The Presidential Debate

[SlapBone]

Originally Posted by Logan

I just find it funny how people on this board can't drop their political affiliations (both Repubs and Dems) long enough to actually LISTEN to what these two men are saying.

More evidence as to what is wrong with this country.

Actually the 2-party system is what makes this country great. I, for one, have to depend on my party loyalties because my canidate is so weak. I was born in Texas, raised in Texas, and now I am raising my family in Texas. I am also a Republican. I cast my vote on a straight party ticket no matter who is on the ballot. The only time I cast any other way is when some friend of mine (in a local county election) is forced to run as a democrat because the other canidate filed first.

Now, as for Bush, I don't really care for him and honestly never have. He was (as governor)a hell of a lot better than that commie Ann Richards that was governor before him. Conservative friends that I have think I speak blasphemy. Bush's tax cuts were the right way to go, but you can't decrease taxes and then increase spending. Bush spends more than any democrat, and he did the same thing here in Texas.

So why do I vote republican then? To keep Democrats out of office...period. I could give less than a damn about what these two clowns say.

Q. Why does NK have nukes?
A. Because Bill Clinton let them have them and did not protect the technology.

Q. Why is Bin Laden free?
A. because Bill Clinton set him free.

Q. Why is our military at half strength?
A. Because of the Clinton cuts.

Q. Why does our economy seem to be teeetering?
A. Because the internet bubble (that Gore created) was exactly the same kind of scam that the Clintons had been using for years.

[John Galt]

Did this Gallup poll suffer from the same sampling problems the general Gallup polls have (40% republicans and only 33% democrats, I believe)? I can't find any information either way.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Because in at least two of the presidential elections, the perceived winner of the debate gained enough momentum to come from behind and win the election.

1960 - Kennedy/Nixon
1980 - Reagan/Carter

Don't forget that Reagan got toasted by Mondale in the first debate in a similar overall situation that Bush is in now (8-10 point lead, about 50% personal approval going into the debate).

I think the debates were more important back in 1960 because there was simply not that much coverage. Most Americans never saw the candidates outside of the debates so it was really their only chance to meet and see each person. Now-days, with the 24-hour cable news stations, we are inundated with coverage on each guy so I think the personal aspects of the debates are a little overrated as we have each seen TV soundbites of each guy for 9 months now.

IMO, the debates are all about one-liners and avoiding the major gaff. I think both guys had some nice one-liners and I don't know that either had a major gaff, so I think both did well from that standpoint. Still, the legit polls (Gallup, PEW) that did a scientific study (not just grade by call-ins) seem to show that Kerry won, but didn't really pickup any steam on the issue of Iraq. I think that's accurate.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Did this Gallup poll suffer from the same sampling problems the general Gallup polls have (40% republicans and only 33% democrats, I believe)? I can't find any information either way.

I don't know, but there are some bits of useful information.

Republicans said that Bush won the debate 71% to 17%
Democrats said that Kerry won the debate 87% to 8%.

No surprises, although a slightly higher percentage of Republicans said that their man lost the debate.

Independents said that Kerry won the debate 60% to 29%. Whether or not this translates into a boost for Kerry in the polls remains to be seen. We should know some more about this early next week.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Did this Gallup poll suffer from the same sampling problems the general Gallup polls have (40% republicans and only 33% democrats, I believe)? I can't find any information either way.

From Gallup: Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

From Gallup: Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

I guess that isn't as bad. Does anyone know why Gallup continues to use breakdowns in their polls that don't reflect American voting patterns? I try not to believe that Gallup's GOP leadership aren't trying to distort things, but I haven't heard a good justification for their splits (although I admit I haven't looked too hard).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't know, but there are some bits of useful information.

Republicans said that Bush won the debate 71% to 17%
Democrats said that Kerry won the debate 87% to 8%.

No surprises, although a slightly higher percentage of Republicans said that their man lost the debate.

Independents said that Kerry won the debate 60% to 29%. Whether or not this translates into a boost for Kerry in the polls remains to be seen. We should know some more about this early next week.

I was more curious on the substance v. style breakdown.

My impression of the debate was that style was pretty much even (although I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate style in substance in these debates because there is so little substance). Everyone already knew Bush isn't particular eloquent, so I don't think he was hurt there. I thought Kerry was more hurt by his stupidity in not looking at the freakin' camera (which is basic public speaking).

I thought Bush lagged behind substantively simply because he repeated many talking points with no detail and that he failed to answer a few questions.

Overall, I think the debate helped Kerry more than Bush. I'm also surprised at the GOP spin that Bush won the substance - I remember so little substance from him, that it just seems odd.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Did this Gallup poll suffer from the same sampling problems the general Gallup polls have (40% republicans and only 33% democrats, I believe)? I can't find any information either way.

They say it was random and representative, but I like to do a quick check to be sure. A good poll has 40% dem, 40% rep and 20% indys.

Here's the breakdown on the overall votes:

Overall - Kerry: 53, Bush: 37

Rep - Kerry: 17, Bush: 71
Dem - Kerry: 87, Bush: 8
Indy - Kerry: 60, Bush: 29

Now, if you take the 40-40-20 split, you can try and see if you get the same overall using each part. If you do that, you get the following:

Kerry = 0.4*17 (rep) + 0.4*87 (dem) + 0.2*60 (indy) = 54
Bush = 0.4*71 (rep) + 0.4*8 (dem) + 0.2*29 (Indy) = 37

So, it looks to me through my quick check that the group was pretty close to 40-40-20. If it had been 40 rep, 33 dem and 27 indy, you would have gotten:

Kerry = 51
Bush = 40

So, it passes the spot check.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Arles

Don't forget that Reagan got toasted by Mondale in the first debate in a similar overall situation that Bush is in now (8-10 point lead, about 50% personal approval going into the debate).

That's true.

The 1980 election is the most interesting to me. The nation was fed up with Jimmy Carter and they wanted to get rid of him, but before the debate they had their doubts about Reagan. Many people didn't know too much about him, and they had never seen him side by side with the president. Carter was ahead in the polls by about 5 or 6 points going into the debate.

Reagan performed well in the debate and he reassured the doubters that he was "presidential" and could get the job done. In the last two weeks, Reagan surged ahead and won the election going away.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I was more curious on the substance v. style breakdown.

My impression of the debate was that style was pretty much even (although I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate style in substance in these debates because there is so little substance). Everyone already knew Bush isn't particular eloquent, so I don't think he was hurt there. I thought Kerry was more hurt by his stupidity in not looking at the freakin' camera (which is basic public speaking).

I thought Bush lagged behind substantively simply because he repeated many talking points with no detail and that he failed to answer a few questions.

Overall, I think the debate helped Kerry more than Bush. I'm also surprised at the GOP spin that Bush won the substance - I remember so little substance from him, that it just seems odd.

Two words (and this, in my opinion will be the phrase people remember from this debate): Global Test.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Two words (and this, in my opinion will be the phrase people remember from this debate): Global Test.

I know that is the GOP talking point (and what the blogosphere is going ape about). I'm sure it will be utilized by every GOP speaker (as they tried with "sensitive war" and countless other soundbites). So, I agree that will be what people remember because that is all they will hear. It is sad to think that people will reduce Kerry to an interpretation of those words when elsewhere in the debate he explicitly denied the interpretation the GOP is giving to it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

From Gallup: Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

OK, then that answers it It looks like there were more independents than I would have though, but I guess that makes some sense as these debates are geared more towards people that haven't made up their mind.

Just for fun, I did the same breakdown and got:

Kerry = 0.36*17 (rep) + 0.32*87 (dem) + 0.32*60 (indy) = 53
Bush = 0.36*71 (rep) + 0.32*8 (dem) + 0.32*29 (Indy) = 37

So, it appears this is a solid way to reverse engineer the sample group. If I had a little more time I could have used a little regression to maybe get this exact number

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

They say it was random and representative, but I like to do a quick check to be sure. A good poll has 40% dem, 40% rep and 20% indys.

Here's the breakdown on the overall votes:

Overall - Kerry: 53, Bush: 37

Rep - Kerry: 17, Bush: 71
Dem - Kerry: 87, Bush: 8
Indy - Kerry: 60, Bush: 29

Now, if you take the 40-40-20 split, you can try and see if you get the same overall using each part. If you do that, you get the following:

Kerry = 0.4*17 (rep) + 0.4*87 (dem) + 0.2*60 (indy) = 54
Bush = 0.4*71 (rep) + 0.4*8 (dem) + 0.2*29 (Indy) = 37

So, it looks to me through my quick check that the group was pretty close to 40-40-20. If it had been 40 rep, 33 dem and 27 indy, you would have gotten:

Kerry = 51
Bush = 40

So, it passes the spot check.

Actually, a good poll should NOT be 40, 40, 20. Look at voting patterns in the US for the last few elections. It should be about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 (depending on which elections you privilege). And this poll was definitely NOT close enough to 40/40/20. They eliminate people called until they get the portions they want. Retroactively saying "it was close" makes the margin of error higher and reliability much lower.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Reagan performed well in the debate and he reassured the doubters that he was "presidential" and could get the job done. In the last two weeks, Reagan surged ahead and won the election going away.

The problem is that Kerry didn't do that if you believe the polls. While he certainly did well in the debate, only 37% of the people felt he was tough enough on terror to get the job (compared to 54% for Bush). That's pretty much the same number that he had going into the debate. Also, on the issue of Iraq, the numbers stayed almost the same after the debate of 54-43 to Bush.

So, according to the polls, Kerry came off as the better debater, but didn't make much headway in the issue of Iraq and Terror.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Two words (and this, in my opinion will be the phrase people remember from this debate): Global Test.

Yes, taken out of context, the republican spin machine might try and make something out of it.

Here is EXACTLY what Kerry said:

"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

So, taken in context, the full statment says that you should be able to explain your actions fully to your countrymen and prove to the rest of the world that you took the action for legitimate reasons.

Sounds prudent to me.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Actually, a good poll should NOT be 40, 40, 20. Look at voting patterns in the US for the last few elections. It should be about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 (depending on which elections you privilege). And this poll was definitely NOT close enough to 40/40/20. They eliminate people called until they get the portions they want. Retroactively saying "it was close" makes the margin of error higher and reliability much lower.

But it was already stated by Cam that it was 36, 32, 32. That's pretty darn close to 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3. So, by your own words, this poll is MORE accurate than my minor study would have led us to believe.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

But it was already stated by Cam that it was 36, 32, 32. That's pretty darn close to 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3. So, by your own words, this poll is MORE accurate than my minor study would have led us to believe.

And that's why I previously said, it wasn't "as bad." Still bad, but not bad. Your belief, however, that this was close to 40/40/20 was just statistical nonsense.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I know that is the GOP talking point (and what the blogosphere is going ape about). I'm sure it will be utilized by every GOP speaker (as they tried with "sensitive war" and countless other soundbites). So, I agree that will be what people remember because that is all they will hear. It is sad to think that people will reduce Kerry to an interpretation of those words when elsewhere in the debate he explicitly denied the interpretation the GOP is giving to it.

I actually agree to a point here. I think that the Kerry people are going to remember how Gore was hurt by his sighing and blustering dimeanor in the 2000 debates and latch on to how Bush looked in the debates in their adds. While, the Bush people are going to focus on how Kerry said 2-3 minor gaffs:
- Global test
- saying the war was a mistake, but sending troops to the war now is not sending them to a mistake
- Saying your are going to convince allies to join a war that is (in your own words) a grand distraction done in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

If the Kerry camp does this, it will be a collosal blunder. Even after the poor performance, people still felt bush was more likeable in the debate by a 7-point margin (48-41). After the Bush-Gore debate, Gore lost the likeability check by like 20 points. So, it was an effective manuver back then. For Kerry to get any traction on this debate, he has to criticize what Bush said and not how he looked.

[CamEdwards]

I have no doubt that the GOP will make it a talking point. It should be. It was an idiotic thing to say and as soon as I heard it I believed it would be the memorable line from the debate. Here's the quote

The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

And here's the president's response.

Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

Did Kerry come across as more polished and self-assured? I believe so. I also think that there's a really good chance a week from now he's still going to be answering (or dodging) questions about a "global test".

Just out of curiousity, JG... did you see a statement by the President that the Democrats could use to the same effect?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And that's why I previously said, it wasn't "as bad." Still bad, but not bad. Your belief, however, that this was close to 40/40/20 was just statistical nonsense.

Really? so the stats didn't back up the claim? Interesting since I showed that they did. The fact that so many independents chose Kerry over Bush made the 40-40-20 breakdown very similar to the 36-32-32. But I hardly think that makes it "statistical nonsense" to make an initial guess that it was 40-40-20. It was much more nonsensical to state that the group was 40-33-27 as the final over numbers would have been well off the 53-37 number that the study had.

[portnoise]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Two words (and this, in my opinion will be the phrase people remember from this debate): Global Test.

Yes, and in a good way. You should be able to show the necessity of starting a preemptive war before actually going and doing it. We can all agree that a preemptive war has to be necessary, yes?

What you're going to say is that the Global Test is like "seeking a permission slip" from other countries to defend ourselves. That is misleading. The "global test" is not a request for permission--it's a standard by which the validity of a case for war can be measured: Does this war make sense to our allies? Does it make sense to our people? It's a standard that America can apply to itself, without ceding power to other countries.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I believe so. I also think that there's a really good chance a week from now he's still going to be answering (or dodging) questions about a "global test".

I hope so.

Kennedy's naval blockade of Cuba passed "the global test". Our invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 passed "the global test". The invasion of Iraq did not pass "the global test".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Really? so the stats didn't back up the claim? Interesting since I showed that they did. The fact that so many independents chose Kerry over Bush made the 40-40-20 breakdown very similar to the 36-32-32. But I hardly think that makes it "statistical nonsense" to make an initial guess that it was 40-40-20.

When you believe the difference between 36 and 40 is statistically insignificant, you are wrong; when you believe the difference between 32 and 40 is statistically insignificant, you are really wrong; and when you believe the difference between 20 and 32 is statistically insignificant, you are totally wrong.

When you then assume you can extrapolate the results to fit the expected proportions, you are entering major sample size and randomness problems.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And that's why I previously said, it wasn't "as bad." Still bad, but not bad. Your belief, however, that this was close to 40/40/20 was just statistical nonsense.

I don't think this poll is all that "bad", John. This isn't like the LA Times poll back in June that was 38% Democrat and 23% Republican (and had a big Kerry lead) or the Harris poll a few weeks later with similar oversampling of Republicans (that had a big Bush lead). I've seen plenty of polls with 37% Democrats, 33% Republicans and 30% Independents that never caused me concern. I think you really get into oversampling when one party is polled by more than a 6 or 7 point difference.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I have no doubt that the GOP will make it a talking point. It should be. It was an idiotic thing to say and as soon as I heard it I believed it would be the memorable line from the debate. Here's the quote

And here's the president's response.

Did Kerry come across as more polished and self-assured? I believe so. I also think that there's a really good chance a week from now he's still going to be answering (or dodging) questions about a "global test".

Just out of curiousity, JG... did you see a statement by the President that the Democrats could use to the same effect?

Nothing came to mind because I really didn't think Bush said much of anything (which is my point on substance). Bush didn't do anything wrong because he really didn't do anything. How that is winning on substance is beyond me.

I did, however, think the worst moment of the night for him (which I haven't seen reported), was when he had a little Freudian slip. It was when he was saying we could go after Saddam and Bin Laden and he said something like, "I am focused on Saddam - I mean Bin Laden." I guess most people didn't react to it the way I did, but I thought that has been Bush's problem all along - he has Saddam on his mind to the exclusion of all else.

I still think the "global test" stuff is nonsense given he specifically disavowed the meaning the republicans are giving to it.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by portnoise

Yes, and in a good way. You should be able to show the necessity of starting a preemptive war before actually going and doing it. We can all agree that a preemptive war has to be necessary, yes?

What you're going to say is that the Global Test is like "seeking a permission slip" from other countries to defend ourselves. That is misleading. The "global test" is not a request for permission--it's a standard by which the validity of a case for war can be measured: Does this war make sense to our allies? Does it make sense to our people? It's a standard that America can apply to itself, without ceding power to other countries.

Exactly.

Kerry said, "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

This does not require a "permission slip" to take action, but you had damned well better be able to defend your actions after the fact.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't think this poll is all that "bad", John. This isn't like the LA Times poll back in June that was 38% Democrat and 23% Republican (and had a big Kerry lead) or the Harris poll a few weeks later with similar oversampling of Republicans (that had a big Bush lead). I've seen plenty of polls with 37% Democrats, 33% Republicans and 30% Independents that never caused me concern. I think you really get into oversampling when one party is polled by more than a 6 or 7 point difference.

I don't think it is that bad either - I was more concerned with Arles trying to say it was "close enough" to 40/40/20. It doesn't really matter because 40/40/20 isn't the goal, but I thought he was a bit nutty for arguing the difference doesn't really matter.

My problem with Gallup has been that they exclude answers to obtain a 40/32/28 (or thereabouts) split. And I've heard no justification for why they do it.

[CamEdwards]

dola: If Portnoise and Vegas Vic are correct, then you should have no problems. Time will tell.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

dola: If Portnoise and Vegas Vic are correct, then you should have no problems. Time will tell.

I think they are correct, but I doubt time will tell. I'm pretty sure the GOP spin will win out because we are in a soundbite world (and Kerry is not very good in a soundbite world - although he was better last night).

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I did, however, think the worst moment of the night for him (which I haven't seen reported), was when he had a little Freudian slip. It was when he was saying we could go after Saddam and Bin Laden and he said something like, "I am focused on Saddam - I mean Bin Laden."

That was just a slip that we all make from time to time, and I don't think that anyone will read too much into it. For me, one of his worst moments was his almost anguished attempt to build up "the coalition".

"Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops."

So, we have Poland, the 2nd most powerful nation in "the coalition", standing side by side with Great Britain and twenty-something other mostly 3rd world countries that don't have but a handful of actual troops committed to the invasion.

The fact is, we're bearing over 90% of the troops, 90% of the expense and almost all of the casualties in Iraq.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't think it is that bad either - I was more concerned with Arles trying to say it was "close enough" to 40/40/20. It doesn't really matter because 40/40/20 isn't the goal, but I thought he was a bit nutty for arguing the difference doesn't really matter.

I chose 40-40-20 because the numbers matched up that way in my head when I was looking at the results. And, once I ran them in the numbers, they matched up as well. It just so happens that 37-32-32 also worked out. Had 40-40-20 gotten silly results, I would have changed to reflect that.

I guess I didn't figure on true independents making up that big of a piece. I think a lot of independents are actually republicans or democrats when you look at their beliefs, but they feel more noble to describe themselves as independent. When I think about beliefs, I would doubt if more than 20% of the likely voters are truly independent.

My problem with Gallup has been that they exclude answers to obtain a 40/32/28 (or thereabouts) split. And I've heard no justification for why they do it.

This sample was not 40/32/28, it was 37/32/32. As you say "When you believe the difference between 36 and 40 is statistically insignificant, you are wrong".

My guess of the reason that they ended up with 5% more republicans than democrats is on the random responses they received. Here's a statement of how they do this process:

http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp

[Fonzie]

Speaking of weird, off-topic Bush comments, can anybody tell me what a "tax-gap" is? Or at least what he meant by it?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

So, we have Poland, the 2nd most powerful nation in "the coalition", standing side by side with Great Britain and twenty-something other mostly 3rd world countries that don't have but a handful of actual troops committed to the invasion.

Actually, Australia is the second most powerful nation in the coalition. That said, I think your point remains that the US is handling much of the burden on the ground. But that's normally the case anyway.

A better question to Kerry is how are you going to get more troops on the ground from other countries? He continually talks about Germany and France, yet even if both agreed tomorrow they couldn't even commit more than 1% of the US troops currently there to help (USA Today story). Plus, you have Chirac saying yesterday that regardless of who is president, he will never send troops to Iraq.

All of this "expanding the coalition" talk is popycock. Even if he managed the impossible and convinced all these nations like France to send troops, their numbers would be so small that it would not change the burden on the US.

The only viable options we have are to:

1. Continue with the US having most of the burden until we can train enough Iraqis to successfully police their own nation (Bush said 120K will be trained by the year's end)

2. Pull out.

If you don't like the fact that the US is holding 90% of the troop burden, your only real alternative is to pull out.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Radii

Good catch on that one. That's one of those times when a person gives a strong, clearly spoken answer to a question that makes no damned sense at all and you just have to shake your head.

Bush's non-answer to the question about another 9/11 being more likely if Kerry wins was annoying to me too. Seriously if a candidate just starts going off on something totally unrelated to the question asked, they ought to buzz him out and give the other candidate the remainder of the time to talk about anything he wants to. That just annoyed the heck out of me.

A giant gong or hook maybe

Or, I know, they're standing on a plexiglass platform that moves and each time Lehrer thinks they've deviated from the question, it moves away a little. If they stray too many times, the whole area below their feet is opened up into a dunk tank (with sharks? with frickin laser beams?)

SI

[dixieflatline]

I'm not sure if anyone else heard this or if it was just PBS with Lehrer's microphone still on but right after the debate ended Bush went over to Lehrer, shoke his hand, and told him that he did an outstanding job as usual. Classy move by Bush who hasn't always had the best relationship with the press. I also thought that Lehrer did a very good job moderating the debates adding more time for topics that he detected a clear difference of opinions by the candidates.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

From Gallup: Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

Those numbers aren't relevant to what JG was asking. Gallup, and all other pollsters, don't give you raw results in their polls. They do a ton of normalization in an attempt to better reflect the voting public. Has John mentioned, Gallup has been normalizing to 40% republican and 33% democrat. So, essentially, if 36% of resondents identify themselves as R each of their responses is actually weighted as 1.11 responses to get to the 40% they're normalizing to. Most experts that I know of highly question this 40% mark (it would pretty much be a record high) and because of it Gallup polls are usually considered to be pretty biased toward Bush.

This is also why you can have 10 different reputable polling agencies poll the same state and come up with totally different percentages (I've seen as much as a 10% spread in some states for polls taken the same day).

Note that they don't just normalize for D vs R, but also based on race, gender, sexual orientation... anything they think is significant.

[QuikSand]

Interesting debate, and I echo the self-congratulations that this thread has remained civil and interesting. I earlier pledged not to get into any of the partisan bashing going on in this forum -- but since this discussion has stayed almost exclusively analytical, it seems like fair game.

As a pretty well-informed but somewhat undecided voter, I try to have an unbiased view of these two candidates. I have trouble taking President Bush very seriously when he speaks publicly, because I find many of his mannerisms distracting -- they leave in my mind a sense of casualness that I find alarming when he's talking about such serious matters. I recognize that some people find this an attractve or endearing trait -- that he is "plain spoken" and so forth. I generally disagree.

For about half the debate (basically, the beginning and the end), I was prety impressed by Mr. Bush. I thought his "I've done this, I know what I'm doing" approach was pretty effective and resonant. I think it was a good choice to go with this as a main theme. I felt he overused the couple of deliberate "button" issues -- especially the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" -- but it's certainly possible that they (the Bush team) believed that hammering that point no matter what was an effective tool to use. It didn't persuade me much, but I don't think I'm the tyoe of target person who's in the sights there anyway.

For a period, mostly in the second half, I fel Mr. Bush's slouching and wincing actually accelerated, and that he seemed to lose his focus. Yes, this sounds a bit like a picky technicality -- but to me, it seemed like he was becoming a bit unraveled. He wandered off the script a few times, and created a few cringe-worthy moments. Those aren't good things -- but I don't think anything there really cost him gravely.

Overall, I think he modestly exceeded my expectations -- he was a bit more effective than his average press event, and I think in his own style he reaffirmed some of the basic arguments why (on foreign policy grounds) he is going to get a lot of votes.



Senator Kerry, to me, came into this debate as a deeply uninspiring candidate. This is due to a variety of things -- he has yet to really launch a meaningful "issue" of his own that truly resonated, and he has been playing a lot of defense in the campaign responding to "flip flop" criticism (the blame for which I'd personally split about evenly between his genuine wishy-washyness and the massive GOP smear effort that has exaggerated this into an overarching argument against his candidacy). But on balance, it's pretty clear that his main argument for election is that the incumbent does not deserve re-election.

To further that message, it is the challenger's responsibility to demonstrate that he is capable enough a person to handle the job himself. The debates, like it or not, are a major component of this effort. Senator Kerry needed to show that he is sufficiently thoughtful, determined, resolute, articulate, focused, and principled -- at least in sufficient varying quantities to get people to conclude that he is an acceptable substitute for the current officeholder. That is his primary target at this point in the debate -- not a truly "undecided" voter who is deeply torn over offsetting issues, but rather the person who is looking for a reason to vote Bush out of office, but has reservations about the guy they have seen in all these commercials.

In my view, Senator Kerry came across as a somewhat pedantic, but fairly articulate, professional politician. That shouldn't come as a surprise. He's not folksy. He's not down-to-earth. He's a tall, lanky, effette, erudite, elite product of the upper class -- and trying to paint himself otherwise would have been a mistake (think Dukakis/tank). So, he plays to his strength -- he put together a lot of coherent thoughts, he spoke clearly, he timed his wrap-ups very well (not to be minimized in analyzing televised debates) and he got through this thing pretty well -- making his point pretty effectively, without looking either desperate or overshadowed. In that respect, I think he did a very good job.

On substance, I don't know what his best options are, but I really wonder about the effectiveness of the "internationalization" argument as the centerpiece of the foreign policy campaign. While I don't think that Senator Kerry honestly seeks to turn over the reins to the old powers of Europe, it's just very easy to characterize him that way -- and I'm sure that effort is already underway. I agree with Cam, that the "global test" phrase is one that will be run up the flagpole for all to see -- certainly without its intended or (perhaps) proper context. I thnk he is indeed vulnerable on this -- not just for the use of that phrase, but largely for the fact that it is really the only maningful difference he seems to point to between President Bush's prosecution of the war and his own. "Asking Paris for permission" (as it will no doubt be referenced) simply isn't a winner with all that many people who haven't already decided that they'll vote for anyone who runs against President Bush, I suspect.

On other, lesser, matters, I thought Senator Kerry had very good command of material -- his comments on the Sudan and on nuclear proliferation both scored substance points with me (and I didn't think there was much room for that in this debate, honestly) and in both cases, I felt that he was clearer and more effective than President Bush.

Did Senator Kerry convince a viewer that he is capable of being President and Commander in Chief? I suppose it's tough to say -- I can't imagine what it would take to push one to a "yes" on that exact question. I thought he did *enough* in last night's debate to accomplish what I believed was his most important goal: he said things that could be taken seriously, he appeared to have a coherent idea about what he would do, and he seemed genuine in talking about it. All those things make at least some headway toward giving the potential anti-incumbent voters out there some needed comfort with a vote for him.


Were I called by a pollster, and asked "who won the debate?" I think I would have answered Kerry. I didn't see anything new or damaging from the President, on balance, that changes my genral impressions of him or his policies. But I did see Senator Kerry look pretty composed and effective -- not deeply moving or inspiring, by any means, but a solid and basically error-free performance.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Another one that Dubya missed. This was in a span, what, 20 seconds?

I think you're getting really hung up (and GWB did too) on the fact that:

a) Kerry thinks Bush made a mistake in launching the war when and how he did, and

b) nonetheless believes that it is vital that the mission be brought to a successful conclusion.

I think the concept is not so difficult to grasp.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Here's a history of Party ID, it doesn't change quickly...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I think you're getting really hung up (and GWB did too) on the fact that:

a) Kerry thinks Bush made a mistake in launching the war when and how he did, and

b) nonetheless believes that it is vital that the mission be brought to a successful conclusion.

I think the concept is not so difficult to grasp.

Yes, I'm assuming that he believes both a and b, but I was merely pointing out that Dubya missed an opportunity to "score" there. "Scoring" in this case would have been a Reagan-esque "there you go again" type response, citing this as an example of a "flip-flop." I'm not even necessarily saying that it IS a flip-flop, but Dubya definitely could have called it one and gotten away with it, and scored points.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Here's a history of Party ID, it doesn't change quickly...

Are these numbers from registered persons or actual voters?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Delebar

Yes, Bush should have mindlessly repeated one of his same four attack ad themes for the umpteenth time regardless of the truth. Alack, the missed opportunity! His "base" must be cringing.

The fact that is one of his attack ads is all the more reason why he should have hit on it. It "validates" it.

Understand that I'm not saying that it is neccessarily a good or noble thing, but I'm convinced that both of these guys are way more interested in winning the election than in what is best for this country, so I'm speaking from that point of view. Low blow or not, deserved or not, the "flip-flop" theme seems to be working. Why not give a "See, I-told-you-so" at that point?

[Buddy Grant]

I wasn't able to watch too much of the FOX News post debate coverage as Thursday is my regular night for handling secretarial duties at a local direct mail warehouse, but I caught at least 15 minutes of the debate and what I saw convinced me more than ever that what America needs now is a leader like George W. Bush. He consistently spoke louder than Kerry, and to me that is a sure sign of strength and character. He was on message with his mixed messages message throughout the debate, and that message specifically stated that Kerry uses or has used mixed messages, and that is not the kind of message to send to the world. I think Kerry did his best to knock the messenger of this message, but Mr. Bush wisely avoided a potential physical confrontation with the challenger, simply reiterating that the American people "know me" several times over. The whole anger and impatience thing also worked well as it showed Mr. Bush as a man's man, capable of impulsive and sometimes uncontrollable rage - the direct opposite of Kerry's non-man's man persona. I'd love to see how the liberal media spins this into some kind of debate draw or something, but I have not picked up a newspaper in several years (for obvious reasons).

About those lights on the podiums - it looked like both debaters were getting a lot of incoming calls and that must have been very distracting. IMO they should probably have all their calls forwarded to their staff during the actual debate, that or set up their phones to take messages after one ring, that way they could return the calls immediately after the debate or during commercial breaks.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

It's a 15,000 person survery John. I don't know if it's registered or actual, but either way, it's a huge survey either way with a less than 1% margin of error.

[Swaggs]

For what it is worth, this was the party breakdown in the last two elections (according to Zogby):

39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996
39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

For what it is worth, this was the party breakdown in the last two elections (according to Zogby):

39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996
39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

Those are the numbers I've seen before. I'm not sure how I feel about polls that repeat those numbers favoring the democrats, but I'm certain I'm distressed that Gallup (the leading polling organization) continues to publish polls that assume a much greater percentage of republicans voting than is supported by recent history.

[Swaggs]

I think these numbers may be off a bit and favor the democrats a bit for two reasons.

One, I think it is possible that the DUI thing right before the election may have turned off some of Bush's more conservative base during 2000. Two, the 1996 race was never really in question, so some Republicans may not have been motivated to get out and vote.

Still, I don't see where Gallup keeps coming up with their fairly large Republican lead.