Kerry killed Bush on 09/30/04

[© tweed]

massacred him

[J. J.]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Bush's performance was not bad. 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

[NHI]

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.

[dirks]

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?

[後援会]

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%.

[Likely Voter]

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.

[cavalcade]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[renegadedemocrat]

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.

[Likely Voter]

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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

[Eraserhead]

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.

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.

[courts]

Bush's performance was not bad. 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

jj finally reached nirvana

[J. J.]

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.

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.

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

[J. J.]

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. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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'...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

You can't turn into what you always were.

[J. J.]

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'...

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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'...

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.

[Eraserhead]

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'...

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.