I saw only part of the debate last night, but the part I saw was consistent with this Gallop poll indicating Kerry won the debate, 53% to 37%. Yet according to “US Press”: the debate was a tie.
Was it a tie? Or is it just impossible for the press to appear anything but “neutral”?
Update: Here’s a report from The Times (UK) with a nice summary of different views, some neutral, others not.
It certainly wasn’t a tie. That Gallop poll was “scientifically weighted” beforehand for “likely voters”.
Amongst those selected for the poll, 52% of voters supported Bush before the debate, while 44% supported Kerry… and yet, 53% thought Kerry won the debate, while 37% thought he lost. That’s quite a switch in opinion!
I saw snatches of it, and I thought Kerry did a better job generally. Though it’s still not going to make me vote for him. Michael Badnarik all the way, baby!
I missed all the impromptuitiveness (if that’s a word) of a debate. Last night, of course, was more like duelling speeches. Not being able to directly address the opponent really destroyed interacttion between the two.
I had the debate on for the full two hours, but I was distracted from actually paying attention to much of it. That may be why I’m in the 10% (100% – (53% + 37%) = 10%) who went to bed thinking it was a tie.
from austria, old europe; fascinated by the presentation of the debate – very close to pre tv times, or should I say, almost like in the opera? to the speakers: kerry trying to mimic the expert, looking informed, making concessions, while bush preaching the war on terror like it was the evangelion. how can there be a tie? this is all about decision!
PS: about mistakes – bush lives up to almost lenin size: when handed a list of people by his secretary without any explanations, lenin, possibly swamped with paperwork, did not ask its use, but mark his closest friends on the list. later when he got reported, that all marked people had been executed, he broke into laughter – as the situation truly was absurd and there was no way to redo what happened, thats just what artists do: continue looking forward to realise yet greater works!
How can one say who won? The debate was high quality. But without exagerating I must say it’s a little scary that one candidate, Bush, was pushing the “to waver is to lose, an aspiring president can’t support the troops if he opposed the war” line SO hard!
More importantly, how seriously are we supposed to take Bush’s claim that all those people streaming accross the borders to fight us are terrorists who would have been lining up to join Al Queda anyway absent a war in Iraq? That’s what he was saying underneath and it does not bear a moment’s reflection.
I think Kerry’s best move was to put himself in the place of the Iraqi people in the debate: “If you saw military bases springing up next to oil wells, would you trust them?”
And now our trust has to be in the American people!
over at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3704652.stm the bbc’s talking point, people from all over the world, including the us, decided as follows:
kerry:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(57)
bush:
+++++++++++++++(15)
draw:
++++++++++(10)
IMO, Bush did not look good at all in the debate. He was petty, flustered easily, repeated himself a lot, and generally didn’t seem to be unable to answer specific points. There were times I felt he was speaking quickly so the listener wouldn’t hear the lack relevance of his facts to the question being addressed, but in general he just seemed generally “off his game”.
Kerry was solid overall. Bush seemed on the defensive and didn’t really enage Kerry on specific issues. For instance, he could have defened his policy on nuclear bunker busters when Kerry mentioned it .. he didn’t.
I think for a news caster it must be tense to give an on the spot analysis knowing it will influence others, and knowing you if you overstate your opinion you could look “wrong” or biased , but I thought this was a clear debate to call.
CBS didn’t call it a tie, Well one vote tie, one vote Kerry. So a suppose thats like a hung jury.
I recognize that I’m in the minority (10%), but I didn’t see it as a clear win for either side. Yes, Bush said “um,” and often had a hard time starting his response (and I saw at least once where he got tongue-tied enough that he had to start over), but I didn’t consider that a fatal error. I believe I heard a few “um”s on Kerry’s side as well.
I also recognize that the polls showing more than half the likely voters called Kerry the winner (when more than half the voters were Bush supporters at the beginning of the debate) imply that this isn’t just a case of each side declaring victory.
I guess I need to say more than “that’s my opinion.”
Both sides got their talking points repeated, and neither side scored any good shots (in the portions I saw). I didn’t try to compare the worth of the talking points, so perhaps that is one reason I disagree with most likely voters on this one.
Forgive me for nit-picking, but I couldn’t help but getting a chuckle from this comment. At this very moment, I happen to be taking a quick break from writing a review on Outfoxed for my university English class. All I can think of is: “Fair and Balanced”
It was a clear Kerry win. Bush came across as a petulant schoolboy. It was very clear that this was pretty much the first time he had faced any direct criticism in four years.
Who won and who lost is a difficult question. Bush did ok, considering his patent handicap. However, Bush�s biggest gaffes are his best motivators for his base. For example:
In response to Kerry, Bush said that he was confused about what the �global test� was with regards to a pre-emptive strike. Bush clearly misunderstood the statement. The statement obviously meant that the �global test� would occur after the pre-emptive strike. The test being, the president had better be proven correct that his basis for the pre-emptive strike was in fact legitimate, i.e. WMDs had better be found if that was the basis. However, Bush thought it meant that there was some sort of �global test� that the pre-emptive strike had to pass before it occurred, i.e. we had to ask for global permission from the rest of the world.
Now, Bush�s gaffe could be a plus because of all the yokels in the red states made the same mistake. �Huh, yea, what �global test?� Is it multiple choice? I sure hope there isn�t an essay.�
So it�s hard to tell who won from a debate competition standpoint because that may not matter.
I think that Kerry won, because I think that his numbers dropped because his supporters lost a little bit of belief in themselves and their candidate. I think Kerry�s performance restored that faith. The question then becomes, how much of a bounce will Kerry get?