[BacardiJim]

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but by my scoring, both candidates lost the second presidential debate. If I had to choose a winner, I'd probably have to give a slight edge to *shudder* Bush.

While both candidates were repeatedly guilty of not actually answering (or even addressing, in many cases) the questions they were asked, for the first third or so of the debate, Kerry kept using half his time to discuss the previous question. (Or, more accurately, spend time refuting what Bush had said in his previous response, which didn't really have anything to do with either question.) Kerry seemed to settle down and quit doing this so much in the latter half of the debate and even scored some clear victories on some of the domestic policy questions, but the damage had already been done.

Bush seemed, at least, to be more adept at deflecting the questions without making it seem as obvious that he was doing so.

I guess you could call him the winner by those standards.

[jjacob]

Well I would give the *slight* edge to Kerry, but Bush was indeed alot more confident than last debate, and Kerry wasn't as good tonight as he was then. Bush probably scored big with depicting Kerry as a leader that would make "popular choices" (the next big thing after flipflop/wishwash?), but he was pretty aggresive about it. Kerry came on too strong as an all-knowing all-seeing intellectual, and Bush tried to 'keep it simple', and also lost the angry arrogant look he had last debate. But I hope Bush's attacks on Kerry's persona won't do any more damage than flipflopgate already did. I definately don't like it that Bush can just get away with lying so much, about the UN amongst other things but it's late and I don't want to make this into a debate so I'll stop here

Some favourite quotes:

Bush about getting cheaper medicine in from Canada:
"And what my worry is is that, you know, it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world."

Bush about the Saddam threat, correcting himself after accidentaly referring to his own republican think tank as an "intelligence group":
We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat.

I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why.

..

But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power.

And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous.

But indeed, they both lost.

[BacardiJim]

I can see giving a slight edge to Kerry as he was both more honest and more substantive... when he decided to actually address the question he was asked. But for the first whole chunk of the debate, he kept using 90% of his time to go back and talk about the last thing Bush had said or defend himself from some attack or attack Bush... on some issue that had nothing to do with the actual question he had been asked. He might spend the first or last 15 seconds of his time giving some garbled rushed response to the actual question and then be off and running about something else entirely.


It had the effect of making him look 1) unprepared, always one question behind, and 2) afraid to answer the questions he was asked. This came to a head when Charles Gibson tried to stop the debate at about the midpoint and say, "You were asked point-blank how you would meet your goal of reducing the defecit by one-half. You didn't answer the question. Please answer it now." And both candidates completely avoided answering the question again. lol

Bush, on the other hand, lost significant style points with me by twice interrupting Gibson when he attempted to ask follow-up questions, trampling right over the Moderator and saying [in effect], "I'm not going to let you ask your question. I want to respond to what Kerry just said, that's what I'm going to do, and you and your precious rules be damned."

Thank GOD Kerry had a strong second half!

[jjacob]

Yeah you're right, but 'to be fair', Kerry was not given a follow-up on Bush's first answer (to the first question), so when Kerry had to answer the next question, he went back to Bush's first reponse, and that went on throughout pretty much the entire first half.

And Bush interrupting Gibson is indeed shameful, and I don't understand how he could've done that (especially after he did that already in the first debate), and when he took his turn he looked so incredibly angry for just a few seconds, I was disgusted. What was funny though, is that Bush pulled another "Let me finish!" (probably lost his strain of thought), although this time he made it sound like Gibson had given him a certain "Stop talking, you're done, shut up"-look. Last debate, he suddenly stopped talking and said "Let me finish!", while he had 30 seconds left and neither Kerry nor Jim Lehrer were trying to start talking, after which he repeated some programmed sentence that had nothing to do with the question asked.

But although Bush seemed at ease, he had little to say pertaining to the questions asked, whereas Kerry had too much to say and litterally sometimes didn't know where to begin and end his response.

But Kerry really could've done *so* much better. He could've nailed Bush on the enviromental question asked, yet all he really had to say was that Bush retreated out of the Kyoto treatie (which is ofcourse a valid point though). He could've also mentioned that Bush had authorized tapping into one of the last unspoiled regions on earth in Alaska due to increasing energy needs (yet Bush kept saying he would protect nature reserves etc.). Kerry could've said that the president should've extracted even more money into research on the hydrogen-fuel economy (more than 1 bln.$ anyway) in order to make it actually work (for contrast, car manufacturers pour tens of billions into research).

Kerry did nail him on certain points though, such as Bush's infamous tax cuts, the Supreme Court appointed judges (making clear that judges shouldn't allow their personal political preference or judgement to get in the way) etc. But it wasn't enough to make him a convincing winner.

But the sun had already risen here and I really need some sleep after all this "excitement"

edit: Btw I'm very curious as to what the general public opinion is in the U.S. about the internation criminal court? It seems Bush wants to make clear that the U.S. should not join, but what's the public opinion say about that? I don't know Kerry's position, but I do know it'd be a first step to make things right with the U.N. and major member states. Being firmly against it sends a signal to the world that the U.S. does not want to adhere to international law as framed in the U.N. and several other treaties (Geneva etc.), but I can see how Bush will scare you into thinking the Hague will try and convict U.S. soldiers, chop their hands off, and give their bleeding bodies to Al Qaeda for fun Although if you must know, Dutch prison cells are probably the most luxurious in the world with tv, consoles etc. lol

[Sanjuro2]

Well, first of all I must admit...I completely BASHED THE HELL out of Bush after the first debate. I thought he was downright disgraceful, terrible, worthless, useless, and splendidly pathetic. So, given the fact that I went into this debate with nearly NO expectations for Bush except that he would get trounced again by Kerry...I must say I thought Kerry got creamed... The flash polls were super close, within the margin of error, so I guess we'll have to wait to see how things are affected by this debate IF AT ALL.

[BacardiJim]

At least you can go to bed secure in the knowledge that if Bush is re-elected, he won't appoint a Supreme Court Justice who is in favor of slavery.

[fov]

I missed the whole thing... I was too busy having dinner with a Republican! Obviously she didn't see the debate either. Does that mean we cancelled each other out?

My boyfriend left me a message before he went to bed saying he thought it was a good debate, but I don't know yet why he thought so.

-emily

[Titan]

I thought the debate was essientially a draw. The good news for Bush was that after being soundly trounced in the first debate he did better this time. The bad news for Bush was ... so what, after the first debate a dead man would have done better the second time.

Kerry was quite good I thought, but not quite as good as the first debate.

Before these debates began I felt that the second debate was Bush's best chance at winning one of them, mainly because of the format which allowed the candidates to walk around. It was simply predictable to me that Kerry, who is a very good debater, was likely to win at least two of the three and would not lose any of them. With the third debate being on the economy and domestic issues he will almost surely win it. By my reckoning that'll make the score 2-0-1 in Kerry's favor.

Throw in the slow attrition of bad news from Iraq and my March prediction of a Kerry presidency is looking more and more solid. The perpetual motion of the political pendulum continues it's back and forth swings, as it always has in American politics.

[Sanjuro2]

Originally Posted by Titan

Throw in the slow attrition of bad news from Iraq and my March prediction of a Kerry presidency is looking more and more solid. The perpetual motion of the political pendulum continues it's back and forth swings, as it always has in American politics.

Well, I still agree this is a DISTINCT possibility. LOL. I'm prepared for the worst. Heh.

[BacardiJim]

... so what, after the first debate a dead man would have done better the second time.

That's pretty much how I feel about his whole first term. I'm not really a strong Kerry supporter, but you can certainly put me in the "anybody but Bush" corner. (I was actually pulling for Kucinich to get the nomination, though I knew he had a trite cliché's chance in Hell of getting it.)

[mag]

I thought Kerry won this debate too, although it obviously wasn't the landslide victory he had last week. He just seemed more logical, more substantive, more composed, and all around more presidential.

I thought Bush's approach was somewhat unusual in trying to connect with the audience through volume. I guess that's the Samuel Jackson school of debate. I was expecting him to end with a little Dean scream. But nobody else seems really bothered by it. Apparently, yelling at people is only acceptable if you're a Republican.

mag

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by mag

I thought Kerry won this debate too, although it obviously wasn't the landslide victory he had last week. He just seemed more logical, more substantive, more composed, and all around more presidential.

I thought Bush's approach was somewhat unusual in trying to connect with the audience through volume. I guess that's the Samuel Jackson school of debate. I was expecting him to end with a little Dean scream. But nobody else seems really bothered by it. Apparently, yelling at people is only acceptable if you're a Republican.

mag

I'm starting to think that every republican out there thinks Bush has won the debate, and every democrat thinks that Kerry has won. Since I'm in a very liberal part of the US, you barely see any Bush Cheney bumper stickers around so you have the feeling that Kerry trounced Bush. But my manager at work flew to Minnesotta (sp?) last week and said that everyone he talked to over there thought that Bush has had an edge. I personally thought that this time was a draw. Bush had some facts straight this time, referred to concrete numbers and never phased out. Kerry was the same like last time.