The Debates

[Blue Rectangle]

I'm not sure if we will have a clear winner from the debates.  We are so polarized that both sides will spin the debate and say that they won.  

That said, I think if Kerry can weave and dodge without making himself look like a waffler he can win.

Bush's best bet is to try to pin kerry down with a yes or no question that leaves little room for manuever.

Yes.  Right now, Kerry still benefits from being "not Bush".  About half the country is fairly supportive of Bush's policies and the other half doesn't like them.  Kerry is supported by that second half, even though it does not consist of like-minded people.  Think we should remove all our troops from Iraq?  Vote Kerry.  Think we should double our troops and bring in the French and Germans?  Vote Kerry.  Think Iraq was a terrible idea?  Vote Kerry.  Think taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but you don't like the way Bush has handled the peace?  Vote Kerry.

Sooner or latter Kerry has to address questions about his foreign policy with an answer more relevant than old war stories.  At that time, he will lose some of his support.  The sooner Bush can force Kerry to give answers, the better for Bush.  Hopefully we won't have to wait until the debates to get answers.

[TommyC1776]

I read on Badnarik's website that he's participating in some open debates.  Who will be there w/ him?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

There should be one presidential debate where all candidates on a majority of ballots are allowed to attend.  After that debate, they should only include candidates with 15% support in the rest of the debates.  That way, people have a chance to see all the candidates, but most of the debate time won't be clogged up by minor party candidates.   The minor parties will at least have a chance to prove that they can become major candidates if given then exposure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's play the expectations game.
Bush is a master debater, winning debate after debate. He will easily destroy Kerry on the issues.

[swarch]

There should be one presidential debate where all candidates on a majority of ballots are allowed to attend.  After that debate, they should only include candidates with 15% support in the rest of the debates.  That way, people have a chance to see all the candidates, but most of the debate time won't be clogged up by minor party candidates.   The minor parties will at least have a chance to prove that they can become major candidates if given then exposure.

Good suggestion, though I'd be happier with 10%. Another possibility is to have third parties on for half of the debate and then cut it to the major contenders for the other half. This has actually happened in Canada.

[MarkDel]

This debate will be REALLY ugly. Kerry is a monotone, pompous ass who never actually answers a question. And Bush, though I love him, is not capable of thinking on his feet in a debate type setting.

[The Duke]

I remember in one of the Democratic debates in the primary, Kerry stepped away from his podium to seem more in touch with the audience.  He stepped right into a dark patch on the stage.  No one could see him.

He shhepishly asked if he was allowed to leave his podium, and the crew eventually got a spotlight on him.  It was symbolic of what a bumbling speaker he is.

His stump speeches have become rambling and inane while Bush is hitting a bit of a stride after a slump that included the Russert fiasco.

Bush wins.

[raggage]

Bush will win the debates.. Kerry is another Gore.  Pompous bore.

I disagree. I think Kerry will be much more steady in the debates, and we can get out our gaffometers out for when Bush starts talking.

[Ben.]

I think Even though Bush is not the Greatest talker we have ever had in office, I think he will look really good next to the Anti-Charismatic Kerry.

They are both very dull speakers… added to this Bush has the disadvantage that he will suffer from far higher expectations than he did in 2000 (all he had to manage in 2000 was a coherent sentence for many of the press corps to declare a triumph) while Kerry like Bush in 2000 is already playing to low expectations of a dull plodding debater… either way they will have a big effect on the 4-8% of undecideds in the country at large and I would say that Kerry has the advantage he always seems to be able to deliver at the very last moment (the Senate contest against Weld, the Dem Primaries and at the Convention)… if Kerry can be the Kerry who has been on the Campaign trail the last few days and spoke at the Convention then he will win if he is the Kerry from the 2003 Democratic debates then it will be a clash of two very dull debaters IMHO which will help neither…

And RReagan4Ever where the hell does the idea that Bush is Charismatic come from?  He just as dull at time as Kerry only with out the occasional lucidity that strikes Kerry…                

[Wakie]

Here's what will happen in the debates ...

Kerry will present numbers, facts, and figures.  Bush will present a few good one liners.  Bush will say he doesn't understand Kerry's math.  Kerry will say "if you don't understand math and economics maybe you shouldn't be President".  Bush will blink a lot and get mad.

Republican pundits will declare Bush the winner, Democratic pundits will declare Kerry the winner, and the consensus will be we just watched a repeat of the 2000 debates minus the sighing.

[Blue Rectangle]

Just a couple weeks ago, Kerry and Bush each spoke at the Urban League meeting.  PBS showed a few minutes of each speech.  Kerry was arrogant and his speech's theme seemed to be, "you people hate Bush, and let me remind you why."  The audience reaction was boredom, with little applause.  Bush's speech was humble and almost contrite at points.  He admitted that the Republican party has not done well with Blacks, but he promised to do better.  He got his point across that the Democrats take the Black vote for granted without seeming bitter or accusatory.  At one point, applause came at the end of every sentence.

When it comes to giving a prepared speech, Bush handles a hostile audience better than Kerry did the faithful at the DNC.  Much of debates is previously scripted (everyone knows what the questions will be), so Bush can easily make up for his trouble with thinking on his feet.  Bush makes scripted remarks sound sincere and off-the-cuff, Kerry makes scripted remarks sound like he is lip-syncing to a recording.

[TheCanadian]

It's just ridiculous that people think the winner of the debate goes to the candidate who you would most like to have a beer with.  Since this seems to be a common theme, then Bush will probably "win,” but the winner related to issues will be Kerry.

[Gabu]

I don't know for sure who's going to win, but I can tell you that DubyaSpeak.com will more than likely have a heyday during the debates.

[Posterity]

I don't know who will win the debates, but I know who will lose: the American people.  The debates are such a sham that it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

Pre-screened questions and the scripted nature of the debates do not allow the American people to really understand the candidates in enough detail.  The moderators should be asking much more thought-provoking questions.  If a candidate can't handle the tough questions on matters of policy, then maybe he (or she) should not be running for President.

And any candidate that is on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance at winning the election should be allowed to particpate in the debates.

[johngalt1234]

I dont think the American people are gonna be insulted by what they hear in the debates.

Most Americans hear only what they want to hear. They are close  minded and you cannot blame them. The Education system here doesnt teach them to think. Those that think dont vote because they realize it is a sham. The net result is we have the unthinking vote and of course it is easy to dazzle them with a flashy smile and some glitz.

[Gabu]

And any candidate that is on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance at winning the election should be allowed to particpate in the debates.

I agree, since the absence of third-party candidates creates somewhat of a catch-22: the candidates don't get national exposure on par with the Democrats and Republicans, so they're quarantined in obscurity, and since they're quarantined in obscurity, they don't get national exposure on par with the Democrats and Republicans.

Those that think dont vote because they realize it is a sham.

I think that's rather an overgeneralization to say that all voters are mindless people who hear what they want to hear.  I realize that John Kerry is not perfect and likely will not be an extraordinary president.  However, I feel that George W. Bush is such an extraordinarily bad president that I gladly support John Kerry and would definitely vote for him were I an American since I feel that he'll at least be an okay president.  I don't see how that makes me unthinking and closed-minded.

[John Dibble]

Some people don't vote because they think they have nobody good to vote for, some people don't vote because they just plain don't care or are too lazy to register, some people don't vote because they forget or don't know when it's happened. There's lots of reasons people don't vote.

[johngalt1234]

The reasons why people dont vote maybe many.
If people realized that by not voting the harm they are doing themselves and the country they would find the reason to make an informed decision and vote.

Gabu

You admit that neither Kerry nor Bush impress you and yet you choose the lesser of the two evils. If you were openminded you would have looked at third party candidates. But I notice you didnt mention them. any reason for that?

[Gabu]

Gabu

You admit that neither Kerry nor Bush impress you and yet you choose the lesser of the two evils. If you were openminded you would have looked at third party candidates. But I notice you didnt mention them. any reason for that?

Two reasons:

1. Kerry is no FDR, but I do like the guy.  As I said, I feel he'll at least be an okay president.  He might even be a pretty good president.  His acceptance speech at the DNC did impress me quite a bit, actually.

2. I firmly believe that another four years of Bush could be positively toxic for the well-being of both America and the world.  Given that, realistically, Kerry is the only one who has a chance of beating Bush, I feel it'd be better for America's well-being for me to support Kerry than to support anyone else.  When I did research on all of the third-party candidates in comparison with the two major candidates, I found myself agreeing a lot more with Kerry than with third-party candidates, anyway. (Yes, Kerry does have firm stances on most of the issues, for those who want to make stupid jabs about him being on both sides of every issue.)

[Alfie]

Bush will win the debates. Kerry will have to defend his flip flops throughout the debate and Bush can connect much better with the people.

He "connects" only when he's doing his tired Oprah routine -- wandering around with a microphone in his hand, looking dazed, disheveled, and lost.  And that's the good news for Bush.

In a debate, Bush's stumble bumming becomes painfully obvious and embarrassing.  Lacking the ability to join two sentences, he often drifts of into some mumbled phrase -- usually one about "9/11" or "People need to be able to put food on their family."

Then there's that slight problem of the Flip Flops.  If you like, I can post quite a list, but let's just say more and more people notice that Bush says one thing, then does another.  It's noticed now -- it wasn't three months ago. Flips and Flops? I say, "Bring Them On!"


Alfie

[TommyC1776]

I read on Badnarik's website that he's participating in some open debates.  Who will be there w/ him?

anyone read this?

[lidaker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Bill Weld was a very intelligent guy. I don't know how Kerry would do against someone who is much less smarter, as Bush.

[Giant Saguaro]

Depends, maybe an edge to Bush because Kerry will not talk in specifics because specifics mean 2 things, which are pretty much at the bottom of everything: raise taxes and fight a soft war on terror. Bush will talk specifics, because specifics mean killing terrorists, strengthening America, and I think he'll link the war in Iraq with the overall picture - a safer America. He'll also talk about the good the tax cuts have done in getting the economy turned around. Now, there's a downside for Bush: Kerry is very, very good at talking in his generalities; it sounds real good as long as it remains just that. Bush will also run a risk if he doesn't say anything new as well, as we've heard the same stuff repeatedly. I think Bush will be well coached and will go after Kerry on the above. Maybe an edge to Bush.

[Bogart]

I think Bush will look better. Kerry is boring, no matter how intelligent he may be. In the end, though, the debates won't really make that much difference in the outcome. Almost everyone has already decided.