kgilly

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Thought I would add a poll even though there is a thread on this topic already.

kgilly

I was expecting some hard core bush people to vote he had won...this is interesting so far...although I'm sure it is coming sooner or later.

schutzenkonig

Well kgilly...I really don't think that those debates can be won by either side because it runs as more of a chance to state their stance on issues, not to prove one is better than the other. As I've seen so far, so many people are basing this soley on the style of the speaker. This is not how debates are supposed to be judged. Kerry may be a better speaker, but that isn't the real reason for the debates. But I did have to say Bush won though...I just wasn't able to believe very many of Kerry's points.

vixy022685

I'm waiting to see at least a bit more then what I saw before I vote. I too have a hard time believing Kerry, which I guess ruins my perception!

kgilly

Alright, your entitled to your opinion, however you flip-flopped yourself there. You said the debates cant be won by either party and then said that Bush won. No I was not basing the debate on their style..I was basing the debate on who made a better point on saying where they stand on issues and who defended their point of view better. I will give on thing to Bush...he has a great team behind him and they do the best damage control out of any presidency i think ever. Just to point out one flaw of your argument...there were over 10 polls ran on this debate. From a republican poll, democratic, independent, fox news, cnn, msnbc, etc. Every single poll showed Kerry as the winner by alandslide except 2 polls. The republican poll showed Bush won 50% to 48%, very close margin for being a republican poll. The Fox news poll showed a dead heat last I checked yesterday. The purpose of the poll is for the candidates to show their stance on issues, that is why each debate has differnt topics to be addressed. However a candidate can do a better job in doing this just as with anything else. I, as an independent, clearly saw that John Kerry proved he has a stronger stance on issues than what many gave him credit for and was able to explain issues that Bush so repeatedly claimed were :mixed messages". If Bush would have gotten rid of the deer caught in the headlights look, quit using filler words like "uhhh", and quit being so repetitive with "mixed messages" and "its hard work" he would have done much better. We all know its hard work...that doesn't justify anything though...say where you stand, say plain out if you qould have done the same thing again or if you made a mistake and MOVE ON TO THE NEXT POINT!

kgilly

BTW this poll is pretty consistent witht he other polls out. Both candidates had their moments, Kerry just had more of them than Bush. I thought Bush came out strong but the last 3/4's just lost his train of thought.

schutzenkonig

Not necessarily vixy...truely a debate is 100% subjective in nature...being that I like to keep things objective, I don't like that a whole lot. But it is whatever convinces you. If you don't believe what Kerry is saying then there is no way that he could have won in your mind.

kgilly

I was just wondering what is was you have a hard time believing Kerry about so that I might better understand what some people are saying. Also yes it is hard to not look at a debate subjectively because as with these 3 debates the candidated were given all the questions in advance.

Also that is not true that because she has hard tiem believing Kerry there is no way he could have won in her mind. She did not mention a thing about how she felt with Bush's debate. I have talked to quite a few repubs who were not swayed byt he debate, but still felt let down by the way Bush handled the debate. A debate was won by a candidate if they did a better job at "debating" their point of view and/or justifying it. I personally say that just because she may not believe Kerry she didn;t necessarily agree with Bush's performance either. He didnt stand up for any allegations against him and seemed so eager in raising his hand to jump in and speak and thn would have these blank stares after that. It was weird for me. I thought ht was going to jumo out with some profound wisdom and then he's blank out.

schutzenkonig

now I never said that you were basing it on style alone, but in the other theards addressing the debates so much time was spent on their speaking style. As for me "flip-flopping"...I don't quite believe that one of those debates can actually be won per say because they are not much more than a two-fold press conferance as several people have equated it to be in some of the other threads, but I see your question as also asking who we believed in those debates. Under that, Bush did win IMHO.

qwerty1234

Believing that Bush lied us into an unneccesary war it is impossible for me to believe anything he said from that point forward. Using those paremeters Kerrey won by being honest.

BuzzyShagwell

It just looked like Bush was totally unprepared, but then again, I'd say Bush has a little more going on. For instance, Bush was touring the areas of FL that were hit by hurricanes while Kerry was getting a manicure....

LS1-S10

I think Bush took the debate. He was more of a people person, plus he was even complementing Kerry on some of the stuff he was focusing on in his Campaign. Kerry seemed to me like a real lame ass with no personality and came across to me as being a dick at the debate.

kgilly

He did complement Kerry, but to say he was more of a people person is a far cry from the truth. He repeatedly made faces while Kerry was speaking, also had a hard time speaking at all about anything..I wouldnt mind going throgh and counting how many "ummmm's" and pauses he had during his speach. Also te format of the debate it would be impossible to say if someoen was a people person, it is the next debate format where you can walk and answer questions from the public that would say that more than anything. Kerry focused on the issues at hand which was the point of this debate, if that makes him a dick and a lame ass, then this world is getting real sad. I'd rather someioen be a lame ass and be honest and answer my questions ont eh future of this country than not be able to speak or mutter antyhing other than "mixed messages" and "it's hard work"

LS1-S10

Well, you do have a honest point of view. But personally i would rather have someone in charge of our country thats not afraid to stand up and take care of what needs to be done without questioning what the majority will agree on....than a liberal trying to win over everyone's vote by changing his point of view 2 or 3 times in a couple of months. And so what if Bush isn't much of a speech giver....just because the man can't talk without saying "ummmm" and pausing every once in a while doesn't mean he can't handle a job like being president. Nor does it mean he's a big dumb redneck.

Honestly can you say that Bush sent all of our boys over there without thinking once of people getting killed? Of course its not going to make him the popular person if he is sending young men and women over sea's with a probability that there not coming home. The fact is....somebody had to do something because shit was and still is getting out of hand. Bringing our troops home or wishing we could go back and not even start this war isn't going to do a damn thing. If Kerry gets elected, our boys and girls are still going to be over there...nothing is going to change that. I stand behind my President and i think he made the best decision for our countries interest.