You're the Bushies. Why debate?

[Master of Ossus]

Why did Bush even agree to the debates with Kerry? Not only do I think he has more of a chance of losing, but it's also stupid since he has nothing to win and everything to lose. The polls are now consistently showing Bush with a lead, and Kerry has clearly failed to deliver his message to the voters. Why, then, would Bush and his team agree to give Kerry yet another opportunity to get his message across?

[tharkûn]

1. Because refusing to debate would look bad for Bush's image, and if you think his image is immaterial to the campaign I have some swampland for sale.
2. Because Bush and Kerry were working on debate agreements prior to the post-convention bounce.
3. It gives the Bushies even more ammo when Kerry decides to nuance a position that prima facie appears to contradict earlier statements.
4. It gives the Bushies a chance to hammer some of the more inane and vapid planks of the Kerry platform. For instance Kerry talks about using allied troops to alleviate US manpower commitments in Iraq ... and never goes into details who is going to contribute, what quid pro quo they will demand, or how soon such troops will be avalible; his social program expansions are awfully big on promises and awfully small on where the money to pay for them is coming from.
5. It sets a bad precedent if the incumbant can get away without debating, eventually the Republicans will be on the other side of the fence and they don't want the Dems to say, "But you guys got away with it".

[Stravo]

Tharkun brought up many of the points. Also it allows Bush to hurt Kerry early. The very first debate is strictly on foreign policy where he happens to be strong aned Kerry is weak. Much of it will focus on Iraq where Kerry shot himself in the foot with his moronic flip flopping. *minirantTake a stand fucker, presidents have to do this whether its popular or not. Playing the protection game with your votes when you've been consistentlytrailing is just fucking moronic.*end minirant


By debating Iraq it makes Kerry repeat either ealier stances or contradict them, either way he looks like a bufoon. I'd love to know who the FUCK agreed to this on the Kerry side. Essentially you're giving Bush a free shot at Kerry in the first debate when most people will watch because they're undecided. By the time the third debate rolls around I think most of the undecideds will have decided.

In essence I think Bush hoodwinked the Kerry campaign (who ARE these people?!) and is debating from a position of strength in the very first debate making that all important good first impression in their first macth up.

[Stormbringer]

1) You've got to debate. The PR damange it would do if you didn't and the precedent it would set would hurt them more than anything they stand to lose in the debates.

2) These aren't going to be anything like a normal debate. They're structured to hell and back so the chances of Bush blowing it are a lot lower than it would seem.

3) Bush is more charismatic. Sure he's a terrible public speech maker, but he also comes off as a normal and likeably guy which Kerry doesn't.

4) The Republicans actually have plans. Flawed, stupid, and even damaging ones but plans. Kerry has been a monument to vagueness and non-specificity. Either he commits or he gets trounced.

5) If Gore can lose to Bush, Kerry can as well.

[Axis Kast]

1. As everyone else has already pointed out, refusing the debate would suggest that Bush concieves of himself as a weak politican. Conveying that kind of self-image would hurt him substantially with undecided voters and moderate Republicans alike.

2. Bush has racked up a string of impressive victories when it comes to debates - notably against Gore in 2000, but also during the gubneratorial debates in Texas during his debut as a politican. So long as Bush can keep hammering home five or six key points and make himself appear a fairly down-to-earth individual, he'll be okay.

3. Kerry is the one taking risks here. He's a Democratic challenger on the attack against a Republican imcumbent on the eve of an election that revolves closely around foreign policy issues. He's going to be climbing uphill all the way.

4. Recovery from a poor debate is quite possible. See Ford's stupidities in the '70s and Reagan's horrible performance in '84 against Mondale.

[CJvR]

Why did Bush even agree to the debates with Kerry?

I agree, Bush can only lose. But appering cowardly by refusing to face Kerry would be even more dangerous and damaging. Kerry have everything to win and nothing to lose, unfortunatley the few speaches I have heard him make seems to indicate he is a very boring speaker. It will not matter if Bush comes of as an ignoramus, if Kerry puts the audience to sleep no one will notice.

[Stormbringer]

Why did Bush even agree to the debates with Kerry?

I agree, Bush can only lose.

You'd think, but Bush is generally acknowledged as having kicked Gore's butt in the 2000 debates. He's slick as hell and these are very structured debates, both sides are exercising tight control. And Bush has far, far better handlers; he can win and win big.

[CJvR]

Well without debates Bush seems set to win.
With debates Bush might win with a larger margin, nice but hardly needed. Or he could screw up big enough to lose.

[Stormbringer]

Well without debates Bush seems set to win.
With debates Bush might win with a larger margin, nice but hardly needed. Or he could screw up big enough to lose.

Seems, there's still enough in the balance that they can hardly afford to rest on their laurels. There are still enough states in the balance to tip it one way or other.

And yes, he could screw up. But they're doing everything they can to minimalize that. And he needs to solidify the lead he has.

[tharkûn]

A larger margin in the presidential victory could well turn into an extra senate seat or two and a handiful of representatives; either of which is a very nice gain for the republicans.