How could anyone think Bush won the second debate?
It seems so blazingly clear to me that the best way to characterize his performance was “immature,” maybe even “childish.”
Yet they tied, apparently, in the polls about the debate.
I can’t imagine anyone watching Bush jumping in and cutting off the moderator, and yelling at the audience, and so on, thinking, “now that’s the man I want handling sensitive diplomatic issues and thinking through complex political problems as my president!”
Answer: There are roughly equal numbers of Bush supporters and Kerry supporters. Everybody thinks his favorite candidate won. Therefore, roughly equal numbers think each won the debate. But that’s just what I read on the internets.
In Bush’s latest campaign speech, he’s basically calling Kerry a liar.
What planet would that be, Georgie? MARS?
Kerry explained his position quite clearly. There is a quote from a speech Kerry made when the issue of giving the President authority to invade Iraw as a last resort that is posted in another thread. Either Bush is lying about Kerry’s position, or he does not possess the capacity to understand (repeated) clear statements of positions.
Likely these viewers focused on the party talking points rather than the dynamics of the debate. I made the same error back in 80, when I thought Jimmy Carter trounced Ronald Reagan. :smack:
Yes, as far as it goes. It wouldn’t surprise me, for example, that a fundamentalist Christian with a neo-con foriegn policy perspective would feel that Bush won the debate.
There are clearly three groups - Bush supporters, Kerry supporters, and undecideds. So what is most interesting is to look at the polling results of only the undecideds, which clearly fall to Kerry’s favor.
Anyone want to take a guess at which group RikWriter falls into?
The score was 83 - 81. There were sixteen fouls on Kerry, and twenty-two fouls on Bush. Towards the end of the first quarter, Bush threw a long drive towards Kerry, who successfully dodged and it only grazed his shoulder. Then Kerry shot back at Bush, catching him in the solar plexus and winding him momentarily. The ref called a foul on Cheney for a sneak attack on Edwards from the second row, and then…
Oh, wait, so it’s not a sporting event? … thanks for moving it away from Cafe Society, then, Czarcasm.
I put it in cafe society because politics is a societal issue and becasue there was a thread about the debate in cafe society already.
I haven’t even looked in GD or the Pit since signing on to Straightdope, so I didn’t know there were discussions about this topic over in those boards.
AZCowboy, I have only been able to find summaries of the debate poll results which state that they are tied. I haven’t been able to find anything separating out just the results among undecided voters. Could you point me to a site or give me some better google search words than I have been using?
(I used various combinations of “Bush”, “Kerry”, “Second”, “Townhall”, “Town,” “Hall”, “Debate”, “Won”, and “Undecided.”)
But, there doesn’t appear to be any significant poll results among undecideds yet available regarding the second debate, so I reserve my “clearly favors Kerry” comment until more support is available.
Yes, I agree. He clearly explained his position on Iraq during his presidential campaign:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror. And therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that. And I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean].” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 12/15/03)
And Senator Edwards clearly explained his position on Iraq since 9/11:
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: “I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they - as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we’re going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we’re going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits. And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.” (CNN’s Late Edition, 2/24/02)
I’ll grant you that Edwards statement is hash. Even the most cogent argument will succumb to that many comma splices. Good thing its not the only time he’s addressed the issue though, isn’t it?
Kerry’s statement is pretty clear though. Iraq is not the war on terror. Or to be more precise, it wasn’t the war on terror. Invading it has made it ground zero, hasn’t it?
My six year old thinks I need to use a smiley here so here goes (these have nothing to do with any posts): :rolleyes: :smack:
Because he didn’t look and act (as much) like an angry wet monkey the same way he did in the first debate. For him, that is the same as a slam dunk win.
Kerry has been consistent on his position on the war in Iraq. From this post by Equipoise (bolding is mine):
*TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR, October 9, 2002 *
Kerry said two years ago, six months before the war started, that Iraq was not in imminent threat. He said that he was voting to give the President the authority to attach Iraq if diplomatic efforts failed. He has been saying that the President did not persue diplomatic efforts to exhaustion, but declared that the time for diplomacy was over. His position has not changed. Bush & Co. are deliberately and knowingly claiming that he has. As can be seen my Kerry’s speech, he hasn’t. Ergo, BushCo is lying and a lot of the public are buying it.
I’ve heard Kerry make almost identical statements to Edward’s but I haven’t found them in print yet. Dial-up makes it tough to sift through all the sites. I also didn’t want to turn it into a flip-flop post because it would get too lengthy. Kerry has definitely shifted his Iraqi position since the Democratic Primaries and that is his prerogative. However, He can’t claim his position on the subject is unchanged.
The sun is shining so I’m off to absorb some of it. Tell your 6 year old the smileys look nice.
:rolleyes: 
:smack: