Posted on 10/01/2004 7:03:00 AM PDT by slowhand520
From the corner:
INTERESTING [KJL] More of what Bush camp is noting: How important is “winning” the first debate? Since 1984, when Gallup began asking the question, “Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate?”, only one candidate to win this measure in the first debate went on to be elected. In 1996, Bill Clinton “won” the first debate and went on to be elected President. Candidates Gore, Perot, Dukakis, and Mondale all “won” their first debates, but failed to win election.
Sept. 30, 2004: Kerry 53/ Bush 37 (-16) Oct. 3, 2000: Gore 48/Bush 41 (-7) Oct. 6, 1996 Clinton 51/Dole 32 (-19) Oct. 11, 1992 Perot: 47/Clinton 30/ Bush 16 (-17, -31) Sept. 28, 1998 Dukakis 38/ Bush 29 (-9) Sept. 28-30, 1984 Mondale 54/Reagan 35 (-19)
That 84 fact is definitely a relief! Posted at 09:55 AM
Yes. Reagan lost the first debate to Mondale and then came back and won in a landslide.
Gore won his first debate??? Says who?
Liberals always do better in those snapshot polls for whatever reason. They don't matter. As long as the Republican doesn't start drooling or looking at his watch or something, his words - not the instant emotional reaction - become the lasting impression and do him the most good.
Thanks for this! I think Kerry may have helped himself a bit, but not much. Gallup showed the President won the likeability and believability contest. It wasn't a fiasco for him at all.
Very interesting! I did not remember that. Another reason to believe last night's event will have little outcome on the final vote. But unfortunately it gives Kerry and the Dems some temporary momentum.
I did not remember that polls showed Dukakis edging out VP Bush in 1988 at the first debate. I guess it was the 2d one that had more impact as Dukakis showed no charisma or enthusiasm with that one. That was also the one where he blew it by showing no emotion at the though of his wife being murdered.
Mr Bush was said to look nervous and agitated at times. Big whoop. Last time Gore was pilloried for all his lies and "sighs" but in the end he nearly won the election anyway. That's one more indication these things don't affect the election result.
I believe Bush did very well last night, considering he had spent most of the day touring Florida's hurricane damages. He was tired. Kerry on the other hand had a manicure and was better rested. Considering Bush continued working his job speaks volumes to me. Kerry has been on a continual vacation for the last 3 years.
Kerry came off as a know it all. Talked over peoples heads with all his Washington lingo. The President was to the point in a matter of fact way. His answers where to the non political voter.
kerry lost because he came across as a stiff policy wonk and that persona will wear thin with the campaign unfolding, it allready makes me want to toss a brick thru my own tv screen...LOL
Why does God in his wisdom put such sh*theads in our midst...?
You're overlooking the DUI that almost did W. in. If that had not been a factor Bush would have gotten several more points in the popular vote, and from that (or at least from the 2000 debates) we could deduce that the debates DO/DID matter.
I was wondering about this earlier today. It makes me feel better that the polls should be insignificant.
Yes. For folks who are younger, I have watched debates since Reagan. Me and my same age friend were joking to each other days ago how the media will announce Kerry the winner. LOL, its normal, no surprise. What is different now is we can attack Kerry on the internet! Now get out there and show what this guy actually said for the LIBERALISM it is! He has given us a lot to use against him last night. Go to it! America is digesting what kerry said today, it is going to give them an upset stomach! It is liberalism!
I figure it will be Bush in a landslide.
Kerry merely looked "rich" to me. I don't figure a rich man knows about work; he knows about ornamental. His world and that of the people are eons apart.
Bush may also be rich but looks as though he is as capable of using a pitchfork as he would be at using an oyster fork while wearing tails. That's what makes him a man's man and a woman's man as well. It's the Reagan magic.
The height difference is absolutely insignificant insofar as the thinking American public would be concerned. It's the only thing the media can hype.
The more informed may remember that in history Saul of Israel was "head and shoulders" above the rest yet the God of Israel chose the small but significant and courageous David who became the beloved leader and uniter of the nation.
Kerry's been debating his primary opponents for a year and a half, and debate (or BS) is his strong suit. I don't think anyone would describe GWB as a smooth talker.
Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised at Dubya's performance, and didn't really feel Kerry ever got traction.
All he did was attack, offering no solutions; and he never responded to Dubya's recitation of Kerry's own words, which, in my opinion, completely diluted most of his arguments on Iraq.
With just a few exceptions, I thought Dubya came across strong, firm, sincere, and in control of the arguments.
I wasn't surprised, however, to hear the pundits tell me I got it all wrong, and that Kerry carried the night.
Same old crap - - different election.
We can't be living in the same world. In my world, Kerry took over the debate with the first question and won every point. Bush not only talked poorly, stammering, getting off the point, but his facial expressions were at best peculiar and the way he stood at the podium made him look as if he were crippled.
RGE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.