Thursday Night - make or break...

[dd74]

Well, last night ex-governor Ann Richards said GW is probably the best debater she's ever faced. Others have said much the same. Pundits suggest this debate, the most important of the three as it covers national security, is Kerry's to lose, and if he does lose, his campaign will be effectively over. Conversely, Kerry's also supposed to be a good debater, but given his poor poll ratings and his flaccid campaign, being a good debater at this juncture might be too little too late.

So air it out. What's it gonna' take for Kerry to pull a real presidential candidate out of his hat?

[rcecale]

Kerry seemed to do pretty good when he was going against all the other Dems for the nomination. One-on-one may prove to be a problem for him. I think his forte is really in massdebating.

Randy

[mattdavis11]

Well she's the meanest ***** of 'em all. It must be true. Kerry is going to have to roll out Osama, give him a big high five, embrace, and move along with the debate. Then he'll be back in.

[cmccuist]

The debates aren't really debates but are more press conferences with rebutalls. Each candidate basically "answers" each question with a prepared response regardless of the text of the question.

Kerry did well against William Weld because there were 8 freakin' debates and Weld lost his concentration.

W should be able to hold it together for 90 minutes times 3 debates. Especially since the first debate is on Iraq. Also, Bush has been answering questions from the hostile press for 8 years now, where Kerry gets softballs wherever he goes.

[A Quiet Boom]

Actually I think Kerry made a wise decision on the debates. It's well know that he's the underdog on foreign policy and nat'l security, it's better to lose one now and have all of Oct to make it up. Being a good debate requires one to be comfortable in their views, any hesitation is seen as weakness. With Kerry's "opinion of the week" campaign I doubt he'll do well against Bush in any of the debates simply because Bush believes so strongly in his positions. I only hope that partisanship on the part of the debate leaders doesn't ruin a good honest debate.

[YAHBO]

What time and network will these debates be telecast?

[dd74]

Originally posted by YAHBO
What time and network will these debates be telecast?

All the big networks, starting at 9ET.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by A Quiet Boom
Actually I think Kerry made a wise decision on the debates. It's well know that he's the underdog on foreign policy and nat'l security, it's better to lose one now and have all of Oct to make it up.

That's really the rub. The first debate is vastly the most watched. Most "non-political" folk watch the first and call it good. It was a bad Kerry move. If he pulls it off it would be huge for him though so who knows. They kinda gotta gamble anyway.

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
That's really the rub. The first debate is vastly the most watched. Most "non-political" folk watch the first and call it good. It was a bad Kerry move. If he pulls it off it would be huge for him though so who knows. They kinda gotta gamble anyway.

I agree. But he has to REALLY pull it off. Bush can afford mistakes, and still pull this one out above Kerry. Two good debaters, sure, but if Bush gets his way with the senator, it'll be like Joe Frazier fighting Gary Coleman.

[A Quiet Boom]

Just watched part two of O'Reilly's interview with Bush, he is far more comfortable with the issues and his plan than Kerry appears to be. He's also more likeable and that always helps in politics.

[Rot 911]

But how can Bush possibly win? According to most Democrats, Bush is an absolute moron whose daddy bought him his ticket to college. What does this say about Kerry if Bush wins the debate?

[nostatic]

Bush will win the election for a very simple reason: between the two, a typical American would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry.

The only recent president that didn't follow this trend was Nixon.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by nostatic
Bush will win the election for a very simple reason: between the two, a typical American would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry.

The only recent president that didn't follow this trend was Nixon.

It's even more simple than that. Americans are shifting conservative again. Soon it will trend back the other way.

[nostatic]

the other factor is a general perception of anger v. fear. If the people are angry, incumbent goes bye-bye. If however there is a climate of fear, people don't want to rock the boat.

I think fear is winning right now...

[on-ramp]

Here are some of the "debate" rules.. haha, what a joke!

Apparently there will also be more coin tosses than the Superbowl(read below). but hopefully no "wardrobe malfunctions" this time around.


-----


CNN lists some of the many presidential debate rules:
--No television camera shots from behind the candidates and no cutaway shots of candidates who are not answering questions.
--Other than a handshake at the start of the debates, the candidates are not to approach each other.
--No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings may be used by the candidates; however, they may take notes on the type of paper of their choosing.
--The candidates cannot ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.
--The candidates may not address each other with proposed pledges.
--Each candidate may use his own makeup artist.
--No candidate is allowed to use risers or any other device to make him look taller.



--The Coin Toss: At least 72 hours before the first debate, there will be a coin toss on the order of questioning and closing arguments. The winner gets to choose whether to take the first or second question or whether to give the first or second closing statement. The coin-toss loser then chooses his preference of question order or closing statement order not exercised by the winner of the coin toss. For the next debate, the coin-toss loser gets to pick first. There will be a separate coin toss for the final debate.
--Another coin toss will determine stage positions of the candidates.



--There will be at least 16 questions. A candidate gets two minutes to respond to a question; the other candidate gets 1-1/2 minutes to comment on the question or to respond to his rival's answer. A moderator can use his/her discretion on whether to extend the discussion by 60 seconds.
--For the second debate, which has a town-hall forum, the audience members submit questions to the moderator, who then approves which audience members get to participate. If audience members stray from their questions, the moderator is to cut them off.
--Other than Secret Service personnel and the president's doctor and military aide, each candidate is allowed to have only one pre-designated staff member in the wings or the immediate backstage area.

[Superman]

I think fear is what's winning right now too. It's the Iraq/AlQueda/terrorist/9-11/Saddam/DinLaden/terrorist/Iraq/terrorist/BinLaden/Saddam/Alqueda/Iraq/terrorist/Iraq/terrorist/national security connection. And I think Dubya's going to win, too. Good thing, too. He's the guy to stop the daily killing of Americans by terrorists and to capture Saddam BinLaden and Osama Hussein.

[lendaddy]

Well if that scenerio makes ya feel better then run with it. It would indeed be tough to admit it's an ideological thing rather than theatrics.

[Superman]

At this point it seems clear that just about anything can surprize me, but I'm curious. Back in the day, debaters had to correctly pronounce most of the words in their arguments. Is this no longer a consideration?

[widebody911]

It's not a debate, it's a tightly choreographed news conference. NFWIH would Bush's trainers let him go out solo.

Kerry has the cards stacked against him. GWB has

• the incumbent advantage
• the fear card
• Fox News as the propoganda arm
• Patriot Act to quell dissent backed up by the SS and FBI
• Diebold et al to fudge the counting

[Superman]

Certainly it is an ideological thing. It's a question of whether a particular voter is sufficiently frightened by an army of terrorists who are also insurgents, led by BinLaden and Saddam from their strongholds, Iraqafghanistan (others soon to be added) to completely outstrip the combined imporance of things like health, jobs, retirement, animals species, international relations and deficit spending. You know, minor stuff like that. And apparently, these terrorists are pretty darned effective. The proudest nation on Earth is still in a tailspin from a boxcutter attack.