# Bush-Kerry Debate: Watch Along Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963 "2004-10-01T00:58:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/481 "2004-10-01T20:15:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But even if the UN had backed the invasion, that would not have changed one single fact on the ground about the reasons for invasion. Well that’s where I part ways with Mr. Kerry. I don’t believe Iraq ever was a threat to the U.S. Saddam wasn’t a nice guy; that’s for sure. But a threat to the U.S.? Nope. I wouldn’t have authorized _ten cents_ for Bush, no matter how many promises he made about only being a last resort. However, while the _facts_ on the ground may not have changed, if we had allowed the inspections to continue, as our allies wanted to do, instead of chomping at the bit and rushing to war, we may very well have _discovered_ what the facts were. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/482 "2004-10-01T20:27:50Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Well that’s where I part ways with Mr. Kerry. I don’t believe Iraq ever was a threat to the U.S. Saddam wasn’t a nice guy; that’s for sure. But a threat to the U.S.? Nope. I wouldn’t have authorized _ten cents_ for Bush, no matter how many promises he made about only being a last resort. I wouldn’t have either. There’s another thing we agree on. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/483 "2004-10-01T20:45:10Z")
> [@](#): > > To make money by pandering to a specific demographic of low IQ conservative sheep with credit cards. Similarly, you can say of CBS: To make money by pandering to a specific demographic of low IQ liberal sheep with credit cards. So what? Or were you just trying to take a cheap shot at conservatives? As to Abu Graibe - I think Kerry stayed away from the issue for fear of bringing up any connection to his 70’s anti-Vietnam speeches wherein he implied the U.S. was the worst offenders in terms of breaking Geneva Conventions. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/484 "2004-10-01T20:49:12Z")
The notion that CBS or any other network has a liberal bias is a complete fantasy of the right. There is only one network with a tangible political bias and that is Fox News. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/485 "2004-10-01T20:52:04Z")
> [@PeeQueue](#): > > As to Abu Graibe - I think Kerry stayed away from the issue for fear of bringing up any connection to his 70’s anti-Vietnam speeches wherein he implied the U.S. was the worst offenders in terms of breaking Geneva Conventions. I don’t know about that… it’s not like his position from back then is a secret or anything. I think that it didn’t really come up, because: 1. They were alotted 120/90 seconds to respond to questions 2. No question was asked, where Abu Ghraib could be mentioned without being a tangent 3. There were plenty of other things that could be included in the repsonses to the questions (i.e. more “direct” answers). LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/486 "2004-10-01T20:57:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I was referring to polls about who happens to be in the lead at any given time during the campaign season-- ie, those made to determine “if the election were held today…” Well, great. But I was talking about the post-debate polls, because this thread is about the debate. > [@John Mace](#): > > The “whole point” of Fox News is to make money. Honest and truly? So you absolutely deny that ts propagandist, conservative slant is an essential part of its mission? Direct answer first. Circumlocution later, this time. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/487 "2004-10-01T21:09:43Z")
> [@](#): > > The notion that CBS or any other network has a liberal bias is a complete fantasy of the right. There is only one network with a tangible political bias and that is Fox News. Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me, I guess we didn’t need all those threads discussing this issue, we could have just asked you. 🙂 Either way, it doesn’t explain why you needed to refer to bias towards “low IQ conservative sheep” rather than simply a conservative bias. Regarding the debate - overall I think it was a somewhat useful one comparatively speaking; at least there were several points where you could point out definite difference of opinion. In that light, “who won” is the American people. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/488 "2004-10-01T21:20:08Z")
> [@PeeQueue](#): > > Similarly, you can say of CBS: To make money by pandering to a specific demographic of low IQ liberal sheep with credit cards. > So what? Or were you just trying to take a cheap shot at conservatives? Ah, PeeQueue! You have touched upon one of my favorite pet peeves! Prepare to be thoroughly depantsed. The idea of a liberal slant is ridiculous. Only the ignorant believe it. I will now prove it by making a falsifiable case. A falsifiable case, for you uninducted mopes out there, means a case based on facts and logic that can be shown to be false in the circumstance that it actually is. Starting in 1992 we heard that the Clintons were guilty of some horrible nameless crime in a land deal called Whitewater (a story which, by the way, was broken by the famously liberal New York Times). What they did was so horrible that they killed Vincent Foster and a few dozen other people for knowing too much. In truth, they were exonnerated three times. It was complete horseshit but we heard about it day after day after day for seven years. Then Al Gore ran for president whereupon the media told us that Al Gore was this weird lying exaggerator. For one thing he said he was the model for the lead character in love story. Of coure Gore only said it once and the book’s author said the exact same thing first. Then he said he invented the Internet! What a delusional jerk! Only problem is, he never said that. By comparison, we were told that George Bush is this straight-talking, populist he-man. Nuff said. When Bush won the election (oh, excuse me — when he was named president by the Supreme Court) his staff claimed that the Clinton people vandalized the White House even going so far as to remove all the W’s from all the keypads. Unfortuately that was horseshit too. Then the war with Iraq came. Saddam was involved with 911! He an Osama bin Laden were in Cahoots! There were weapons of mass destruction! Saddam is an imminent threat! We never said he was an imminent threat! All these stories favored the conservative slant, were big and turned out to be total horseshit. All you have to do to convince me that there’s a liberal slant to the news media is show me how the liberals have managed to dominate the media in the same way and you’ll win the point. Have fun. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/489 "2004-10-01T21:23:31Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > I don’t think you understand “the argument that Kerry represents a fresh start”, as well as you say you do… otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the 3 questions above. My appologies. I meant that I understand that the fresh start argument has validity. I did not mean to suggest that I am an expert on any nuances of this argument. If I have missed something, I sincerely would appreciate any corrections. Having said that, your explanation seems to be a restatement of what **blowero** said. That is that some allies are so upset with Bush himself that they will refuse to deal with us until he is gone. As I said, I see that this argument has some validity. But it still seems to fall far short of being the sort of complete course correct that Kerry seems to be promising. > [@](#): > > Saying that Kerry represents a fresh start in international politics, and leaving it at that _is_ simplistic, but it’s true. Agreed. > [@](#): > > It follows (that is, the simplicity subsides when you see) that having a fresh start in international politics will make a WORLD of difference (man, that was a bad pun… sorry), because the leaders of France, Germany (and yes, other countries… we know they aren’t the only ones Bush pissed on/off) will actually believe _their opinions matter to us_! As it is right now, they’re probably under the impression, “No matter what we say or do, [Bush/U.S.] is not going to listen to us.” Ok, but this seems overly simplistic. I really don’t think the French believe that none of their objections would be listened to “no matter what they say or do”. We have often had foriegn affairs disagreements with them. Our alliance has always endured. So, I guess I agree that a new president does indeed present a chance for a fresh start. But I disagree that it really presents enough of a fresh start to bring French troops or money into Iraq. At least in enough numbers to reduce the 90 percent of casualties or 90 percent of costs problem Kerry seems to think it will alleviate. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/490 "2004-10-01T21:39:19Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > What interest do allies _ever_ have in wars? Are you saying no country has ever formed an alliance unless they got paid? Nope. Excluded middle. > [@](#): > > Exactly right - it doesn’t mean they don’t have an _interest_, but it _does_ mean that they are never going to work with Bush. Why should they? He in effect thumbed his nose at them. Why would they have any reason to believe that Bush is all of a sudden going to be different? Even if you think Kerry has little chance of succeeding, I still don’t get the reasoning. If Kerry has little chance, but Bush has NO chance, that’s _still_ not a reason to vote for Bush. Well, because I don’t understand this level of the argument, I suppose. _If_ Bush has no chance and Kerry has some chance to get French, German, or Russian troops or money into Iraq then you are correct. But that is a pretty big if in my opinion. Especially since it seems to rest only on the idea that Kerry is a different president. I haven’t seen enough evidence that nations are so fixated on personal snubs that they will completely ignore thier own national interests. I am not saying that nations will ignore snubs. I am not saying that snubs are not important. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/491 "2004-10-01T21:47:49Z")
> [@braintree](#): > > Well, great. But I was talking about the post-debate polls, because this thread is about the debate. You asked a hypothetical about how Fox would report certain polls, so I gave a response based on how they had reported other polls in the past. I don’t know any other way to respond to such a hypothetical unless all you wanted was my opinion. Unless you think there is something inherently unique about debate polls. Sorry to have allowed some facts to get in the way. 😕 > [@](#): > > Honest and truly? So you absolutely deny that ts propagandist, conservative slant is an essential part of its mission? Direct answer first. Circumlocution later, this time. I don’t know what its mission is. I will assert that if you watch nothing but Fox News for a week, there will be no significant news item you will miss. Whether they “slant” the news one way or another and whether or not other networks don’t is hard to say. They may be more conservatively oriented overall in their editorial analysis, not unlike the NYT’s editorial page has a liberal bias. But if you watch, say, Brit Hume’s “Special Report”, he reports the news for 40 minutes, then offers a 20 minute roundtable with both liberal and conservative viewpoints. And I could point to analysts at other networks, like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC, who is at least as conservative as Fox’s most conservative analysis, Sean Hannity. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/492 "2004-10-01T23:06:00Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I meant that I understand that the fresh start argument has validity. I did not mean to suggest that I am an expert on any nuances of this argument. I did not mean to suggest that you were an expert in the nuances of this argument. I apologize, if you took it that way. > [@pervert](#): > > Ok, but this seems overly simplistic. I really don’t think the French believe that none of their objections would be listened to “no matter what they say or do”. We have often had foriegn affairs disagreements with them. Our alliance has always endured. I think this is where we start parting in our beliefs in this argument. I agree that our alliance has endured “troubled times”… but I’m not necessarily suggesting that our relationship with France will never be mended. I just think that it won’t be mended while Bush is in office. (You do remember how bad it got over here, right? With the Freedom Fries, and “Kerry looks like he’s French.” etc… the vitriol wasn’t anything that should be taken particularly lightly, IMO.) > [@pervert](#): > > But I disagree that it really presents enough of a fresh start to bring French troops or money into Iraq. At least in enough numbers to reduce the 90 percent of casualties or 90 percent of costs problem Kerry seems to think it will alleviate. This is the part, I believe, where we will have to agree to disagree, since it’s really just conjecture (on both our parts); I believe that within 6 months of taking office, Kerry would be able to re-establilsh our ties with France and Germany, and get the point across: “We _need_ your help.” I would like to think that our allies would come to our aid, if we admit that we acted in a rash manner, and need their help. I don’t see Bush admitting to _anything_, in the future. But like I said, the parts we are seeming to really disagree on are just a difference in our opinions of what the future holds. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/493 "2004-10-02T01:09:27Z")
I didn’t manage to stay awake to watch the debate live, so I just watched the whole thing on ITN. Fortunately I’d already read this thread so I knew what to expect - though I missed out on the drinking games - I confess I watched it while drinking a mug of cocoa. [how tame!!] The pronunciation thing that got to me most was Bush’s **‘duty’** - he kept talking about my **doody** to my country, to the american people etc. I was waiting too for Bush to say ‘flipflopper’ - which he didn’t - though he sure managed to find enough other euphemisms for that. I was disappointed that Kerry didn’t talk about the massive civilian deaths and casualties in Iraq that are directly attributable to Bush’s WOT, especially after Bush referred to those children who died in Russia. My immediate thought was that Bush is such a hypocrite - or maybe he thinks it’s OK to kill kids by bombing the hell outa them. I didn’t see Bush’s ‘folksy charm’ either - that I’ve read about in the papers - to me he came across as nervous and a bit dithery. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/494 "2004-10-02T04:13:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The notion that CBS or any other network has a liberal bias is a complete fantasy of the right. There is only one network with a tangible political bias and that is Fox News. Generally what conservatives mean by “liberal bias” is, “doesn’t toe the conservative line.” It’s not a fantasy so much as a matter of perception. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/495 "2004-10-02T08:11:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The notion that CBS or any other network has a liberal bias is a complete fantasy of the right. There is only one network with a tangible political bias and that is Fox News. Are you kidding, Dio? Those networks all have a bias _to the right_! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/496 "2004-10-02T08:17:51Z")
> [@PeeQueue](#): > > Either way, it doesn’t explain why you needed to refer to bias towards “low IQ conservative sheep” rather than simply a conservative bias. Truth required it? Actually, FOX News does not seem to me so much worse that the news of other networks. It’s all the other programming such as _Hannity_ and whatnot that gives it its polished right-wing aura. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/497 "2004-10-02T08:22:26Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Ok, but this seems overly simplistic. I really don’t think the French believe that none of their objections would be listened to “no matter what they say or do”. We have often had foriegn affairs disagreements with them. Our alliance has always endured. Sure, our alliance has endured, if by that you mean we aren’t at war with France, but I think it rather obtuse to believe that Bush hasn’t made a mess of relations with our allies. And honestly, I can’t think of a previous president who has demonstrated such poor diplomatic skills as Bush, so I don’t know that I’d consider what has “always happened” up until Bush became president to be relevant. I really think you’re looking at Bush through partisan eyes if you think he’s going to be able to accomplish, in a second term, what he failed to (or really, _refused_ to) accomplish in his first term. And it’s not just that I think Bush has burned his bridges and can’t ever regain that cooperation, it’s also that I don’t see any reason to believe that he would even _try_. Bush _wanted_ it this way. He thought the U.S. would get all the “spoils” of Iraq, except that it turned out there really weren’t any spoils to be had. He _wanted_ to go it alone. He had his chance and he blew it - end of story. > [@](#): > > Nope. Excluded middle. Please don’t throw out names of logical fallacies when you have no idea what they mean. :rolleyes: You asked why Germany, France or Russia would have any interest in Iraq unless they were paid. I was actually trying to be gentle with my answer, but if you’re going to get snippy about it, I’ll just come right out and say that that’s about the stupidest, most ignorant question I’ve ever heard. It demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of how international diplomacy works. > [@](#): > > _If_ Bush has no chance and Kerry has some chance to get French, German, or Russian troops or money into Iraq then you are correct. But that is a pretty big if in my opinion. Especially since it seems to rest only on the idea that Kerry is a different president. No, it’s based on the idea that Kerry favors mulilateralism, while Bush favors unilateralism. It is a crucial ideological difference. Unilateralism failed, so I’m voting for the candidate who favor multilateralism. > [@](#): > > I haven’t seen enough evidence that nations are so fixated on personal snubs that they will completely ignore thier own national interests. I am not saying that nations will ignore snubs. I am not saying that snubs are not important. Well I disagree. I think things _can_ and _have_ been accomplished via diplomacy. I reject the notion that our allies are just going to do whatever they want and that there’s no point in talking to them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/498 "2004-10-02T16:12:08Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > TActually, FOX News does not seem to me so much worse that the news of other networks. It’s all the other programming such as _Hannity_ and whatnot that gives it its polished right-wing aura. Well, at least Hannity has Colms to balance things out a bit. Colms is a weenie, but he’s still there to represent the liberal side. If you want to see a \*\*REAL \*\*conservative gab fest, watch Scarborough on MSNBC. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/499 "2004-10-02T17:07:44Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I really think you’re looking at Bush through partisan eyes if you think he’s going to be able to accomplish, in a second term, what he failed to (or really, _refused_ to) accomplish in his first term. Well, I didn’t say he would get France to bring troops into Iraq either. But while we are on the subject, I think you are looking at Bush through partisan eyes as well to come to the conclusion that our alliances are in the “mess” you think they are in. > [@](#): > > Please don’t throw out names of logical fallacies when you have no idea what they mean. :rolleyes: I was not trying to say that you used a logical fallacy. I was trying to be brief in order to avoid the sort of offence you tend to take when I dismiss statements which hade nothing to do with what I said. > [@](#): > > You asked why Germany, France or Russia would have any interest in Iraq unless they were paid. No. You completely made that up. I asked what Kerry was going to do to get any of those countries to contribute enough troops or money to defray the 90% - 90% problem he is complaining about. I never said anything like they would have to be paid. I did offer that as an option, but never even hinted that it was the only and exclusive option available. Which you then assumed I said and asked your questions accordingly. Since I did not say that, I dissmissed your question. > [@](#): > > I was actually trying to be gentle with my answer, but if you’re going to get snippy about it, I’ll just come right out and say that that’s about the stupidest, most ignorant question I’ve ever heard. It demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of how international diplomacy works. Well, yes. If any ever says that payment is the only way alliances get formed then I will join you. Let me know if you run accross anyone so stupid. > [@](#): > > No, it’s based on the idea that Kerry favors mulilateralism, while Bush favors unilateralism. It is a crucial ideological difference. Unilateralism failed, so I’m voting for the candidate who favor multilateralism. This is a fair assessment. In any future war. In Iraq, I really don’t see how it will help. This was the aspect of Kerry’s comments I was questioning. > [@](#): > > Well I disagree. I think things _can_ and _have_ been accomplished via diplomacy. I reject the notion that our allies are just going to do whatever they want and that there’s no point in talking to them. This is such a non sequitor from the quoted part of my post that I do not even know how to respond. If any part of any of my posts have ever led you to believe that I think diplomacy cannot ever accomplish anything then I would humbly ask you to reread it first and ask for a clarification later. Please do not attribute your hatred of Bush to me. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963/500 "2004-10-02T23:29:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, undoubtedly after this poor performance, the polls will swing strongly towards Kerry, and Bush will lose his lead, since he’s so obviously terrible. > > Right? [Here you go.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/) A fresh new telephone poll from Newsweek, giving Kerry a 2% lead, 3% if Nader is excluded. 'Course, we’ll have to wait a bit longer to see how this plays in the electoral college, but still…you asked. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-kerry-debate-watch-along-thread/266963.md?page=26)