Time for a history Lesson

[12th Doctor]

I figured that now is a good time for a brief history lesson.

Walter Mondale slaughtered Ronald Reagan in the first debate of 1984.  Newspapers said that Reagan looked, "baffled", "uninformed", "befuddled" and was generally "inarticulate".

Many people did start to wonder if it really was "just Reagan's time" and "soft support" eroded away a bit.

What happened next?  Reagan came back to trounce Mondale in the 2nd and 3rd debates... you know the rest.

[Keystone Phil]

I figured that now is a good time for a brief history lesson.

Walter Mondale slaughtered Ronald Reagan in the first debate of 1984.  Newspapers said that Reagan looked, "baffled", "uninformed", "befuddled" and was generally "inarticulate".

Many people did start to wonder if it really was "just Reagan's time" and "soft support" eroded away a bit.

What happened next?  Reagan came back to trounce Mondale in the 2nd and 3rd debates... you know the rest.

I don't know if it was on the forum or in school but I know I brought up the same point. Bush will come back in the next couple debates and win this election easily. It won't be a 49 state landslide but it will be clear who the winner is on Election night.

[A18]

That's true. But when I saw it, I thought Reagan won the first debate, lol.

[Dave from Michigan]

very interesting, although Bush is no Reagan

[A18]

Gingrich had good advice on O'Reilly last night. When Kerry did his Iraq bit, Bush should have just said "I liked your position last week better."

What comeback line would Bush give in a domestic policy debate, though?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I figured that now is a good time for a brief history lesson.

On the contrary, it is time for a speech and debate lesson for Bush.

I never took Speech or Debate in school, but I know how to take a position and defend it.

[lidaker]

I figured that now is a good time for a brief history lesson.

Walter Mondale slaughtered Ronald Reagan in the first debate of 1984.  Newspapers said that Reagan looked, "baffled", "uninformed", "befuddled" and was generally "inarticulate".

Many people did start to wonder if it really was "just Reagan's time" and "soft support" eroded away a bit.

What happened next?  Reagan came back to trounce Mondale in the 2nd and 3rd debates... you know the rest.

First of all, there were only two debates in 1984. Mondale won the first one, Reagan secured his victory in the second one.

Secondly, Reagan had a much better record to run on. The economy was in good shape that year and there was no mess in Iraq.

Thirdly, Bush lacks the ability to deliver those punch out replies as Reagan did in that debate. He's not as likeable and he's a much worse public speaker.

[The Duke]

"There are certain things a President must know."

-Walter Mondale.


In spite of Reagan's rambling and Mondale's proficiency with the issues, Reagan won 49 states.  Smart is nice, but balls trump brains in US politics.

[A18]

The economy is in good shape and there is no mess in Iraq.

Bush can and has delivered knockout lines. He's just never done so in a debate before.

By the way, I didn't think of this before but...Bush now benefits from the game of low expectations.

[Minarchist]

Secondly, Reagan had a much better record to run on. The economy was in good shape that year and there was no mess in Iraq.

The economy is better now than it was when Clinton was re-elected in what passes for a landslide these days.

[Citizen James]

"There are certain things a President must know."

-Walter Mondale.


In spite of Reagan's rambling and Mondale's proficiency with the issues, Reagan won 49 states.  Smart is nice, but balls trump brains in US politics.

Not nessisarily.  Goldwater had massive cajones, and got creamed.   For better of for worse, a lot lies on the perception of the public.

[The Duke]

"There are certain things a President must know."

-Walter Mondale.


In spite of Reagan's rambling and Mondale's proficiency with the issues, Reagan won 49 states.  Smart is nice, but balls trump brains in US politics.

Not nessisarily.  Goldwater had massive cajones, and got creamed.   For better of for worse, a lot lies on the perception of the public.

The country was much more liberal in 1964.  These days, balls trump brains.

In any case, Goldwater had balls, but he was crazy, so it got overridden by something else.  New rule:

Balls beat brains, but marbles beat balls.

[© tweed]

I figured that now is a good time for a brief history lesson.

Walter Mondale slaughtered Ronald Reagan in the first debate of 1984.  Newspapers said that Reagan looked, "baffled", "uninformed", "befuddled" and was generally "inarticulate".

Many people did start to wonder if it really was "just Reagan's time" and "soft support" eroded away a bit.

What happened next?  Reagan came back to trounce Mondale in the 2nd and 3rd debates... you know the rest.

Reagan was up 14ish, and not 4ish, going into the first debate.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I figured that now is a good time for a brief history lesson.

Walter Mondale slaughtered Ronald Reagan in the first debate of 1984.  Newspapers said that Reagan looked, "baffled", "uninformed", "befuddled" and was generally "inarticulate".

Many people did start to wonder if it really was "just Reagan's time" and "soft support" eroded away a bit.

What happened next?  Reagan came back to trounce Mondale in the 2nd and 3rd debates... you know the rest.

You're right (except there was no 3rd debate)...and if Bush comes back to trounce Kerry in the 2nd and 3rd debates, Bush will win the election easily.  But does anyone actually think Bush can do this?

I think Kerry probably assured a reasonably close race right up to election day with his performance last night.

[zachman]

Bush will have an advantage in the expectations game for the next debate. This is for the most part good for him, although it could cause more of the clips from the last debate to be rerun.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Bush's problem is that he so used to only appearing at fawning GOP crowds that he is out of practice at having to do anything other than answer softball questions and dodge the occasional hardball that snuck in.  Had Bush scheduled foreign policy for the second or third debate, then the low expectations game could have been used to explain away his poor performance and then a practiced Bush could have cleaned house on what is Bush's best subject.  Kerry managed to do well enough to stop hemoraging support and to begin bouncing back.  This election looks like it will be close after all.

[A18]

lol. People who say "Kerry won" aren't people saying "I'm voting for Kerry." Have you looked at the numbers?

A. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
46% Kerry
49% Bush

B. Expressed himself more clearly
60% Kerry
32% Bush

C. Had a good understanding of the issues
41% Kerry
41% Bush

D. Was more believable
45% Kerry
50% Bush

E.  Was more likeable
41% Kerry
48% Bush

F. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
37% Kerry
54% Bush

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kerry managed to stop the hemoraging, which was the most he could have hoped to do in this debate.  In that sense, it was clearly a Kerry win. He still needs to do well in the next two to have a chance to win the election, but I think he likely will do well.

[A18]

Yeah, I agree. Last night was Bush's chance to crush Kerry, and he didn't do that.

[Dr. Cynic]

It was Kerry's to win or lose, but guess what, he held his own, and won on points.

[iosip]

Gingrich had good advice on O'Reilly last night.

gingrich is irrelevant.

[mddem2004]

How about this for a more relavent history lesson. The most watched 1st debate (either in raw numbers or in % of households) were in 1960, 1980, and 1992 . The Kerry/Bush debate just squeaked past the 1992 raw numbers.

Each of the most watched debates in 60, 80, and 92 were won by the Challenger (Republicans in 60 were the incumbant party), and the Challenger went on to win the election.

Kerry CLEARLY won this debate in spades.....

Any of the remaining debates this year are sure to not have the viewership as last Thursday. Bush's goal of putting Kerry away with what was supposed to be Bush's strong suit (Foreign Policy) CLEARLY fell on its face.

An open Town Hall style second debate, where Kerry excells in the courtroom style of thinking on his feet in that format AND Domestic Issues in the last formal debate only moves the debates into Kerry friendly turf.....

Thursday was Bush's best shot to put Kerry away and he BLEW IT!

It can only be down hill from here for Bush.......

[Nym90]

How about this for a more relavent history lesson. The most watched 1st debate (either in raw numbers or in % of households) were in 1960, 1980, and 1992 . The Kerry/Bush debate just squeaked past the 1992 raw numbers.

Each of the most watched debates in 60, 80, and 92 were won by the Challenger (Republicans in 60 were the incumbant party), and the Challenger went on to win the election.

Kerry CLEARLY won this debate in spades.....

Any of the remaining debates this year are sure to not have the viewership as last Thursday. Bush's goal of putting Kerry away with what was supposed to be Bush's strong suit (Foreign Policy) CLEARLY fell on its face.

An open Town Hall style second debate, where Kerry excells in the courtroom style of thinking on his feet in that format AND Domestic Issues in the last formal debate only moves the debates into Kerry friendly turf.....

Thursday was Bush's best shot to put Kerry away and he BLEW IT!

It can only be down hill from here for Bush.......

Agreed. Bush wanted the first debate to be on foreign policy, since he knew from past history that it would probably be the most watched debate (although not always, in 1992 the 2nd debate had more viewers than the first).

This should have been Bush's strongest of the 3 debates. If you want a sports analogy, Kerry just beat Bush on Bush's home field. They now will play on a neutral field in the 2nd game, and on Kerry's home field in the 3rd game of the series.

[12th Doctor]

You're right (except there was no 3rd debate)...and if Bush comes back to trounce Kerry in the 2nd and 3rd debates, Bush will win the election easily.  But does anyone actually think Bush can do this?

I think Kerry probably assured a reasonably close race right up to election day with his performance last night.

Yeah, the "3rd Debate" was a slip of the mind on my part.

I honestly think that Bush will defeat Kerry in the Town Hall forum.  I don't know about the last one, though.

[Tory]

Gingrich had good advice on O'Reilly last night.

gingrich is irrelevant.

And you aren't?