October 01, 2004

• I feel I must confess that I fell asleep during the debate. But then again, I already know who I'm voting for.
• Well, I just saw the rerun and boy! Bush is a disgrace to the hallowed name of chimps.
• Yea, but they are going to try hard to spin it that Bush won, somehow. If Guliani says one more time that he thought Kerry "lectured" while Bush "talked", I will scream.
• Bush didn't *talk* he repeated the same thing over and over, and his answers had no substance IMO. My assessment: Kerry won the debate.
• The American people elected Bush and now they want to elect Kerry? Talk about flip-flop! Don't they know that it is very demoralizing for the troops if you constantly change your positions like that?
• Virtually every newspaper web site in the U.S. is going to have a poll on its home page: "Who Won the Debate"? If monkeys would check their area paper sites and report the (admittedly unscientific) results here, I'd appreciate it. The Omaha World Herald poll this morning (in a STRONGLY Bush state) has Kerry by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. CNN's web site poll has Kerry at 72% to Bush's 21%. MSNBC has Kerry 63% to 37%. Great live debate blog link, by the way.
• Checked a few more papers: Denver Post: Kerry 71% to Bush 25% Rocky Mountain News: Kerry 73.3% to Bush 26.7% Wichita Eagle: Kerry 46% to Bush 38% Des Moines Register: Kerry 82.7% to Bush 17.3% (remainders didn't see it, undecided or called it a tie). Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal-Star perhaps asks a better question: What effect will the debates have on the election?
• The Minneapolis Star-Tribune: 69% Kerry, 31% Bush (ongoing, ~21k votes so far). The St. Paul Pioneer Press (Knight-Ridder) only posts the AP article that says Kerry won.
• Go, Kerry, go! The Memphis, Tennessee, Commercial Appeal poll only has 107 votes so far: 57% for Kerry 43% for Bush
• The American people elected Bush and now they want to elect Kerry? Talk about flip-flop! Don't they know that it is very demoralizing for the troops if you constantly change your positions like that? Exactly! Our troops don't need this kind of indecision while they're trying to preserve democracy. Voting at this point would be unAmerican.
• Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal-Star perhaps asks a better question: What effect will the debates have on the election? But that is horse-race coverage. I don't see how it's a better question at all.
• The poll I linked above breaks it down into two questions: "Who won the debate and did that result change your voting intentions?" It's still a tiny sample right now, but check out the percentage of undecideds who switched to Kerry compared to Bush. (Scroll down the page to see the poll.)
• Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal-Star perhaps asks a better question: What effect will the debates have on the election? But that is horse-race coverage. I don't see how it's a better question at all. I think it is a better question because it indicates (to some degree) on whether the electorate is open-minded at all. Saying that Kerry can mop the floor with Bush in all three debates, but it isn't going to change your mind tells me a lot about how locked in you are. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw in Colorado that said: "If you aren't appalled, then you aren't paying attention." Really ANY of these polls don't tell us a lot. Now if we could poll only the "undecided"s, that would be interesting.
• This was no debate -- it was a blowout. John Kerry was unbelievable. Forceful, articulate, with a powerful command of the facts, he lit up the stage and showed America what a president is supposed to sound like. Bush, in contrast, was frighteningly bad. When confronted by tough questions (and even some easy ones) he often could only stare at the camera and blink. On a sheer physical level, the guy just looked bad. Slumping, blinking, staring, mumbling, humorously mispronouncing everything in sight ("moo-lahs", "pe-nin-shoola", etc.), and looking annoyed, angry, and defensive throughout, the contrast between the two couldn't have been greater. Kerry looked every inch the president, and spoke with the authority of one. Even if the undecided voters don't know anything about the issues, they know presidential when they see it, and Bush wasn't. Some of his longer blink-and-stare pauses (and calling terrorists "a group of folks") were enough to make even a Freeper cringe. Bush had his ass handed to him. Kerry was outstanding. The real question following this debate is whether the mainstream news media have the integrity report what all America saw, or if they'll continue praising the emperor's new clothes by calling this disastrous performance by Bush a tie. When Jim Lehrer asked: "What about Senator Kerry‘s point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?" Bush actually said: "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden." Freudian slip, spoonerism, malaprop, whatever you want to call it... it's a powerfully revealing screwup, and one we ought to be seeing replayed if the news media had any integrity. That, plus Bush's assertion that Iraq attacked us on September 11th, and John Kerry's calling him on it seconds later, really show the president's sloppy thinking. If they can crucify Gore over a sigh, they can surely crucify Bush for mentally confusing Saddam with America's Enemy #1. Again, to sum up: No Contest. Kerry outclassed Bush on both substance and style by a country mile. And remember: The foreign policy debate was supposed to be Bush's strong suit! We've got two more of these on the way. Bush can't be liking that. For the first time, I really feel excited about John Kerry as president.
• undecided voter [via Atrios]
• I think it is a better question because it indicates (to some degree) on whether the electorate is open-minded at all. Saying that Kerry can mop the floor with Bush in all three debates, but it isn't going to change your mind tells me a lot about how locked in you are. I suppose so. Where I'm coming from is that I wish the media would spend more effort on discussing the content of the debates than whether Bush's statement on such-and-such will get him within the 20 yard line; and adding a layer of meta doesn't help much in dealing with a locked-in electorate that adheres to parties in the same way they support football teams. It's pretty idealistic but I won't give up on it yet.
• For the first time, I really feel excited about John Kerry as president That's exactly what I was thinking last night as I was listening. Before, it was more a matter of recognizing that literally anyone was going to be better than Bush, but now I feel a real sense of confidence that Kerry can be a good President.
• I was really shocked that Bush wasn't better prepared. I mean, I knew there was nothing going on behind the memorized soundbytes, but I figured he'd at least be able to deliver the soundbytes smoothly. He couldn't even do that. He just repeated himself over and over with absolutely no creative/associative/reactive thinking going on behind the phrases, so that they rang hollow. "It's hard work." "He changes positions." "You can't change positions." And how about on the last question, which was about N. Korea, and Bush started talking about Iraq? It was a complete non sequitur, and seemed to stun both Leher and Kerry in its nonsensicality. I've heard some spin that Bush "stayed on message" and "reinforced by repeating" but that's so obviously a candycoat that it's laughable. And people spouting the GOP talking point that Kerry said he was against the war in the debate then for the war are willfully ignoring what was actually said. Kerry wiped the floor with him. I just hope that, after four years, the electorate realizes is really IS important to have the smartest man possible in there.
• Oh, and I thought Kerry's repeated references to "outsourcing" the job of looking for bin Laden were brilliant. I hope this makes more swing voters want to watch the next two debates. Remember, this was supposed to be Bush's STRENGTH.
• Thanks Kerry for making such a fool of Bush. Thanks a lot really. Now he won't show up for the next two debates. See what you've done, you big bully? Now America won't get to see what the President has to say. Great job! Maybe next time you won't be such an ass, but I'm not holding my breath.
• Only this poll matters.

  Interestingly, the Insta-Wife thought it was a smashing victory for Bush. It didn't seem that way to me, but while I thought Bush's visible exasperation hurt him, she saw it as the natural response of a man who was busy fighting a war at having to listen to someone talk about its impact on prescription drugs. Go figure.

  Glenn Reynolds polled his wife and she said Bush won. It's over. We mind as well not bother having an election and just give it to Bush.
• Ralph Nader's website on the debate.

  So, the Nader/Camejo ticket remains the only one that was against the war

• I just hope that, after four years, the electorate realizes is really IS important to have the smartest man possible in there. I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton took part in the debates. Here's a question for other monkeys: what would a Clinton/Bush debate be like.
• I wasn't aware that Bill Clinton took part in the debates. I wish. I should have clarified as meaning the smartest man possible from, as Jon Stewart puts it, the "wide open field of two candidates." Here's a question for other monkeys: what would a Clinton/Bush debate be like. Ever see those nature shows where a pack of hyenas surround a sick or broken-legged baby wildebeest? Like that--with only one big hyena and a lot more blood. As it was, I kept waiting for Bush to go all Cronenberg Scanners and make his head ASPLODE. Really, I hopedfeared he might have an anneurism.
• Los Angeles Times: 8.6% Bush (3084 responses) 88.0% Kerry (31699 responses) 3.5% It was a draw (1243 responses)
• Cali, as I said before only this poll matters.
• I guess that's why they call us the Left Coast, hmmm?
• I think the funniest comment on the debate came from an unknown sportscaster (I was watching late night highlight footage) who described one football player outmaneuvering another with ridiculous ease: "He beat him worse than Kerry beat Bush, and that's saying something."
• More discerning comment.