I wasn't impressed with the debates, though the press was right for once, they said the debates weren't going to be that impressive, and they were right. I think bush bumbled too much and kerry was more articulate but really is an illogical fool. I got tired of both candidates saying the same thing over and over. I really wanted to slap bush and say, "Come up with some new material, we know he's a flip flopper!" I'll still vote bush and still think Kerry's the worst Democrat they could've put up there. Dean, would've been at least a little more consistent, he's against the war and has always been, at least more than Kerry has. Not saying i'm a dean fan, but i think the parties should put forth their best candidate and dean seemed to have the most spine and at least thought for himself, though i think he's wrong, he like bush stuck by what he said. Even the crazy "YEAAAH!!!" I think bush has a good shot and don't think kerry did much of anything to boost himself, and if he does get a "bounce" or something its will be mostly people who aren't really intelligent and could go which ever the wind blows.
Posted by holtonian at September 30, 2004 10:57 PM | TrackBackNeither party seems to get it that when you pick your nominee not because you like him the most but because you think he's the most electable, the guy never gets elected. You have to pick a guy that you're enthusiastic about, because if you, the party faithful aren't, nobody else is going to be either.
Posted by: Kathryn at September 30, 2004 11:18 PMKerry may be somewhat articulate, but he's still a horseface.
(Join the cause!)
Don't know what all the talking heads are saying about the debate, but I only caught the second half, and Kerry clearly won the second half. I hear the first half was primarily Bush. I guess the question is -- how many people stayed tuned in?
Posted by: RobU at October 1, 2004 12:03 AMI think Kerry could get a boost simply from the fact that he was more well-spoken and could have come across as more "Presidential" vs. Bush who stammered and paused, etc. It didn't change my mind, but for some people it might make a difference.
Posted by: John at October 1, 2004 08:32 AMThey both did what they had to do. Kerry sounded in command of his thoughts (lacking on substance) and Bush drove you nuts with the repetition of his main points. That being said, today, I can't recall any point of substance that Kerry made. I know he sounded good, but beyond that, all I can remember was that he wanted both bilateral and multilateral talks with North Korea.
All in all, this isn't going to move the numbers much. There was some good Republican material from the debate such as passing the "world test" and saying that he would have given Iran nuclear material to "see if they would do the right things with it." People that watched already had their minds made up.
But “independents” always leave me uneasy. People say it like it is an enlightened position, but I believe just the opposite. Having the fate of our elections decided by people that are too lazy or stupid to pay attention until the last few weeks of a Presidential race is really scary. If you can't figure out where a candidate stands on an issue and you are sold on them in a 90 min debate, God help us all!