Presidential Debate II Comment Thread

[The Kernel]

This debate should have been titled "Dumb and Dumber". Kerry was doing better than Bush, but make no mistake: he let huge opportunities go by. Primarily, he suffered from a failure to directly address Bush's comments in many of his rebuttals. Most of the times a question was directed at Bush and he answered, Kerry could have begun his rebuttal by addressing the person who asked the question and saying "Did you notice that Mr. President did not actually answer your question?"

No he couldn't do that at all. You simply cannot come out as too agressive in these types of debates. They shouldn't even really be called debates; a debate is not a popularity contest while the Presidential debates are by definition precicely that. You may be an expert debater Mike but I'm guessing that you wouldn't do very well as a politician--you have to appeal to people's humanity, not their intellect. If Kerry had attacked Bush on that, he would have come off as petty and spiteful to most people.

For example, when a woman asked how he planned to repair relations with American allies, Bush never answered that question. Instead, he went off on a rant about how popular = wrong, and unpopular = right (a rather obvious logical fallacy which Kerry also failed to call him on, and in fact, when you think about it, it was basically a long-winded way of saying "I do not intend to repair relations with our allies"). That was a fairly consistent pattern; Bush would often give an answer that was not really a direct answer to a question, and Kerry would let this go by.

Kerry couldn't simply call Bush on his bullshit debate style, that's simply not an option for the reasons I've specified. You can't simply throw around terms like "ad hominem" and "appeal to tradition fallacy" and expect to win the hearts of the common man. Instead, Kerry attacked Bush's argument as well as his credibility and I think he did an excellent job of it.

[Darth Wong]

This debate should have been titled "Dumb and Dumber". Kerry was doing better than Bush, but make no mistake: he let huge opportunities go by. Primarily, he suffered from a failure to directly address Bush's comments in many of his rebuttals. Most of the times a question was directed at Bush and he answered, Kerry could have begun his rebuttal by addressing the person who asked the question and saying "Did you notice that Mr. President did not actually answer your question?"

No he couldn't do that at all. You simply cannot come out as too agressive in these types of debates.

Let me get this straight: it's disallowed to point out that your opponent did not directly answer the question, but it's OK to repeatedly accuse him of lying and "not living in a world of reality"? Give me a break; Kerry just let him off the hook. He certainly didn't do it out of some gentlemenly code.

They shouldn't even really be called debates; a debate is not a popularity contest while the Presidential debates are by definition precicely that. You may be an expert debater Mike but I'm guessing that you wouldn't do very well as a politician--you have to appeal to people's humanity, not their intellect. If Kerry had attacked Bush on that, he would have come off as petty and spiteful to most people.

Sure, and accusing him of being either a liar or a living in a delusional state is somehow less aggressive than pointing out that he did not directly answer a question posted to him? I'm not buying this excuse.

For example, when a woman asked how he planned to repair relations with American allies, Bush never answered that question. Instead, he went off on a rant about how popular = wrong, and unpopular = right (a rather obvious logical fallacy which Kerry also failed to call him on, and in fact, when you think about it, it was basically a long-winded way of saying "I do not intend to repair relations with our allies"). That was a fairly consistent pattern; Bush would often give an answer that was not really a direct answer to a question, and Kerry would let this go by.

Kerry couldn't simply call Bush on his bullshit debate style, that's simply not an option for the reasons I've specified. You can't simply throw around terms like "ad hominem" and "appeal to tradition fallacy" and expect to win the hearts of the common man. Instead, Kerry attacked Bush's argument as well as his credibility and I think he did an excellent job of it.

I didn't say anything about throwing around terms like "ad hominem" and "appeal to tradition fallacy". Do you think I don't know how to talk in front of morons? I'm well aware of the differences between playing to a moron crowd and an intelligent one, but the fact is that "Did you notice that he did not directly answer your question" works equally well in front of both, and can be hardly be considered more rude, arrogant, or aggressive than accusing your opponent of being delusional.

[The Kernel]

Let me get this straight: it's disallowed to point out that your opponent did not directly answer the question, but it's OK to repeatedly accuse him of lying and "not living in a world of reality"? Give me a break; Kerry just let him off the hook. He certainly didn't do it out of some gentlemenly code.

At its core, there is no difference sure. But one is acceptable in this format and the other is not. Kerry can't simply stand up and say "look, he's lying right now!" because it is not the sort of thing a "civilized" person would do. I'm not sure how much better I can explain it then that; the nuances of politics are often extremely subtle and in a class all of their own. Perhaps the best way to describe it would be to say that when Kerry attacks Bush's past decisions, it seems a bit more abstract then an attack on someone that is standing right next to him.

Remember, they still make a point of shaking hands and looking like they like each other afterwards even though I'm sure either of them would like to rip the others guts out if given the opportunity.

Sure, and accusing him of being either a liar or a living in a delusional state is somehow less aggressive than pointing out that he did not directly answer a question posted to him? I'm not buying this excuse.

It might have been possible form Kerry to suggest this, but I think its more of a gamble since it could quickly devolve into back and forth rhetoric ("He's ignoring the question!" "No, he's ignoring the question!"). Kerry's main theme for the evening seemed to be to gloss over most of Bush's rhetoric and indeed even most of his responses, choosing instead to concentrate on the issues of the question instead of letting himself get sidetracked. Remember, the burden was on Kerry to shine here after the last debate and if he'd gotten into a verbal duel with Bush over who was being more evasive, the waters would have gotten so muddy that no one would have made any sense out of it and Bush would have stalemated the debate (which might as well be a win for him).

No, I think Kerry's responses were quite measured and appropriate. Sure, he missed a few opportunities, but he managed a scathing attack on Bush's policies while at the same time dispelling the longstanding falsehoods about his own character and positions.

I didn't say anything about throwing around terms like "ad hominem" and "appeal to tradition fallacy". Do you think I don't know how to talk in front of morons? I'm well aware of the differences between playing to a moron crowd and an intelligent one, but the fact is that "Did you notice that he did not directly answer your question" works equally well in front of both, and can be hardly be considered more rude, arrogant, or aggressive than accusing your opponent of being delusional.

It is because instead of attacking an opponents argument (which is a more abstract concept) you are attacking his style, which easily translates into character for the less intelligent among us. Don't you think that if that would have played well someone would have done it before?

And Mike, while I'm sure you know how to deal with idiots, I get the impression that you don't care much who comes out most popular in the end. The point of these debates is to get people to LIKE YOU; getting the message through is of secondary importance.

[Darth Wong]

Kerry can't simply stand up and say "look, he's lying right now!" because it is not the sort of thing a "civilized" person would do.

Yet that is precisely what he did on numerous occasions, such as the environmental issue. So why can't he point out that the President did not directly answer John Q. Public's question?

It might have been possible form Kerry to suggest this, but I think its more of a gamble since it could quickly devolve into back and forth rhetoric ("He's ignoring the question!" "No, he's ignoring the question!"). Kerry's main theme for the evening seemed to be to gloss over most of Bush's rhetoric and indeed even most of his responses, choosing instead to concentrate on the issues of the question instead of letting himself get sidetracked.

As a result, he allowed Bush to expound upon his rhetoric without ever going after any of that rhetoric.

Remember, the burden was on Kerry to shine here after the last debate and if he'd gotten into a verbal duel with Bush over who was being more evasive, the waters would have gotten so muddy that no one would have made any sense out of it and Bush would have stalemated the debate (which might as well be a win for him).

Oh come on, the best Bush would possibly be able to manage is "you too!!", which would only look childish.

It is because instead of attacking an opponents argument (which is a more abstract concept) you are attacking his style, which easily translates into character for the less intelligent among us. Don't you think that if that would have played well someone would have done it before?

Why do you insist that it must be an either/or situation? It's possible to attack both, you know. That's the whole point I'm making.

And Mike, while I'm sure you know how to deal with idiots, I get the impression that you don't care much who comes out most popular in the end. The point of these debates is to get people to LIKE YOU; getting the message through is of secondary importance.

And respecting the questions posed by John Q. Public rather than barely acknowledging them is one way to do that. Remind people that you are going to sincerely try to answer their questions instead of just using them as a springboard to launch into a stock speech.

[Talon Karrde]

"Did you notice that Mr. President did not actually answer your question?"

I was saying the same thing in the first debate against Mr. Kerry, but Kerry gets away with it even more because he is very adept at debating and changing the subject to something he is comfortable with. In the first debate, the question was asked of him "What would your specific plans be in Iraq?" He gave a very short one line answer about calling some kind of summit, as if that was going to be a fail safe way to win back support for the war, and then changed the subject to North Korea.

Both candidates do this Mike, not just Bush. But I do agree, they should actually ANSWER the questions asked of them instead of spinning it into something else.

[Talon Karrde]

Last debate I agreed with all of you that Kerry won the debate. I disagree with most of you here. I believe the President did a MUCH more effective job tonight. In fact, I believe he won this debate because he was able to defend himself much more effectively. He was also able to call Kerry on a late point that Kerry tried to make about parents buying body armor on the internet for their children, and Bush effectively made him seem hypocritcal by his voting against the funding for armor in the first place. IMHO, Bush seemed much more relaxed, and he was forceful in his opinions and looked very comfortable tonight. I believe this won was won by Bush.

Hmm...

BWAHA HA HA

And THAT folks is one hell of a rebuttal.

[Patrick Degan]

Last debate I agreed with all of you that Kerry won the debate. I disagree with most of you here. I believe the President did a MUCH more effective job tonight. In fact, I believe he won this debate because he was able to defend himself much more effectively. He was also able to call Kerry on a late point that Kerry tried to make about parents buying body armor on the internet for their children, and Bush effectively made him seem hypocritcal by his voting against the funding for armor in the first place. IMHO, Bush seemed much more relaxed, and he was forceful in his opinions and looked very comfortable tonight. I believe this won was won by Bush.

Hmm...

BWAHA HA HA

And THAT folks is one hell of a rebuttal.

A laughably divorced-from-reality review of Bush's performance in the debate got precisely the rebuttal it deserved.

[Axis Kast]

So Axis, you think it would have been better for Kerry to say, "I think the right choice is to be Pro Choice and that's how I'm going to govern" or anything of the sort?

The man is a LEADER. That was a VERY uncomfortable question and he handled it flawlessly.

Typical strawman. What the fuck is it with you people that you can’t debate what I actually say?

I argued that Kerry’s answer on choice wasn’t his greatest success of the night, not that it wasn’t a good answer at all, moron.

For example, when a woman asked how he planned to repair relations with American allies, Bush never answered that question

Neither did Kerry. Saying, “I have a plan,” means absolutely nothing. He’s yet to prove that he can do anything more than Bush outside – or inside, for that matter – Iraq.

And the Kernel is precisely right; the so-called “hatchetmen” always suffer in comparison to their targets because nobody likes to think the President could do that once in public office. People don’t like a “mean” guy, so to speak.

[Iceberg]

Statistically speaking this debate was a tie, which means it was an effective loss for Bush as "Town Hall" is his best speaking format. Bush is going to get crushed in the third debate, IMO, as #3 is back to a moderated format, under which Bush has traditionally suffered.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

What did Kerry say about not forcing his faith or something?

[Admiral Valdemar]

What did Kerry say about not forcing his faith or something?

That was on abortion etc. He didn't want to let his religious beliefs encroach on others' beliefs.

[Executor32]

That was on abortion etc. He didn't want to let his religious beliefs encroach on others' beliefs.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I felt like kissing Senator Kerry last night.

I daresay Kerry is like a non-evil version of Senator Palpatine.

[DPDarkPrimus]

That was on abortion etc. He didn't want to let his religious beliefs encroach on others' beliefs.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I felt like kissing Senator Kerry last night.

And now all us atheists and agnostics have a reason to vote for Kery, and not just to vote against Bush.

[Patrick Degan]

Neither did Kerry. Saying, “I have a plan,” means absolutely nothing. He’s yet to prove that he can do anything more than Bush outside – or inside, for that matter – Iraq.

Whereas Bush has already proven his incompetence. Uncertainty about Kerry is no excuse for retaining the Fuckup-in-Chief.

[Fire Fly]

Well, so far, Gallup says that the statistical results of the debate were pretty tied, although Kerry has an upper edge.

Clicky me

Kerry 47%
Bush 45%
Both Equal 7%
Neither 1%

Small Excerpt:

Democrats rallied behind Kerry's performance by 87% to 8%, while Republicans rallied behind Bush's performance by a slightly smaller margin, 83% to 10%. But independents chose Kerry by a 16-point margin, 53% to 37%.

The reason the overall figures show only a slight advantage for Kerry, despite his greater margin among his own party and winning the independent vote, is that the sample of viewers had more Republicans (38%) than Democrats (32%) or independents (30%). Also, the sample of viewers support Bush over Kerry in the presidential race by 50% to 46%.

The poll shows a modest gender gap in the rating of the two candidates, with women choosing Kerry as the winner by a nine-point margin (50% to 41%), and men leaning toward Bush by a three-point margin (48% to 45%). In the first debate, male and female viewers gave virtually identical responses.

Other Poll Findings

Overall, 38% of viewers said they felt more favorably toward Kerry as a result of the debate, while 20% felt less favorably -- a net positive of 18 points. By comparison, Bush received a net positive of 11 points -- 31% of viewers said they felt more favorably and 20% less favorably toward Bush because of the debate.

If Kerry can sustain his momentum into the next debate (and if the next debate is similar to tonight's) and if Kerry can better articulate the ideas he laid out Friday night, Kerry should be able to end on a very strong key. The next debate is only about domestic policies, so I better not hear anything about the Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, N. Korea). Kerry should be able to turn the next debate into a slam dunk, if Friday night showed anything in regards to what we'll see next time.

[2000AD]

Well due to some annoying alarm i was kept up last night so caught the debate on BBC News.

IMO Kerry won, but it wasn't the "bitchslapping" that people have been saying, but then again this is the first non-internet debate i've seen.


When Bush was harping on about how the Iraqi's or whoever wouldn't want an American president who saw the whole Iraq War as a mistake("wrong time, wrong place, blah blah"), couldn't Kerry have come back with something along the lines of "it was a mistake, but it wasn't my mistake. And i'm still going to clean up after it as my duty as president"

[Durandal]

This debate should have been titled "Dumb and Dumber". Kerry was doing better than Bush, but make no mistake: he let huge opportunities go by. Primarily, he suffered from a failure to directly address Bush's comments in many of his rebuttals. Most of the times a question was directed at Bush and he answered, Kerry could have begun his rebuttal by addressing the person who asked the question and saying "Did you notice that Mr. President did not actually answer your question?"

For example, when a woman asked how he planned to repair relations with American allies, Bush never answered that question. Instead, he went off on a rant about how popular = wrong, and unpopular = right (a rather obvious logical fallacy which Kerry also failed to call him on, and in fact, when you think about it, it was basically a long-winded way of saying "I do not intend to repair relations with our allies"). That was a fairly consistent pattern; Bush would often give an answer that was not really a direct answer to a question, and Kerry would let this go by.

I don't think that would've been a good idea. After the candidate answers the question, the person asking knows whether or not he answered it. He or she doesn't need Kerry pointing that out. What Kerry has to do (and what he has been doing) is focus on differentiating himself from Bush and showing that he has his own plans for America.

Now, that's not to say that he shouldn't take Bush to task on the things he said. But he did that. For example, when Bush addressed the question of which Supreme Court judges he would appoint, Kerry came right back with, "Four years ago, he said, 'We need some good, conservative judges'."

Personally, I just don't think it would've gone over well for Kerry to point out every evasion Bush was making, which some might perceive as an excuse not to address what he said. Witness Bush's "You forgot Poland!" bullshit. Instead, he focused on inconsistencies in what Bush actually said. Kerry came off as just aggressive enough, I think. Any more, and he would've looked like an asshole. He's done what he had to in these debates.

[Talon Karrde]

Hmm...

BWAHA HA HA

And THAT folks is one hell of a rebuttal.

A laughably divorced-from-reality review of Bush's performance in the debate got precisely the rebuttal it deserved.

One could say the same thing about you.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Shut up, you you-tooing piece of shit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I agree with Durandal, you can't look more aggressive, and aggression isn't based on the most aggressive thing you do, but an aggregate of your behavior in general. He's red-lining with constantly portraying Bush as a lying, delusional putz, but much more, especially directly addressing him with critiques of his arguments and diction could tip the balance.

[Agrajag]

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. Kerry just doesn't seem to be able to quickly counter. I suspect that both candidates now realize that so much is at stake that neither wants to go too far off their scripted material and risk a meltdown over a single response. I think that's the risk that needs to be taken. Bush left himself open so many times to being hit.

[Patrick Degan]

And THAT folks is one hell of a rebuttal.

A laughably divorced-from-reality review of Bush's performance in the debate got precisely the rebuttal it deserved.

One could say the same thing about you.

Living down to your title, I see...

[Ender]

Can we atleast ship the god damned HAHAHAing next time someone feels the need to quote that?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Take the personal vendetta to the HoS if you're going to get all emotional over it, it was a good thread beforehand.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

And THAT children, is why we snip big bold letters while quoting.