody, of being a strong closer in his political campaigns. But in Thursday night's first presidential faceoff, Kerry also came across as a strong opener." [Walter Shapiro, USA Today, 10/1/04] "Those who expected the Massachusetts senator to be the droning, long-winded patrician he has been so far this campaign had to have been startled by the sharp, focused fighter Mr. Kerry was last night. He finally connected with audiences, speaking with uncharacteristic passion and directness about what he sees as the Bush administration's failures. If we had seen this John Kerry three months ago, the race might look very different today. On substance, too, Mr. Kerry landed some serious blows to the president. He struck hard on Mr. Bush's lack of planning for the Iraq occupation, and questioned the quality of his judgment. The Democrat's most memorable line turned the president's greatest virtue – his decisiveness – into a vice: ‘It's one thing to be certain. But you can be certain and be wrong.'" [Editorial, Dallas Morning News, 10/1/04] http://www.democrats.org/news/printable/200410010005.html Oh, and before the President's supporters start "shooting the messenger," these are all direct quotes. If you want to go to the sources, be my guest. These weren't made up by the DNC, who must be beside themselves with relief. Before the debate, quite some time before, I expressed my opinions about how lousy Kerry's campaign had been, as well as the Democratic convention. I said on more than one occasion that I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries here in Texas. He was not who I wanted at the top of my party's ticket. And he looks like a tree. But the plain, unvarnished truth is that Kerry did what he had to do last night, surprising many Democrats, as well as many Republicans and, most importantly, the independents and "fence sitters." He showed that he is "Presidential," certainly compared to Mr. Bush. Kerry made it plain that, even if many of us on both sides wish we had two different people to choose from, Senator Kerry is certainly capable of being the President, particularly when compared to his opponent. Put Kerry in the same debate, with some of the other candidates from the last 35 years that come to mind, and we could easily be reading another reaction altogether. But we are looking at these two men, for better or worse, and Senator Kerry clearly was the better of the two last night. For all the voters who are ready for a change, but were afraid of whether Senator Kerry was up to the job, their concerns were addressed. That was Kerry's most important task, and he actually managed to make an impact on those voters. That is huge. There are two more debates to go, and I think Bush will do much better in the next one... the "Town Hall" format will play to his "folksy" persona he loves to use. The 3rd. debate, on the economy, will be similar to last night. We have another month of even more ferocious campaigning before us. Who will win the election is very much in play. Last night, however, Kerry did what he had to do,. He showed the American people that he is at least as 'Presidential" as the President, and has strong differences on the issues with Bush. He was composed. Bush was not. As I said in the other thread, I'm encouraged. And if I were a Bush supporter, I would be very nervous. Keep D&D Civil!!
Bush's use of the flip-flopper campaign jab was transparent, and tired. Those soundbite things work well in 30 second attack ads, but not in a Presidential debate. He looked hollow.
Pretty weak performance for a sitting President. He was consistently at a loss for words. (and he laughed like a weasel when Kerry mentioned the Bush daughter's antics)
"Bush was introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who earlier in the day had said that the debate had been Kerry's "brightest moment" of the campaign." ________________
