I only saw about half of it, but I’d have to say Gore.
To me he seemed articulate, prepared and passionate about his positions, without coming off as a rule-breaking bully. (Which people are making WAY too much of, by the way. When did politics become so wimpy?)
The sports analogies that everyone was making seemed accurate - that Gore was debating like a boxer who knows he is trailing going into the last round and needs to score a knockout; Bush like a boxer who knows he is ahead on points going into the last round and needs to avoid a knockout blow and hang on.
That said, I’m still voting for Bush. Gore did a better job in this debate of outlining his positions. I just don’t agree with those positions.
Freedom2 - You keep talking about your Bush landslide. I personally think you are only doing it on the off chance that it MIGHT happen, and then you will somehow look amazing. I also personally think that you are nuts. We are heading for an extremely close election.
As many have said, most of the undecideds will likely not turn out. That means the base of each party will be critical in this election. The Democrats traditionally are more effective at turning out their base. Many major unions have made election day a paid holiday.
Do I think Gore will win? No. Do I think Bush will win in a landslide, and Gore will be lucky to get 100 electoral votes? Give me a break.
I wish the Republican Party reflected my views a little better - fiscally conservative; socially moderate; very pro-choice and very pro- privacy and individual rights.
And no, the Libertarian Party doesn’t cut it. I’ve been to their web site; I’ve read their stuff. Their foreign policy isolationism is just silly.
Oh, and that “please only vote once” joke; I’m sure I’ve heard that before. Can’t remember who first coined it, but it’s been around the block a few times.
Actually, I am basing it on what I see the polls saying. I think the media has a vested interest in making this look like a close race. (Viewers and ad revenues) If you look at this race state by state, it is over. If the “undecideds” break for the challenger, like they normally do, then it HAS to be an Electoral landslide.
I think the popular vote will be somewhere about 6-8 percentage points in favor of Bush.
Check these guys out:
They currently have it at: Bush 356 Gore 182.
I don’t agree with everything they think, but I do agree with most of their analysis.
Does anyone here think it was a little biased for Lehrer to open up calling Bush “bumbling?” It sure looked to me like it threw Bush for a loop for the first 5 minutes or so. beagledave
I watched about half the debate, and it seemed to me that Gore won, although it was close. Of course, Bush might have killed him in the half I didn’t see.
But what I really noticed was the liberal slant of the questions. I thought this was supposed to be an audience of undecideds? I never saw a single question that had a conservative flavor to it. Did anyone else notice this? Gore was essentially thrown softballs for the whole time I watched.
The same thing happened four years ago in the ‘Town Hall’ debate. It makes me wonder if these ‘undecideds’ are really all that undecided, or perhaps whether there are more liberal undecideds than conservative because of the Nader factor (and Perot four years ago).
Lehrer DIDN’T call Bush bumbling. Lehrer said that he erred in the previous debate by saying that a Gore TV ad called Bush a bumbler…when it was a Gore spokesman who called him that in a press conference.
As for realclearpolitics force calling all the toss up states…I would rather someone say “I don’t know” to a question…than try to “force” a poll predicition in a state…at this point in October. This web site has only been around since August…not exactly a long track record to compare accuracy and results…
I don’t think there’s any doubt that we’ll have a Republican Congress. You state that you agree more with Gore on the issues, as do I, and the prospect of a Republican Congress combined with Bush as President really concerns me. Wouldn’t depend on that combination to do what I think are “the right thing with the budget surplus, abortion issue and tax cuts”.
I loathe Bush’s wishy-washy propaganda bullshit, i.e. “affirmative access”, which I find to be an insult to my intelligence. I know where he gets it, though. I was equally aggravated by “thousand points of light” and “kinder, gentler nation”. All three of these put together are no match for the all time winner, “compassionate conservatism”. The key word is propaganda.
I could go on for quite some time, but I’ll resist the temptation…
That’s actually one of my biggest concerns about Bush. You’ve just helped me figure out how to articulate it. When I watch Bush in action, under pressure, I don’t like what I see. When the going gets tough Bush either shuts down and gets visibly ‘steamed’ (I swear, I thought we were verging on fisticuffs last night) or he goes into his good 'ole boy condescention routine. I’ve heard several people call Al Gore arrogant, but Bush strikes me as much more arrogant when he tells us all “how we do it in Texas”. He talks and acts just like every other big-money-cowboy I’ve ever met - he knows just how to handle every situation, because working people is just like working cattle…
Thought that Bush was disappointing last night. I wish he would have been more articulate. I also had fantasies of Bush sucker-punching Gore when Gore was doing his Sluggo impersonation, trying to intimidate Bush by his girly-man size: “Texas is a big state, Mr. Vice–” WHAM!
Gore, on the other hand, bugged me. A lot. He was big, aggressive and annoying. And call me petty, but he had effeminate qualities which I found repulsive. That Southern ac-sayent. A noticable lisp. (At least he toned down the rouge.) More damning, IMO, is that Gore didn’t crack a smile the entire 90 minutes. He has NO sense of humor that I can detect, and utterly lacks charisma – a kiss of death in the media age.
Bush, on the other hand, may have not known what the Dingleberry McCormick health care bill was, but had a twinkle in his eye, a sense of humor beneath the serious facade. And everyone – men and women alike – respond to that. I know I did.
Shades of Reagan?!? No, Bush’s charisma is in different categories. I would trust Bush to babysit for me. I would trust Bush with my car for a week. I don’t trust Bush with my country for four years, or my best friend in the Persian Gulf for any length of time. I just don’t have faith in his moment-of-crisis ability. I think he could pick one HELL of a cabinet and staff, but ultimately big issues fall on one man, and I feel that Gore (however slippery and underhanded), will be more than capable when it comes to this.
I disagree on the arrogance battle, but definately agree about the foreign policy role. Maybe he will send in Dick Cheney for all the foreign policy stuff. grin
But I respect the fact that Gore has a clear and detailed plan on teh table in a number of areas. I can evaluate it and decide whether I agree or not. When asked questions (whether relevant or not) he is able to discuss his plans with depth and conviction.
Bush has a detailed plan on the table for one issue: tax cuts. In all else he answers in generalities and homilies. He is either unable or unwilling to address specifics in a meaningful way. His response to Gore’s statements about his proposed budget have changed in three debates from “fuzzy math” >> “that’s just wrong” >> “yes I give a big tax cut to the wealthy”. I also was very disturbed by the smile on his face when he spoke (inaccurately) about executing killers in Texas. Frankly, I was glad an audience member called him on it, and I did not believe him when he responded. The response appeared obviously coached; the smiles were seen in a natural response that could hardly have been anticipated. I know which one I felt was a better indication of how he treats what should be the most grave decision a governor ever has to make.
Gore, on the other hand, is a big old pander bear. His proposed budget relies too heavily on social engineering for my taste. He tries to toe the line on gun control, health care reform, medicare reform, and just about every other issue that comes to mind. I do feel he is more capable than Bush to be the chief executive, and I support more of his stated policies than I do Bush’s implied ones (Oh how I wish Bush would just come out and say what he will do), but he is not the man I want as President.
Unforunately, nobody else in the field is, either.
Even though I’m no fan of Gore and a big Nader supporter, I believe that those who say Bush won or even tied must have been watching another debate.
This is a nerve of mine that Dubya has a way of stepping on. I absolutely hate it when people try to hold up their ignorance as a virtue.
Never mind that Bush should at least know a little bit about the main “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (Norwood-Dingell) going through Congress, or at least enough to say whether or not he supports it and why. Instead, though, he retreats into good-old-boy mode–
Loosely translated, “You Washington insiders, you think you’re something with all your bills, and your names for bills, and your ‘legislative process’. Well, I’ll tell you one thing, Mr. Bigshot Bureaucrat–I think all babies ought to be allowed to eat.”
I’d be more forgiving of Dubya’s poor grasp on the details of issues like these if he would admit it and show some attempt to learn those details.
And let us not forget the best response of the debate:
