Who won the debate?

[ATFFL]

Draw.  I thought the first 30 minutes went to Kerry slightly, I think the next 30 minutes went to Bush slightly.  I think the next 30 minutes went to Kerry slightly, I think the closing statements went to Bush.

This is clearly on debating points.  Neither of them was very good, frankly, in good debating terms.

I can't tell how people view the minor details, personally.

I see it the exact opposite.  In the first 30 minutes Kerry wandered off the question to squeeze all his talking points in.  He was unfocused and looked nervous.

In the second 30 minutes Kerry was on task and on topic like we have not seen this election.

In the last part Kerry did better when he had the 2 minutes, but Bush always had a solid rebuttal.

Bush gave a slightly better closing statement.  Call it for Bush because Kerry spent too little time talking to the camera and too much talking to the moderator.  Kerry finally talked to the camera on his closing remark.

[afleitch]

Kerry won. This isn't a domestic event, or a folksy town hall confrontation- It is a foreign policy and homeland security debate. Its not about cracking jokes, it's about not about cracking jokes, its about being clear and precise about what to do. Bush really looked as if he wasn't taking this seriously. I was a high school debates champion a few years ago. Kerry was good, Bush was like someone who had left their notes on the bus on the way to the debate. It's to early to call this- Kerry was the better debator- but did he win the argument? I think, despite inconsistencies, he did.

[Trilobyte]

I also think Kerry did better, indeed he must do better than Bush to stay in the race.

I also noticed though, that Bush almost always asks for a second rebute Kerry's words. This is smart because it doesn't allow Kerry to close the with those punches. Kerry, on the other hand, never takes advantage of it.

[Sam Spade]

Tredrick, it's shows you how two different people can see things so very differently.

I have no idea how this would affect the polls or not.  I don't know pretend to know that.

[J-Mann]

I'm already starting to get distracted by the analysis by the talking heads on TV, but in my mind, Bush clearly won the debate.  What helped him the most is his experience; when a question came up, Kerry was talking in theoretical terms, Bush in terms of actual experience. That scored a lot of points in my analysis.

I split it up two different ways: who "won" each individual question (with 18 total points) and who scored individual points based on good points, strong positions, or effective attacks given within each question.

Bush was the victor.

Bush gave better, more effective and experienced answers on 17 out of 18 questions.  Kerry did well on some, especially towards the end of the debate.  The questions on "Does Iraq make us more likely to invade
others preemptively", "Character Issues", and "What's our most serious threat" were virtually ties, but if it came down to who scored more "points" on those questions, Bush did.  Once again, his experience dealing with foreign policy shined through.

In terms of who had better points throughout each question, Bush scored 55 to Kerry's 25.  He made much stronger points on each question, where Kerry was usually stalled at one or two.

Some other notes I made:

- After the fourth question was asked, I noted that both candidates were holding back; nervous.  Kerry was almost quiet.  Bush just isn't a great speaker.

- 30 minutes in, at the sixth question, they were calmer, and Bush was launching stauncher defenses of his policies...coming off as irritated with Kerry's charges.

- After the 11th question, I noted that Kerry was spending a small part of each question defending his positions.  Bush was really playing the flip-flopping card, probably too much.

- At the 14th question, I noted that Bush was throwing around a lot of foreign names.  Kerry mentioned none.

- By the 15th, Kerry was very at ease and came across well.

Bush's strength was in the first half, Kerry's in the second.  That could work against Kerry, as a lot of the 45-50 million supposedly watching won't make it through the whole 90 minutes.  Kerry came off as lecturing in the first half, Bush as speaking to people.  Kerry loosened up towards the end...probably too late.

Kerry's not out - it wasn't a total defeat, despite my numbers that could suggest the contrary.  Bush had a good command of the issues and just simply out-and-out beat Kerry.  Kerry's resolve is now in even greater question.  

Neither one is really impressive.

[ATFFL]

Tredrick, it's shows you how two different people can see things so very differently.

I have no idea how this would affect the polls or not.  I don't know pretend to know that.

Oh, it will ahev a huge effect in polls taken overnight.  Might even lead to a short bump for one or the other.  Neither candidate made a huge blunder and neither candidate hit a grand slam.  Won't have much, if any, long term impact.

[J. J.]

I was a high school debates champion a few years ago. Kerry was good, Bush was like someone who had left their notes on the bus on the way to the debate. It's to early to call this- Kerry was the better debator- but did he win the argument? I think, despite inconsistencies, he did.

Kerry is a better debator; he'd win against Bush in high school.  There were too many inconsistencies, expecially what he'd do in Iraq.  Basically, he had to do two things:

1.  Say what he would done prior to the invasion.  His answer was to get an "eighteenth" resolution.  Not good.

2.  Say what he was going to do in Iraq if elected.  He didn't.

On that score, he lost.

I'll be honest, I've been waiting for a Kerry position on Iraq.  I thought he'd do it at the DNC, he didn't.  This was his last chance.

[Defarge]

Measurable Kerry victory

[King]

Kerry by far.

[Erc]

I was a high school debates champion a few years ago. Kerry was good, Bush was like someone who had left their notes on the bus on the way to the debate. It's to early to call this- Kerry was the better debator- but did he win the argument? I think, despite inconsistencies, he did.

Kerry is a better debator; he'd win against Bush in high school.  There were too many inconsistencies, expecially what he'd do in Iraq.  Basically, he had to do two things:

1.  Say what he would done prior to the invasion.  His answer was to get an "eighteenth" resolution.  Not good.

2.  Say what he was going to do in Iraq if elected.  He didn't.

On that score, he lost.

I'll be honest, I've been waiting for a Kerry position on Iraq.  I thought he'd do it at the DNC, he didn't.  This was his last chance.

But Bush didn't rip into this like he should have...so the point that you're making here didn't come across to most of the viewers of the debate.  Kerry won (by a slim margin) because Bush failed to win it, nothing more.

In the long run (as you said earlier), Kerry didn't get a big enough victory to make much of a difference...which, considering his position in the polls, is a strategic victory for Bush.

Plus I assume that both sides (Bush especially) will get lots of coaching after this for the second and third debates.  I don't know how much better Kerry can do--but Bush can certainly do better than what he did tonight.

[Pollwatch99]

I'm a republican, Kerry is a much stronger ommunicator.   When people focus on the message from Kerry, the issues will be:

1.  Kerry's reference to "global test" and did not rebuke Bush when he criticized it.  One of Kerry's key messages was not having enough international support for IRAQ.  We failed the "global test".  It is now he thinks and will make decisions.  This is what this election has always been about getting UN support before action.  

2.  His total opposite approach to North Korea.  Forget multi-lateral talks, we need bi-lateral only which failed under Clinton.



 

[NHPolitico]

I don't think this will shift the polls a week from now at all. I don't think that undecideds got anything that would make them drift to Kerry, and I don't think viewers will watch much of the next two debates-- though maybe the town hall one. 90 minutes is too long.

[12th Doctor]

I agree with Dick Morris, who was just on Hannity and Colmes:

"Bush could have ended Kerry tonight.  He could have ended the Kerry candidacy, but he just looked more like he did in early 2000, during the primaries.  Bush won on substance, Kerry won on style".

P.S. Also "If Bush had done the first 88 min. of the debate like he had done the last 2 min., he would have killed Kerry."

[mddem2004]

Round 1 - KERRY HANDS DOWN!!!

And this was Bush's 'strong suit'??

[Lunar]

The instant polls, according to FOX, has Kerry winning the debate by more than 10 points.

[J. J.]

But Bush didn't rip into this like he should have...so the point that you're making here didn't come across to most of the viewers of the debate.  Kerry won (by a slim margin) because Bush failed to win it, nothing more.

In the long run (as you said earlier), Kerry didn't get a big enough victory to make much of a difference...which, considering his position in the polls, is a strategic victory for Bush.

Plus I assume that both sides (Bush especially) will get lots of coaching after this for the second and third debates.  I don't know how much better Kerry can do--but Bush can certainly do better than what he did tonight.

If I can use an analogy from the Civil War, this was Antietam.  The Union had a chance to cut off the Confedrate retreating and end the war.  They didn't and the war continued.  

Here Kerry had a chance to break the race on the national security issue.  He did not do that.  It was a bare tactical loss for Bush, but Kerry didn't exploit the tactical advantage.

Could Bush do better?  Yes.  Did he really push the points home?  No.  Was it enough to remove the "flip-flop" "mixed message" charge?  No, and it could have made matters worse.

[Giant Saguaro]

It was remarked that in these "flash polls" Kerry wins handily on style and Bush wins on policy. Of course in many cases we're getting partisan interpretations after a debate, but nonetheless it would be neat to see one.

[ATFFL]

The instant polls, according to FOX, has Kerry winning the debate by more than 10 points.

COrrection, as much as 10 points.  The polls said the same thing about Gore 4 years ago though.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In the CNN/USA Today flash poll, Kerry won the debate by 16%.  According the trend they posted, Gore won the first debate in 2000 by 2%.

[Friar]

Kerry won hands down.

I can't believe how bad Bush was. I mean... I expected more from him being a foreign policy debate. At one point I was wondering who the president is and who the challenger is.

Kerry is back in the game guys

[Posterity]

I think it was a better showing for Kerry.  Probably earned him some votes.

I watched the debate on C-SPAN and they had a split screen showing both candidates the whole time.  It was interesting to see the difference in how they conducted themselves "off-camera".  Whenever Bush was speaking, Kerry was jotting down notes about each point Bush made.  When Kerry was speaking, there were times when Bush looked rather flustered, especially when Kerry was criticizing Bush's policies.  Kerry looked to be relaxed and in control while Bush didn't.  But I assume only a small number of people watched C-SPAN, so it probably doesn't matter.

After the debate, C-SPAN had people call in to offer their opinions (which is much more interesting to me than hearing partisan talking heads spew out their pre-determined talking points).  I agree with several of those callers who said Kerry clearly had a better command of the facts while Bush mostly just repeated catch phrases like "we need to send a clear message" or "we can't send mixed messages".  Yes, those are important, but there's not much substance in those phrases.

Kerry had his moments of unclarity too.  I didn't understand what he was trying to say about having both bi-lateral and multi-later negotiations with North Korea.  He needed to be clearer about that.

The biggest omission from this debate was a discussion about what to do about al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.  Jim Lehrer should have asked a question about that to focus discussion on it.  Kerry brought it up only in saying that going into Iraq diverted our resources away from that effort.  Bush provided some rebuttal, but there was no in-depth discussion about what's being done to track down OBL and to shut down al-Qaeda.  Bush seems to have just a one word answer for that: "Iraq".  The Kerry campaign could really capitalize on this and attack Bush on what is supposed to be his strongest point in this campaign, the "War on Terror".

[Reds4]

Nick, they said Gore won the first debate by 7% in 2000, 2% was the final debate.

[Donovan]

Nick, they said Gore won the first debate by 7% in 2000, 2% was the final debate.

Who is the mysterious "They"?

[Silent Hunter]

From what I've watched so far, Kerry on performance, Bush on content. Bush looked nervous, JK possibly a know it all.

Kerry won narrowly overall. Whether it's enough to win is another question.

JK's 'go to my website for more details' remark- wasn't good. It makes him appear that he doesn't know his own Iraq plan.
'Break it, you bought it'- that's a reason for sticking with Bush.
The 35-40 countries comment, misleading. Not all of them were run by crazy dictators.

Bush waffled a fair bit and repeated himself.

Bush and Kerry's closing statements- same rhetoric I've heard for months.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Kerry