Presidential Debates

[CARLHAYDEN]

I am reminded that in both 1984 and 2004 the Republican nominee (and incumbent) flubbed and early debate and then turned around and drubbed his Democrat opponent in a subsequent debate.

It makes you wonder if this was a deliberate stratedgy to both lower expectations and make the Democrat candidate overconfident.

Comments please?

[Lincoln Republican]

This statement is partly right.

The first debate in 1984 was a very poor performance for Reagan, and Bush's performance in the first debate in 2004 was abysmal.

The best spin doctors in the world could  not save those debates for Reagan and Bush.

Although Mondale performed well in the first 1984 debate, Mondale was never in the game from the start of the campaign, and this good performance did not make him a contender.

The first debate in 2004, however, put Kerry back in contention.  Kerry's stature went up considerably after this first debate.

Both Reagan and Bush recovered in the subsequent debates, and the rest is history.

I don't think there was any strategy involved in this.  They were just poor performances in these first debates by Reagan and Bush, period.

Obviously, many other factors came into play as well in the victories for Reagan and Bush.   

[Beet]

I believe Bush's misspeaks in 1999 and 2000 were part of a strategy to humanize him so that the average American could identify with him.

[A18]

I think Reagan was expecting Mondale to attack him, like Carter did. He prepared for the wrong debate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am reminded that in both 1984 and 2004 the Republican nominee (and incumbent) flubbed and early debate and then turned around and drubbed his Democrat opponent in a subsequent debate.

It makes you wonder if this was a deliberate stratedgy to both lower expectations and make the Democrat candidate overconfident.

Comments please?

There were only 3 debates in 2004. Kerry won all of them.

[PBrunsel]

Remember in 1980 when Carter said in the debate he got foreign policy advise from his 8-year old daughter Rosalyn?

It showed.

[PBrunsel]

Remember in 1980 when Carter said in the debate he got foreign policy advise from his 8-year old daughter Rosalyn?

It showed.

His daughter was Amy. You have named his wife.

LOL, my mistake.

[Akno21]

Remember in 1980 when Carter said in the debate he got foreign policy advise from his 8-year old daughter Rosalyn?

It showed.

His daughter was Amy. You have named his wife.

LOL, my mistake.

She was 13, actually. Better than 8, at least.

[Akno21]

I certainly don't think Mondale got overconfident after the first debate. Even with that, with the polls going sharply in his favor, he was still down landslide proportions. Plus, he didn't lose the next debate to overconfidence, he lost it because Reagan had a great line. There was nothing Mondale could do to prevent that.

[CARLHAYDEN]

According to JFern and Akno, liberal Democrats win ALL debates.

LOL

[A18]

Um, Akno just said that Mondale lost the second debate... and in the post right before yours.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

According to JFern and Akno, liberal Democrats win ALL debates.

LOL

You are a worthelss partisan hack if you think Bush won any debates. The opinion polls said that Kerry won.

[Joe Biden 2020]

This is coming from a moderate-conservative Republican, but Kerry did win the 3 debates.  Bush did slightly better in the last 2, but still lost all 3.  However, the Supreme Court did not appoint Bush president in 2000 based on his speaking abilities.  As far as that goes Bush was far worse than Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.  So, America knew who they were getting in the White House and that was not a great speaker.  They got a great president, in my opinion, but they did not get a great speaker.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I respectfully disagree.

Bush narrowly won the second debate, and clearly won the third.

Yes, I know you have opinion polls which show the contrary.

They are wrong!

About eight months ago I provided a lengthy analysis of the debates, citing specifics.

BTW, Bush's numbers went up following the second and third debates.

The problem with the polls it the public is influenced by the liberal media, which takes the Fern/Akno line in saying who 'won' the debates.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I respectfully disagree.

Bush narrowly won the second debate, and clearly won the third.

Yes, I know you have opinion polls which show the contrary.

They are wrong!

About eight months ago I provided a lengthy analysis of the debates, citing specifics.

BTW, Bush's numbers went up following the second and third debates.

The problem with the polls it the public is influenced by the liberal media, which takes the Fern/Akno line in saying who 'won' the debates.

"Liberal media"? You lose. The "Liberal media" let Bush attack Iraq for no good reason.  Anyways, if you watch the debate, it shouldn't be influenced by any "Liberal media". You are an idiot.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Leaving aside the nonsense, which constitutes the bulk of your post (as ususal), extensive studies have shown that the post-debate 'analysis' (spinning) DOES influence how respondents view the debate in terms of the win/lose question.

However, it (the spinning) doesn't change who their decision of the candidate for whom they will vote.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly don't think Mondale got overconfident after the first debate. 

I think Mondale said that he knew it was over after the Democratic convention. I think he also said that it was really over when he laughed after Reagan used the "I will not make age an issue in this campaign" line.

[Akno21]

I certainly don't think Mondale got overconfident after the first debate. 

I think Mondale said that he knew it was over after the Democratic convention. I think he also said that it was really over when he laughed after Reagan used the "I will not make age an issue in this campaign" line.

I'm not sure about the former, but I did also read that he knew it was over after the age line.

One could also speculate, though Mondale would never admit, that he knew it was over before he picked a VP, explaining his pick of Ferraro.

[RJ]

I respectfully disagree.

Bush narrowly won the second debate, and clearly won the third.

Hmm. The second and third debates I thought were each a draw. I think Bush's strategy changed during those two. He aimed for the tie rather than do anything risky the way he did in the first one. I don't recall his numbers changing that radically after the last two. He held a 8-10% lead before the first, 1-3% after it, and won the election by (low and behold) a little over 2%. He clearly held the upper hand heading into them and aimed to just maintain his advantage. He successfully called Kerry a liberal a few times while Kerry had the classic line about the president lecturing him about fiscal responsibility. Anyone tell me how that analogy went again? There was also the question during the end of the second debate Kerry couldn't win on involving federal funds used for abortion.

The problem with the polls it the public is influenced by the liberal media, which takes the Fern/Akno line in saying who 'won' the debates.

This is one of the most humerous arguements I've ever heard. The media is liberal biased. The courts are liberal biased. Congress is liberal biased. I'm a Chicago Cubs fan myself, and I'll have everyone know the St. Loius Cardinals are liberal biased!

The point is everything that doesn't suit the Republican party is not neccessarily "liberal biased." That's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talking. I'm just waiting for one of those right winger freaks to say on the radio or in one of their illustrious books that "they're all out to get us conservatives."Anyway, I don't recall anyone saying the media was biased when Howard Dean was shooting off his mouth a couple of months ago. And where was this talk of liberal bias during the Clinton impeachment hearings? The "biased mainstream media"(I laugh every time I hear that) was all over both those incidents.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I respectfully disagree.

Bush narrowly won the second debate, and clearly won the third.

Hmm. The second and third debates I thought were each a draw. I think Bush's strategy changed during those two. He aimed for the tie rather than do anything risky the way he did in the first one. I don't recall his numbers changing that radically after the last two. He held a 8-10% lead before the first, 1-3% after it, and won the election by (low and behold) a little over 2%. He clearly held the upper hand heading into them and aimed to just maintain his advantage. He successfully called Kerry a liberal a few times while Kerry had the classic line about the president lecturing him about fiscal responsibility. Anyone tell me how that analogy went again? There was also the question during the end of the second debate Kerry couldn't win on involving federal funds used for abortion.

The problem with the polls it the public is influenced by the liberal media, which takes the Fern/Akno line in saying who 'won' the debates.

This is one of the most humerous arguements I've ever heard. The media is liberal biased. The courts are liberal biased. Congress is liberal biased. I'm a Chicago Cubs fan myself, and I'll have everyone know the St. Loius Cardinals are liberal biased!

The point is everything that doesn't suit the Republican party is not neccessarily "liberal biased." That's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talking. I'm just waiting for one of those right winger freaks to say on the radio or in one of their illustrious books that "they're all out to get us conservatives."Anyway, I don't recall anyone saying the media was biased when Howard Dean was shooting off his mouth a couple of months ago. And where was this talk of liberal bias during the Clinton impeachment hearings? The "biased mainstream media"(I laugh every time I hear that) was all over both those incidents.

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, I strongly recommend that you do a little research.  There is extensive evidence of a liberal bias in much of the media.

Third, after each debate last year I posted a detailed analysis of the debate.  Bush won debates two and three, and really bombed in debate one.

[RJ]

Second, I strongly recommend that you do a little research.  There is extensive evidence of a liberal bias in much of the media.

I'm familiar with the evidence of the "liberal bias" in the media. That is exactly why I find the arguement a weak one. I'd concede that the way in which information is presented by certain groups can be slanted, but this works both ways. For example, a media agency recently reported that the federal deficit is $330 billion this year, the third highest total. and that figure didn't even include expenditures from Iraq. Another group was reporting that the economy is strong and used the fact that the deficit is "only 330 billion, down from last year" as evidence of this. Many Americans don't need an editorial to tell them whether or not $330 billion is a lot of money and the budget is either out of whack or stronger than ever.

I still contend that the bias nature of the media is just not a credible arguement. If your respective party hears something they don't want to hear, you can't simply chalk it up to slanted journalism. You can't point the finger and just label someone or something. Face the facts. Adress these concerns. Again, I have to ask where these arguements were during the Clinton impeachment hearings or Howard Dean shooting off his mouth earlier this year? When was the last time you heard someone from CBS or the New York Times say "Conservatism is the root of all evil; We must defeat the Conservatives; They know they have a losing fight on their hands and will do anything no matter how dishonest to continue their fight?" I hear this kind of crap all day on Sean Hannity's show, and he claims to be some great truth tellern and "is the most comprehensive news program" on his show. Don't shoot the messenger just because you did something wrong.

Third, after each debate last year I posted a detailed analysis of the debate.  Bush won debates two and three, and really bombed in debate one.

Not to sound like an insensitive jerk, but you giving a detailed analysis of something doesn't declare victory for one of the candidates. What about Kerry's classic line regarding the President lecturing him on fiscal responsibility?(I really wish I could remember it...) What about the times Bush leaned over the podium or to the audience in the town hall meeting and seemed to plead with the crowd? I'm sure I could come up with other evidence, as you could present to me things George did well.

Insisting on something doesn't make it fact. Once again, I'll point to the average margin in the polls heading into the election and the margin at the time of the second and third debates. It was pretty much identical.