NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all I have been out of the loop moving into my new house in Vegas and I was wondering what happened during the second Presidential debate and who won? I figure it was probably Kerry seeing how bad Bush looked in the first one.

Are there any threads with the play by play I can read? :fluffle:

Kerry won, not by a landslide but he did win.

Officially, Kerry won by a small to moderate margin.

Unlike the first debate, which was widely agreed to be a huge Kerry win.

The VP debate was largely considered a tie, or a slight Cheney win.

B to the U to the S to the H.

Need some wood?

B to the U to the S to the H.

Need some wood?

Funny that you quote something that Bush was conclusively to have either lied about or been clueless about. See factcheck.org

Kerry had a slight edge, but the post-debate fact-checking, while showing that both bend the truth (they're politicians, of course,) revealed that Bush's "straying from the truth" was more egregious.

Bush won this one. It was almost the exact opposite of the 1st debate. Bush looked energetic throughout and Kerry looked like he had run out of gas by the end. And Bush connects better with people than Kerry does, so the town hall format was ideal for him. Kerry kept repeating that he has a plan, but he didn't offer many details. I think his campaign slogan should be "Vote for me. I'm not Bush."

Funny that you quote something that Bush was conclusively to have either lied about or been clueless about. See factcheck.org

Kerry had a slight edge, but the post-debate fact-checking, while showing that both bend the truth (they're politicians, of course,) revealed that Bush's "straying from the truth" was more egregious.

Haw. By that logic, I'm part owner of Microsoft and IBM.. Kerry just straight whigged out. First, by justifying screwing small businesses (Chapter S and LP's), and second by trying to do it by claiming Bush owned a timber company. It just didn't go well with the people. Granted, it's not a big deal, but the crowd reaction was priceless, and it gave Bush the confidence to finish strong. Just compare the closing statements: Bush nailed it. ;)

anyone got any links? Wheres that guy who takes great notes when you need him?

I'm just going by the polls...

Here's where I knew Kerry blew it (to paraphrase):

Question to Kerry: Senator, your running mate made millions suing doctors and insurance companies. What's your stand on tort reform?

Kerry: Sen. Edwards is a great man, blah blah blah.. For my stand on tort reform, see www.johnkerry.com.

---
Plugging the website for your argument is just lame. :rolleyes:

Here's where I knew Kerry blew it (to paraphrase):

Question to Kerry: Senator, your running mate made millions suing doctors and insurance companies. What's your stand on tort reform?

Kerry: Sen. Edwards is a great man, blah blah blah.. For my stand on tort reform, see www.johnkerry.com.

---
Plugging the website for your argument is just lame. :rolleyes:

Only if you're tying to appeal to illiterates or people who have a resistance to information that actually might make them think.

Only if you're tying to appeal to illiterates or people who have a resistance to information that actually might make them think.

Seriously: imagine for a minute that Bush plugged his website for rebuttal. He'd be laughed off the stage. Neither candidate writes their own website - telling people to read it is a total cop-out, and says nothing of their command of the issues. I can pay someone to write an excellent essay on any issue online for a few hundred clams, and it says nothing about me.. Bush and Kerry have this luxury x10.

Haw. By that logic, I'm part owner of Microsoft and IBM.. Kerry just straight whigged out. First, by justifying screwing small businesses (Chapter S and LP's), and second by trying to do it by claiming Bush owned a timber company. It just didn't go well with the people. Granted, it's not a big deal, but the crowd reaction was priceless, and it gave Bush the confidence to finish strong. Just compare the closing statements: Bush nailed it. ;)
And it's that exact logic that makes you a small business with the definition that Bush uses to claim Kerry will effect 900,000 small businesses-which was the exact point Kerry was making and was exactly correct. Sorry Bob.

Haw. By that logic, I'm part owner of Microsoft and IBM.. Kerry just straight whigged out. First, by justifying screwing small businesses (Chapter S and LP's), and second by trying to do it by claiming Bush owned a timber company. It just didn't go well with the people. Granted, it's not a big deal, but the crowd reaction was priceless, and it gave Bush the confidence to finish strong. Just compare the closing statements: Bush nailed it. ;)

Ah, denial. Look, Kerry was saying that Bush's figure of 900,00 small businesses was inflated by loopholes in the tax code that allow people who own a small stake in a company to be called "small business ownersm" even though they do not employ a single worker. Bush and Cheney both qualify as small businesses, even though they do not employ any workers in the capacity that qualifies them for that label.

Bush does that all the time, like that bogus "voted 98 times to raise taxes," it includes multiple votes on a single bill, voting against a bill when another bill existed that overlapped and dropped taxes more, or when a tax reduction was attached to a larger bill that was wholly unsatisfactory. It's also slanted by the fact that it fails to mention the many more times Kerry
did vote for tax-reductions, which any balanced assesment would have to include.

But most importantly, Bush does own a part of a timber company, that company contributed to his campaign, and that company was allowed to log on federal lands. Bush made a joke of denying it's existence. In retrospect, he made himself look like a complete ass.

Ah, denial. Look, Kerry was saying that Bush's figure of 900,00 small businesses was inflated by loopholes in the tax code that allow people who own a small stake in a company to be called "small business ownersm" even though they do not employ a single worker.

Even if this were true (it isn't).. Kerry didn't say this. If he had, he may have won the point with some people. Instead, he made the accusation at Bush and got laughed at. The question of this thread was: "Who won the debate?" And my point is: Kerry made an ass of himself there, no more, no less.

Even if this were true (it isn't).. Kerry didn't say this. If he had, he may have won the point with some people. Instead, he made the accusation at Bush and got laughed at. The question of this thread was: "Who won the debate?" And my point is: Kerry made an ass of himself there, no more, no less.
RIF (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html)

RIF (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html)

Both candidates had the opportunity to score points on any given issue. Kerry didn't capitalize to the degree that Bush did. This makes Bush the "winner" of the debate, in my view. Which candidate is right is another matter entirely. Tax code is a topic for another thread.

Even if this were true (it isn't)..

RIF (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html)

This isn't the point.....

Nice.

Nice.

What's the name of the thread again? I seem to have forgotten, apparently.

Kerry officially won, didn't he? According to most major polls?

Kerry officially won, didn't he? According to most major polls?

yes he did.

Kerry officially won, didn't he? According to most major polls?

CNN and Rasmussen have it within the margin of error. Considering how badly Bush sucked it in debate 1, I'd say he did must've had the edge to draw even. Especially when you consider the number sampled who didn't see the debate, but responded anyway. Response error is usually about 85% deceit.. so.. I'd call it a net gain to have drawn even.

CNN and Rasmussen have it within the margin of error. Considering how badly Bush sucked it in debate 1, I'd say he did must've had the edge to draw even. Especially when you consider the number sampled who didn't see the debate, but responded anyway. Response error is usually about 85% deceit.. so.. I'd call it a net gain to have drawn even.

Debates aren't golf or bowling, you don't get handicaps.

Debates aren't golf or bowling, you don't get handicaps.

No, but if two horses are nip and tuck at the end of two furlongs, after one led the other by three lengths after the first, I don't think it's wrong to say that the second won the second furlong, even if overall opinion is still even. Same goes for improving in polls, even if you haven't eclipsed your opponent.

According to all of the polls I've seen, Kerry won. Some of those polls even say he won the debate by quite a large margin.

As to the timber company debate going on here, Kerry did make the point that Bush was only considered a small business by certain loopholes in the tax code, and that was what was inflating his numbers.


BUSH: Now, he says he's only going to tax the rich. Do you realize, 900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his plan because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income tax level.

And so when you're running up the taxes like that, you're taxing job creators, and that's not how you keep jobs here.

GIBSON: Senator, I want to extend for a minute, you talk about tax cuts to stop outsourcing. But when you have IBM documents that I saw recently where you can hire a programmer for $12 in China, $56 an hour here, tax credits won't cut it.

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've never promised that. I'm not going to, because that would be pandering. You can't.

But what you can do is create a fair playing field, and that's what I'm talking about.

But let me just address what the president just said.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's just not true what he said. The Wall Street Journal said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all by my plan.

And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

BUSH: I own a timber company?

Haw. By that logic, I'm part owner of Microsoft and IBM.. Kerry just straight whigged out. First, by justifying screwing small businesses (Chapter S and LP's), and second by trying to do it by claiming Bush owned a timber company. It just didn't go well with the people. Granted, it's not a big deal, but the crowd reaction was priceless, and it gave Bush the confidence to finish strong. Just compare the closing statements: Bush nailed it. ;)


I swear to god, you didnt watch the same debate that we did.

When asked for three examples of when he has made mistakes in the past, and what he did to correct them, he provided NONE.

He also said that he didnt make any mistakes in Iraq, even though the question wasnt specifically about Iraq.

The question was to see if either candidate would be man enough to admit a mistake, and the person who asked it most likely wanted to know if either candidate would make serious efforts to correct mistakes in the future.

do you think Bush portrayed that to the audience?

If you do, you arent living in the real world.

No offense meant, but I honestly dont see how Bush came away from the last debate looking good.
He did however, come off as looking better than he did at the first debate, wich is a small victory for him, becuase he clearly got his ass kicked.

CNN and Rasmussen have it within the margin of error. Considering how badly Bush sucked it in debate 1, I'd say he did must've had the edge to draw even. Especially when you consider the number sampled who didn't see the debate, but responded anyway. Response error is usually about 85% deceit.. so.. I'd call it a net gain to have drawn even.

Excuses excuses. The basis of the Bush campaign.

I swear to god, you didnt watch the same debate that we did.

When asked for three examples of when he has made mistakes in the past, and what he did to correct them, he provided NONE.

He also said that he didnt make any mistakes in Iraq, even though the question wasnt specifically about Iraq.

The question was to see if either candidate would be man enough to admit a mistake, and the person who asked it most likely wanted to know if either candidate would make serious efforts to correct mistakes in the future.

do you think Bush portrayed that to the audience?

If you do, you arent living in the real world.

No offense meant, but I honestly dont see how Bush came away from the last debate looking good.
He did however, come off as looking better than he did at the first debate, wich is a small victory for him, becuase he clearly got his ass kicked.

Bush dodged the question. Doesn't mean he lost the point, or would've been tbetter off admitting major mistakes. Instead, he used it as a chance to pre-emtively deny mistakes he figured Kerry would exploit. If you notice, Kerry didn't exploit those mistakes in his response - no mention of WMD, for one. He turned a question loaded for Kerry into fluff, and most likely helped himself among objective audiences.

CNN and Rasmussen have it within the margin of error. Considering how badly Bush sucked it in debate 1, I'd say he did must've had the edge to draw even. Especially when you consider the number sampled who didn't see the debate, but responded anyway. Response error is usually about 85% deceit.. so.. I'd call it a net gain to have drawn even.

So, the logic there is that since Bush should have sucked horribly, the fact that he only sucked slightly makes him the winner?

Excuses excuses. The basis of the Bush campaign.

Even if you reject my theory, a win within the margin of error is a statistical tie.

Even if you reject my theory, a win within the margin of error is a statistical tie.

Fine, then you just flip-flopped on your assertion that Bush won.

So, the logic there is that since Bush should have sucked horribly, the fact that he only sucked slightly makes him the winner?

I didn't say he sucked in debate 2, only that he succsessfully deflected preconceived weakness if you believe the polls about debate 2. Especially since, a good number of respondents wouldn't have actually seen the debate. It's a media war, and polls are more news stories than scientific studies.

Bush dodged the question. Doesn't mean he lost the point, or would've been tbetter off admitting major mistakes. Instead, he used it as a chance to pre-emtively deny mistakes he figured Kerry would exploit. If you notice, Kerry didn't exploit those mistakes in his response - no mention of WMD, for one. He turned a question loaded for Kerry into fluff, and most likely helped himself among objective audiences.

I really dont think you saw the same thing.

I saw George Bush unwilling to admit that he made a mistake.

EVER.

He could have used an overdue library book as an example, anything!

But he didnt.

The question wasnt "What mistakes has your opponent made?"
It was "name three of your own, and what you did to fix them."

Bush basically said he didnt make any mistakes.

How arrogant is that?

Fine, then you just flip-flopped on your assertion that Bush won.

Only according to polls. My argument was never that Bush won because polls say so. It was a personal opinion.

I really dont think you saw the same thing.

I saw George Bush unwilling to admit that he made a mistake.

EVER.

He could have used an overdue library book as an example, anything!

But he didnt.

The question wasnt "What mistakes has your opponent made?"
It was "name three of your own, and what you did to fix them."

Bush basically said he didnt make any mistakes.

How arrogant is that?

He regretted making some appointments, but used it to defend his main policies - Iraq, NCLB and the tax cuts. I just don't think he would've helped himself any by showing humility by declaring intelligence errors a personal mistake of his, either in fact or in strategy. My evidence is that Kerry didn't pounce on his denial, and meandered around it instead.

He regretted making some appointments, but used it to defend his main policies - Iraq, NCLB and the tax cuts. I just don't think he would've helped himself any by showing humility by declaring intelligence errors a personal mistake of his, but in fact and in strategy. My evidence is that Kerry didn't pounce on his denial, and meandered around it instead.


See now, what I saw, was Kerry answering the spirit of the question, and Bush, denying that the war was a bad idea.

See now, what I saw, was Kerry answering the spirit of the question, and Bush, denying that the war was a bad idea.

Exactly. Defending the war is critical for Bush, more critical than appearing humble.

Exactly. Defending the war is critical for Bush, more critical than appearing humble.

apparently, it's more critical than telling the truth too.

apparently, it's more critical than telling the truth too.

Absolutely. That's politics. ;)

So, to answer your question Sumb, Kerry won unless you apply Pepe's standard-which is to say as long as Bush didn't swallow his tongue, he won. You want those kinds of low expectations in a president...

Exactly. Defending the war is critical for Bush, more critical than appearing humble.


Agreed.

But I think the reason Bush has lost both debates, is becuase he's too quick to attack Kerry, and defend his failed policies, and that it rings false to too many listeners.

Even other Republicans are starting to object to his near insane rhetotic, and making thier doubts be known.

McCain for instance.

Im thinking Kerry will win this election.
Young people are registering to vote in record numbers, and are mainly anti-Bush.

Normally this wouldnt be cuase for conservative alarm, but in this case, with the war, and the failing economy, and international pressure, Bush's actions, I believe, have motivated these people to actually vote.

I think were going to see a record number of voters this year, and the winner by a nose or two, will be Kerry.

Even other Republicans are starting to object to his near insane rhetotic, and making thier doubts be known.

Bush has backdoors to solidifying his base, as well as the traditional routes. For one, he mentioned Dred Scott, which, as Slate points out is a big wink and nod to his religious core.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

The one thing comforting to Bush in the polls that's consistent is his support among the core. 89-93% according to WaPo most recently.

For us godless heathens, there's always the attacks on Kerry's record, which I think is reassuring to some degree.

Bush has backdoors to solidifying his base, as well as the traditional routes. For one, he mentioned Dred Scott, which, as Slate points out is a big wink and nod to his religious core.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

The one thing comforting to Bush in the polls that's consistent is his support among the core. 89-93% according to WaPo most recently.

For us godless heathens, there's always the attacks on Kerry's record, which I think is reassuring to some degree.
Wow. Decietful on so many levels. And contradicts what he was saying in the saying of it....

Wow, I can dislike Bush more......whaddyaknow.....

Wow. Decietful on so many levels. And contradicts what he was saying in the saying of it....

Wow, I can dislike Bush more......whaddyaknow.....

Being able to appeal to partisans and moderates in the same breath ain't a bad quality in a candidate - it means he can win.. and people love a winner. :cool:

Being able to appeal to partisans and moderates in the same breath ain't a bad quality in a candidate - it means he can win.. and people love a winner. :cool:
I don't know that I would give him credit for all that...he lied to one group while giving a 'secret handshake' to another-not to mention look completely batshit to the first group by momentarily pretending he was in the Lincoln/Douglas debates...don't know how appealing that was....

I don't know that I would give him credit for all that...he lied to one group while giving a 'secret handshake' to another-not to mention look completely batshit to the first group by momentarily pretending he was in the Lincoln/Douglas debates...don't know how appealing that was....

You'd have to know that Bush was winking to the pro-life lobby in order to be outraged. Seeing as about three people nationwide got the reference, and seeing as the majority support strict constructionism, I wouldn't call it a gaffe. It was intentional though, so I do give him credit for that. He was briefed.

You'd have to know that Bush was winking to the pro-life lobby in order to be outraged. Seeing as about three people nationwide got the reference, and seeing as the majority support strict constructionism, I wouldn't call it a gaffe. It was intentional though, so I do give him credit for that. He was briefed.

Pepe, despite your repeated backing off of things and outright ignorance (or deceitfulness, perhaps) about the Republican defintions of small business used, the only reasons I've seen you give for Bush winning are:

1. He didn't suck as badly as everyone expected him to do.
2. He managed to not admit any mistakes whatsoever.
3. He supposedly appeared moderate while pandering to the neocons.

While these may be shining examples of winning in your book, here's what sticks most clearly in my mind from the debate:

1. His utter lack of civility, both to the moderator and to the people asking questions that he's afraid of answering (the prescription drug one, in particular).
2. His attempt to make Kerry look like he was lying about something that he was just factually wrong about.
3. His petulance and over-aggressiveness in all the most awkward places.
4. His pathetic answer to the "what mistakes have you made" question was absolutely abominable. He ought to be taken to the cleaners over that.

The only reason I think Bush did as well as he did was that Kerry dropped the ball in a few key places. However, even if he'd won the race to the bottom, that's not something to be proud about in Bush. It's something to lament.

Kerry won, however he didn't give Bush the knock out punch he did in the first debate. Yet it was still a pretty clear victory for Kerry, all numbers support that and not just in the horse race but in Bush's job approval ratings and even more telling, before the debate Bush was leading Kerry in the "More honest and trustworthy" polls by double digits, Kerry is now leading Bush.. that's a rather huge net loss for Bush and a huge leap for Kerry. There is no doubt Kerry has the momentum now. I just hope he can keep it.

Thanks everyone! :) I wish I could have seen it. oh well its nice to know that Kerry is doing a good job. w00t and stuff


Bush = MODED!

I am actually torn.

If we go on intellectual points.....Kerry won hands down. He is the more logically sound candidate.....

HOWEVER

Let's be honest, this election isn't about logic or sound politics. It's a popularity contest. I have a saying at my job as a DJ. Get the people to love you, make them laugh, and they will overlook almost any mistake you make. Bush did this. Kerry may be the better candidate, and actually hurts himself by being honest. He could give ambiguous answers that would appease voters, but instead doesn't. He said he would finance abortions with tax dollars, even partial birth ones, because of medical neccessity. (Anyone who knows anything about PBA, knows they're always bad for the mother, and never neccessary, regardless) he probably lost votes on that. Bush however turns points that could be HORRIBLE for him into jokes and wins points on them. The "want some wood" comment is prime example. I won't go into it, cause it's already been debated.
But the biggest boon for Bush has to be his spin artists. After the debate, only one of the commentators I heard thought he had lost. Everybody was talking about how Bush wiped the floor with Kerry, and he just didn't. With people like Limbaugh, Hannity (FOX news) and Ann Coulter on his side, and the massive amounts of voters influenced by them, it's an uphill battle for Kerry.

These debates aren't a progressive thing. If Kerry massively wins the first one and then barely squeaks out the second one, Kerry's winning by two. It's not like Bush closed a massive gap. If anything, Kerry's coming up on Bush with the two debates, (since he was behind) and has come up 3 points I think. Hopefully he can pass up Bush and become the new president.

I am actually torn.

If we go on intellectual points.....Kerry won hands down. He is the more logically sound candidate.....

HOWEVER

Let's be honest, this election isn't about logic or sound politics. It's a popularity contest. I have a saying at my job as a DJ. Get the people to love you, make them laugh, and they will overlook almost any mistake you make. Bush did this. Kerry may be the better candidate, and actually hurts himself by being honest. He could give ambiguous answers that would appease voters, but instead doesn't. He said he would finance abortions with tax dollars, even partial birth ones, because of medical neccessity. (Anyone who knows anything about PBA, knows they're always bad for the mother, and never neccessary, regardless) he probably lost votes on that. Bush however turns points that could be HORRIBLE for him into jokes and wins points on them. The "want some wood" comment is prime example. I won't go into it, cause it's already been debated.
But the biggest boon for Bush has to be his spin artists. After the debate, only one of the commentators I heard thought he had lost. Everybody was talking about how Bush wiped the floor with Kerry, and he just didn't. With people like Limbaugh, Hannity (FOX news) and Ann Coulter on his side, and the massive amounts of voters influenced by them, it's an uphill battle for Kerry.

These debates aren't a progressive thing. If Kerry massively wins the first one and then barely squeaks out the second one, Kerry's winning by two. It's not like Bush closed a massive gap. If anything, Kerry's coming up on Bush with the two debates, (since he was behind) and has come up 3 points I think. Hopefully he can pass up Bush and become the new president.

Good points!