Please comment on this post-post debate analysis

[GWB]

It’s clear that Kerry won the post debate media debate by a larger margin than he won the actual debate. If you look at the Gallup Poll for instance… the snapshot poll of pre-post debate saw less movement on the key questions, than the movement seen from the poll taken over the next 3 days. Again, this could be more of an example of that intangible feeling that comes from the newfound Kerry credibility, than anything tangible. The polling has been all over the place with Rasmussen showing no post debate Kerry bump so far (as has been typical for them) while Gallup and Newsweek shows a large swing, just as they had after the Republican National convention.

I will be most curious to see where the numbers come in on polls that start and end this week. Any ‘bounce’ will most likely have dropped back down to earth, and what will be left will be any static change from the first debate.

Also the state polling from the battleground states that come out this week will tell another story. Most of the country is not getting much of the post-debate spin ads that the battleground states are seeing. So if polling in Florida, Ohio, or Penn paint a different picture than the national polls, then we know the post poll spin ads worked for one candidate or the other.

The issue now will be debates 2 and 3… suddenly everyone sees Kerry as Mr. Debater who is capable of leaping tall buildings with a single sentence. Has Bush succeeded in recreating those ‘low expectations’ to the point where a solid performance by the President will appear to be a huge victory?



source

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue now will be debates 2 and 3… suddenly everyone sees Kerry as Mr. Debater who is capable of leaping tall buildings with a single sentence

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense to GWB, but in the Gore debates part of the reason Bush "won" was because expectations of his performance were relatively low (add that Gore's boorish behavior.) Maybe Bush will "win" the next debates because he doesn't drool between questions and people notice the marked improvement.

[anatta]

Everytime this year you made a pubic appearance without a telepromter or cheering crowds, you BOMBED and your approval rate dropped. After the State of the Union, after Meet the Press, after your big Press Conference, and now the debate. You are 4 year older, a bit slower, and its shows.

Kerry, on the other hand, is a "strong closer" for a reason. That's when the debates happen. All the lies that millions buys are destroyed.

I see that you are advertising out here in California again. No Kerry ads, all Bush. Kerry leads by 15 or so out here. The reason you are doing this is 1. You have money to burn. 2. You are desparately trying to increase you NATIONAL POLLS to keep any momentum to a minimum. I suspect you are on TV in Texas too.

I don't think it will work as you have TWO MORE debates. Oh, wait. Forget what I just said, you are a great debator, 6-1 good ERA too. Kerry is just too long winded and interested in the issues.

[andyfox]

It will be very difficult for you to undo the damage you did in the first debate. You looked flustered, tongue-tied, unpresidential. You're going to have to scare the voters into thinking Kerry will raise their taxes and subordinate our foreign policy to the U.N.

I had thought Kerry was toast a few weeks ago, but your poor performance was the first step in seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. You'll need to do much better in the next debate.

[Flashy]

The medie definitely wanted Kerry to do well, if for nothing else than to turn this into a horse race.

I think as time goes on, Kerry performance will be seen as weak. Everytime he stated a position, there was always a "but." In fact over 18 "buts," including the soon to be famous "Global Test."

Bush wasn't at his best but there is no doubt where he stands.

Bottome line - if you think Internationlism is the way to fight terror, than Kerry the one. That is the position of most of the media.

If you think America has to act in its own best interest - than Bush is the one. Post 9/11, I think a majority of the country supports this position.

Time will tell - but usually we don't know how these debates turn out for 2-3 weeks.

[Matty]

Sorry, but as per your request the first debate was on your one strong suit. Now, you're in Kerry's territory. I kinda feel sorry for you- but then, you sent over a thousand soldiers to die for no good reason, so nevermind. I hope you cry.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush wasn't at his best but there is no doubt where he stands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we do. In the money line.

[Flashy]

"A thousand soldiers died for no good reason."

Are you sure? Usually the rant is for Blood for Oil. Of course having secure energy supplies may not be a good reason in your world view.


Get rid of a sworn enemy of the US who was repressing (mass graves, torture rooms) a populace of some 50 million people? Save an estimated 200,000 children a year by ending the economic sanctions? Naw they're only Arabs.

Let countries know that we will back up our diplomacy with force making it less likily we will need to do so in the future? Raise the stakes for any country sheltering or supporting terrioists? Naw, the United Nations is the only legitmate force in the world.

Instill democracy in a region dominated by dictators or Muslim fanatics so their people will demand the same? Naw, again they're only Arabs who can't possible handle democracy.

Your right, those thousand soldiers died for no reason. The UN will protect us.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Bush will "win" the next debates because he doesn't drool between questions

[/ QUOTE ]

Its just this sort of attitude about Bush that led to Gore's bungling of the 2000 election debates.

[elwoodblues]

I agree. That was my point. I think it was a combination of Gore's overconfidence and low expectations for Bush.