Whoever the Democrats select as their candidate will have at least one and maybe two or three head-to-head debates with George W. Bush. Seeing that millions of people will see these debates live, which of the Democratic candidates will fare the best against Bush in a debate?
My new personal feeling is that it would be John Edwards. He was a successful trial lawyer who is also an excellent public speaker. His strategy seems to be to begin with charm and end with a dramatic flourish. Bush, as we know, is not a very good public speaker and relies on platitudes when he is confronted with difficult questions. I think that gives a successful debator (sic?) such as Edwards the perfect opportunity to display his skills and score points with the public.
What do you think? I don’t know if Kerry, Clark, or Dean could attack Bush during a debate as effectively as Edwards.
(I am independent but I have decided that I want Bush out and if I have to support a Democrat, it needs to be someone who can beat Bush and not f*** up the country after election)
Personally, I’d rather watch Bush play blow-football with any of the above than watch them debate. The results would be more entertaining, and about as constructive.
Yeah, Gore got reamed for sighing and shaking his head. But Bush was the outsider, taking shots at the Washington insider. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and Bush has a lot to be defensive about.
My opinion is that whoever is nominated by the Democrats, debating George Bush will be like shooting fish in a barrel. Hell, it’s like looking at fish in a barrel. It’s like being somewhere near a barrel.*
So… almost anyone can best Bush at the debate table, because he’s such a schlub… yet in 2000, the Democrats nominated pretty much the one guy that couldn’t manage to get the job done?
Leaving aside the Poisoned Well aspects of the OP, I think the question being asked is moot.
We’re only going to see a debate between Bush and Kerry, because Kerry is going to win the Dem nomination. You might see Edwards debate Cheney, but I’m not even sure about that.
A Bush/Kerry debate should be very interesting. Both have some very good questions to ask the other.
Kerry: If the WMDs are still out there, and we went to war to prevent the WMDs from getting into the wrong hands, didn’t the war result in exactly the sitution that you told us it was supposed to prevent?
Bush: You voted against Gulf War I, and for Gulf War II. Do you consider those to be good decisions, and if not, how can the American people trust you to make the right decision at the right time?
I suspect that Kerry is better debater than Bush, but he will have pretty much the same problem Gore had. Kerry comes off as pompous and stiff. Sound familiar?
Nah. If you objectively looked at the Gore-Bush debates, Gore beat Bush hands down on left-brain issues, such as understanding, comprehension, and analysis. The only thing Bush was better than Gore at was at fuzzy stuff, such as “looking folksy” and “sounding friendly.”
Yet Bush ends up getting crowned the “winner,” because everyone knows that the most important criterial for being President of the US is how paternal he looks like on teevee. :rolleyes:
A very brief summary of the Gore Vs. Bush debates:
Debate 1: Gore easily outperforms bush, public opinion polls confirm that. The pundits on CNN/Faux News/MSNBC, however, go into overdrive, screeching nonstop for the next week about how Gore came across as mean-spirited, dull, and just not the sort of friendly guy who Joe Average wants to vote for.
Debate 2: Gore cowers in the corner. Bush creams him. Bush’s numbers go way up.
Debate 3: Gore acts like he has at least some balls. Polls show the public viewed it as a slight victory for Gore.
Kerry, at least, does not strike me as the sort of person who would agree to give a sniveling, wimpy performance just to avoid being mocked on Saturday Night Live, though in truth you can’t tell for sure until he’s actually there.
A few of us may remember that (for obvious reasons) during the 2000 election cycle, Bush floated the idea of only holding two debates, and having one of those be broadcast only on the cable networks where millions of people can’t watch it. I wonder whether he’ll try the same thing again this time.
Um… tell me again what the purpose of the debate process is?
I thought it was to convince people to vote for a particular candidiate. Even if I accept your analysis as accurate, it seems to me that Bush benefitted more from the debates than his opponent.
If this is your hope for the next round of debates as well, I have to tell you I’m all for it: the Democrat can beat Bush in all the left-brain issues, the public can crown Bush the winner, and it sounds like we’ll both be happy.
Whether or not you like Bush, I think it is incredibly foolish and historically unrealistic to underestimate his debating skills.
Being polished smooth and slick is not always a good thing, as Gore found out. He started to look a little bit like a used car salesman compared to George, and I think this frustrated him because it wasn’t really his fault. He just came off that way compared to Bush who seems as if he is without affect.
Bush does a decent job of talking like a real person talks. In a debate, or public speaking situation coming off really smooth ain’t always great.
The lack of effect and possible slight speech impediment doesn’t make Bush stupid. If anybody’s seen Journeys with George it’s difficult not to credit Bush as being both smart and able to think on his feet. He knows how to win people over, and how to get people to listen.
He has the ability to make other people look like they are reciting a spiel, which is an advantage.
Clinton had the ability to be both slick as a weasel, and downright homey and credible at the same time and this made him a formidable debator. As did Reagan.
Both sounded real.
Gore was slick, but Bush was real.
Bush is not a master debator, but anybody stupid enough to assume that Bush’s lack of affect and awkwardness makes him easy pickings is going to be in for as big a surprise as Gore was.
I happen to think Edwards or Lieberman would do well in a debate with Bush. I think Kerry or Dean would do poorly.
Though it’s not going to happen, Al Sharpton would, by far, out perform Bush in a debate. I worry that any of the more mainstream candidates will be overly concerned with image. Sharpton would tell it like it is and Bush would be hard pressed to respond. But it ain’t gonna happen.
Actually, Howard Dean would probably do a pretty damn good job, too, but the media will say he is “mean-spirited.”
Don’t forget that just like all other politicians, just for Bush to get to the nomination required that he win or at least stand his ground in several debates during the primaries. And of course, he also beat a popular incumbent governor in Texas, and I’m guessiing there were debates there too.
Bush isn’t an eloquent speaker, but he speaks well enough to get his points across with emphasis in the correct places and the nuances in place. And the contents of the words ultimately wins debates, no matter how clumsily they may be presented. And Bush has an ability to rise to an occasion, as evidenced by the weeks immediately after 9/11, when he gave some incredibly moving, powerful speeches.
And this time, Bush has the weight of the office on him. That brings some problems with it, but it also gives his opinions weight. Bush’s problem was always that he didn’t have gravitas - he was a fratboy, remember? That was his biggest liability in the last election. This time around, he starts with an advantage.
I’m one of those old-fashioned idiots who believe that the purpose of a Presidential debate is for the candidates to expose their views on things, so the voters can make an informed decision of which person they feel is better-qualified to lead the nation.
Unfortunately, it seems like some people today feel the purpose of the debate is to make their candidate look more “appealing” than the other, in hopes that people will vote for someone just because they figure they can tolerate his mug on the newspaper for the next four years. :rolleyes:
Which is, as I’ve said before, a stupid way to determine who wins a debate, much less an election. All the folksy charm in the world can’t compensate for having a wad of dryer lint between the years, IMO.
This is the purpose of a candidates platform. This is what he does in speeches, and campaigning and stumping.
The actual purpose of a debate is to be more appealing than your fellow candidates. You can make this appeal in a number of ways ranging from looking good and Presidential, to making strong and eloquent arguments. etc.
I really can’t imagine how you can take offense that a debate is a comparison between two candidates based on relative appeal through interaction. That’s the whole purpose. Nonetheless, if it offends you, that’s probably your mistake and not the problem of the debating process.
Which is, as I’ve said before, a stupid way to determine who wins a debate, much less an election. All the folksy charm in the world can’t compensate for having a wad of dryer lint between the years, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
I kind of agree there. However, in my eyes, both Bush and Gore were underwhelming. I felt that Gore was programmed and gave off a phony air. Bush, seemed very silly to me. Which was surprising to me. Before Bush was tapped as the Republican nominee, I happened to see his last Gubernatorial debate in Texas. I was pretty impressed as I knew nothing about him at that point. He seemed straightforward and confident and seemed to have solid grasp of the issues. Versus Gore, however, I didn’t feel that either one of them won the debate. They both seemed to lose for me and that’s why I voted for a third party candidate.
Therefore, I don’t feel that Bush is all that skilled. A strong Democrat can pull the rug out from under Bush’s legs. Edwards has some handicaps, for sure, but he is a skilled and polished debater. Furthermore, he doesn’t have that air of phoniness that Gore had. Edwards has a natural delivery which will suit him very well versus Bush (or Cheney, for that matter). For a Democrat to win, he must humiliate Bush in the debates.
Everyone keeps saying that Edwards is a good debater, but so far he hasn’t shown it, has he? Has anyone said that Edwards won any of the debates so far?
I’ve only seen one debate, but the one I saw was pretty pathetic. Edwards and Kerry both did lousy jobs, and Clark was the worst of the lot. The only one that scored any debating points in the one I saw was Al Sharpton.
