Talk Elections

massacred him

His performance was good, but Bush's performance was not bad. 

Obama's performance was arguably on a level of GHW Bush in 1992.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Bush did pretty badly in the first debate. I remember thinking he was done after that night. Kerry didn't look great though, but Dubya almost sounded incompetent that night. He did manage to turn it around in the next 2 though and narrowly won.

Cheney came out and crushed Edwards in the VP debate though, and then Bush was terrific in the town hall debate. The third Bush/Kerry debate nobody remembers, nothing of note came from it

The key here is how Obama responds, will he be witty, jovial, and able to connect with the audience...or will he be distant and professorial?

The CNN poll asking who won gave Romney the most lopsided victory in any debate they had ever asked the question about. And they had been asking since 1984. In fact, it gave Romney 67%, where no previous debate had ever cracked 60%.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/faces-of-frustration-web

The saving grace for Obama is unlike some past debate losses, there arent specific moments or themes that can be shown in quick clips to point at and laugh like Bush's frustrations in 2004, Gore's sighing in 2000, Bush looking at his watch in 1992. Nor were there any gaffes or good zingers. So his loss was more a general thing of him seeming to just not be aggressive or energetic or concise.

1. Kerry gained 3 points after that debate.

2. Kerry lost the election.

Both of those things are true, embrace one or the other or both as you wish.

Mondale also won the first 1984 debate convincingly. Obama can still win the election, but he's going to have to work very hard to turn things around.

The incumbent always struggles in the first debate. The only debate that was a game changer was in 1980, but there were other issues that assisted that. Mondale won the 1st debate in 1984, one can argue Perot won the 1st debate in 1992, and Kerry destroyed Bush in 2004. It doesn't matter that much, because as we've seen, Bush still won in 2004, and Reagan's performance in the general election goes without saying. This won't be a game changer.

People remember Reagan's "I wont let my opponent's youth and experience" line from 1984, but that was the second debate after appearing out of it in the first debate and people started talking about how he may be too old

This convenient revisionism is getting really, really grating... G W Bush was horrible, you want to think otherwise, feel free, but you'd be wrong.

Yes, Kerry's debate prowess won him the election and helped Obama slaughter Romney in the first debate........oh, wait......nevermind.

I actually re-watched the first debate from '04 just the other day. Don't kid yourselves. GW Bush was horrendous. Far worse than Obama was in this debate.

jj finally reached nirvana

Not at the GHW Bush (1992) or Carter(1980) levels.  This thing was close to Bush 1992 (though not quite as bad).

Gallup gave 2004 numbers:

Kerry:  53

Bush:  37

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm

Obama would consider it a gift from God if he only lost by a 16 point gap.  ::)

You really have turned into 'one of them'...

You can't turn into what you always were.

No, just not doing revisionist history, like you. 

I would question how much of a difference it will make in the poll numbers, but it is delusional to claim that this was just as bad as 2004.  CNN started polling in this in 1984 and they have had anyone winning a debate above 60%, until now.

Wow... deflection... you've been studying Politico's techniques...

A sanp poll does reflect something, that's true... but what matters is how people react to the outcome... that is something we don't know.

Snap polls are also impacted by who watched the debate in the first place.

Btw, JJ, CNN/ORC is not the same thing as Gallup so a direct comparison between the numbers can't be made.

Would recommend that non Jay Jay posters desist immediately, lest they want to waste a surprising amount of time arguing with a barrier made of fired clay.

I don't like using the ignore button, but it's getting to the point where I may have no other choice.

No, I'm just researching and frankly, can remember 2004.  You seem to have difficulties with both.

I have made the point, repeatedly, that winning the debate, even by such a huge margin, may not move the poll numbers too much.

I know you're used to dealing with 14 year olds on here, but I was 21 and watched every single debate in 2004 as well 1996, 2000 and 2008, as well as the post-debate analyses.

The only real difference is that expectations on Bush in 2004 weren't has inexplicably inflated as they were for Obama, nor was the media response so hysterical.

I personally think there will be a 1-2% bump in the polls, some of the BGs will tighten and Obama will probably slip back in FL and NC...

This was not 1992 because while the immediate outcome of who won the debate was overwhelming, the debate re-enforced a negative perception of Bush.

Personally I thought Bush did worse in 04 in the first debate than Obama did here. Obama's answers weren't awful; he did what he always does, which is say a lot without saying much at all. It was his demeanor and rebuttals that were bad. Bush on the other hand was almost apologetic about everything, and was completely off. Bush overcompensated in the second debate and was extremely aggressive, but I think he easily defeated Kerry in round 2. I expect Obama to rebound by being particularly engaging with the town hall questioners and win round 2 here.

It's not unusual for sitting presidents to have a bad first debate, and correct for the second. This certainly wasn't the worst performance ever by a sitting president (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/10/hbc-90008926).

Bush epic failed in that debate. While Obama lost the debate last night, he was't that bad.

Then you obviously forgot what happened.


The media, in many ways, created Obama, and they finally saw the Frankenstein's Monster they created.  It wasn't pretty.  :)


While I saw both trending that way, I'll agree with you on FL and NC; I don't know about the bump.


In terms of the style, this was close to 1992, though it didn't move the numbers.

This could literally go on for days... let's just agree to disagree...

Well, you have the numbers from 2004 and you have the numbers from 2012, both CNN polls.  I think you can do the math. 

UGH...

I look at the actual numbers, not at opinion.

Yes and no, you extrapolate facts to make a point that might not even be there.

you cannot compare polling from one year to another, unless they are actually based on the same methodolgy and reflect the particular electorate they're trying to guage.

I would need to look in the background of the 2004 poll... and there are representative issues in the CNN poll this year... but since I'm not umengus, I won't go into it.

Plus my flight is about to board, and I want another glass of wine beforehand...

There were the same representative "issues" in 2004, which is why I tried to go poll to poll, and why I used CNN, which also made the comparison.  Face it, the numbers do not support your premise. 

Now, will that translate into poll movement?  Probably, but I'm not willing to speculate on how much.  I would be stunned if Romney got a 42 point lead in the polls.

Stop giving Mensa a bad name, J.J.

You have the numbers.  This was more devastating than 2004, in terms of debate performance being rated independently, whether by CBS or by CNN.  CNN said that was the greatest margin they've seen since they started taking this poll in 1984, which I think would include 2004.

Now 2004 translated into about a 1 point net gain for Kerry in the polls.  I suspect this will have a positive effect on Romney's numbers, though I'm not it expecting this to totally destroy Obama.

This is the last time I'm going to bother pointing this out to you but Gallup and ORC are not the same polling firm. Please stop trying to pretend that they are. Thanks.

J.J. seems more like a robot than Mitt Romney even.

But, Bush was a white.