Don't be too sure Kerry will own the debates

[jpgray]

He has a better debate manner than Gore did, but the media run these things, and they will shill nonstop for Bush once again. I will never forget the media's 'analysis' of those 2000 debates, but if you have forgotten, look here. At any rate, the debates will be moderated to a degree so Kerry will have no effective opportunity to rebut Bush's nonsense, and if Kerry does well in his rebuttal, some problem will be found with his intangibles to bludgeon him with while all will marvel at Bush's ability to win while being dumb. It will happen again, I wager.

If the debates are fairly held and fairly covered, Kerry will clobber Bush righteously--that much is a given. Take Bush outside of his soundbites and he is helpless, whereas Kerry is stronger when he is off his soundbites.

[JI7]

1. you are right, Kerry can't come off as too tough on Bush

people will see kerry as a bully beating up on a stupid man. never mind that someone who runs for president should be able to answer the questions and deal with these things. they will just see it that way.

[BurtWorm]

16. Kerry will no doubt be as cautious and safe during the debates

as he has been all campaign season. He will not be anywhere near as tough on Bush as he was on Howard Dean. I predict.

[JI7]

25. kerry wasn't really tough on dean

dean just wasn't able to take criticism. dean went after kerry for months, ran ads against him, even spent money sending letters to people in massachusettes telling them that kerry was losing in his own state. but when kerry criticized dean, dean wasn't able to handle it and even asked the dnc to tell kerry to stop attacking him .

[CTLawGuy]

38. you have that backwards

Kerry's campaign went after Dean for six months. Attacking Dean was their raison d'etre, because they couldn't motivate anyone to support Kerry. Remember the Osama Ad? I definitely remember the attack-flyering at Dean events in New Hampshire by the Kerry campaign.

Also, don't confuse Dean's criticism of Congressional Democrats in general with Kerry's personal attacks on Dean.

[JI7]

39. yeah i know, dean is the victim in all this

there is no proof kerry was inovlved int he osama ad. but it makes dean people feel better to see themselves as victims. and kerry motivated many people to support him including myself. when people actually voted they voted for kerry.they could easily have voted for someone other than kerry but they didn't.

[CTLawGuy]

40. what motivated them

was a fear of losing in Nov. spread by the DLC and the media. Before you dispute this point, let me point out that Al From and Bruce Reed of the DLC have never complained about Kerry's "liberal" record, but they complained constantly about Dean's "unelectability".

If people had voted based on the issues and who agrees with them the most, they would definitely have voted for Dean, as many of them originally intended. However, once "electability" entered into their minds, they got scared, and began to think someone like Dean, who is unafraid to speak his mind, was too risky, and ended up chosing the "safe" candidate, Kerry.

The group who made the Osama ad included former Kerry and Gephardt staffers.

I'm glad Kerry inspired you. He doesn't inspire me, but I am still voting for him.

[bucknaked]

2. Bush... April's Stutterfest v. Debate with Kerry

Kerry only needs to stupify Bush (as if that wasn't his natural state) with his own question(s), and if the debate sponser isn't in Bush's pocket, spring a few if their own (unrehearsed) questions for the Presidential prospects.

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

3. Gore vs Bush debates were the worst I've ever seen....

they agreed with one another more than they disagreed...you remember the one debate where they were seated at a table. I didn't watch them after that little love fest and voted Green. Kerry had better pound Bush...Dems have all the ammo...Kerry had better show there is a REAL difference between the two parties and rip into dum-dum. People are pissed and aren't going to be happy if Kerry doesn't hammer dum-dum up one side and down the other.

[NicRic]

37. Even worst Liberman vs Chenney !

Talk about two guys who where agreeing with each other during a debate. I remember not even ewatching the entire debate cause it was so dam boring .I never seen so much back slapping going on in what was suppose to be a debate !

[treefrogjohn]

4. It's a matter of the meds

If they prime * with the same meds they had him on for the Clinton portrait unveiling, he might again come across as relaxed, happy, and semi-articulate. Let's hope for a misdose or better yet, no dose.

[Sandpiper]

5. It's almost a no win situation

Everyone knows Bush is a dimwit. The media likes to pretend he isn't, but they know the truth just like everyone else.

Consequently, if Kerry roughs Bush up too badly in the debates, he'll be seen as mean and elitist for beating up on our "nice" but stupid President.

[Larkspur]

6. Kerry has to keep viewers awake during the debates, else

the Media will give him a big :boring: award. And keeping people awake is a tough task for Kerry to do.

[jpgray]

8. I don't need to be entertained--just convince me you can do the job

Most folks have a similar view, I imagine--the fellow did win the primaries, after all. Entertainment along with substance is nice, though, when you can get it.

[Jack_Dawson]

10. When are the debates?

[Demobrat]

14. You are right. Kerry must get a grip on the droning.

Nobody's going to want to listen to that for four minutes, much less four years. He needs to admit that he has a problem, and get some coaching, stat.

[JI7]

17. he kept more than enough people awake to vote for him than anyone else

which is why he is the presumed nominee.

[Larkspur]

21. Not really

Those who didn't watch the debates read that the Media told them that Kerry is electible and that is why he got their votes. When the Media tells people that Bush helped make America safe they'll side with Bush. That's what swing voters do.

[Still_Loves_John]

22. Ah, yes.

"Those who didn't watch the debates read that the Media told them that Kerry is electible and that is why he got their votes."

Yes, the evil media told them to vote for Kerry. I mean, what other reason would explain why someone wouldn't vote for your candidate? How could any rational person prefer another candidate over the one you support? The only logical explanation is that some bogeyman made them vote differently.

[JI7]

34. yeah, blame the media, and these were not swing voters in the primary

as if the media was promoting kerry.kerry had to actually win before the media would stop declaring his campaign over. and many people worked hard in kerry's campaign to help him win and especially kerry himself. and the voters in the democratic primary were not swing voters. they were mostly loyal democratic voters. with some independents and republicans. but primary voters tend to be those who pay a bit more attention than swing voters.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. the debates are essentially pointless

all that matters is the post-debate analysis. I doubt many voters will watch the debates anyway.

But most will hear about who "won" the debate the next night.

[bluestateguy]

9. It does not matter who wins the debates

The only people watching the debates in their entirety are the core supporters of both candidates whose minds will not be changed. What matters is the news cycle in the following 48-72 hours. That's when the soundbites are aired and the commentators fill up the airwaves with all of their analytical drivel, all of which fuel the themes of the water cooler conversations at work over the next few days.

[jpgray]

11. Well, by discussing the debates, I assumed the coverage is included

As MagicRat said above, very few actually watch the whole debate, but most will watch the coverage afterward.

[Awsi Dooger]

33. Don't repeat something that is absolute bullshit

Presidential debates garner massive audiences, especially the first debate. The '92 debates averaged more than 90 million vieweres apiece. That slipped dramatically in '96, since Clinton was considered a cinch, to less than 45 million. In 2000 the estimate for debate #1 was 47 million, still extremely substantial.

I have the 2000 debates on tape. On cable TV in the hours following debate #1, virtually nothing was said regarding Gore's sighing or behavior. Not until reaction started pouring in from viewers who watched the debate did the cable talking heads alter their opinions and begin attacking Gore.

[jpgray]

36. I had no idea they garnered such large audiences

Sorry for posting something as fact that is patently false. That is very encouraging--but one must concede that the spin points and later evaluations are what make the debate, not what is actually said within.

[bucknaked]

12. The Bush response will be a lot of nervous laughter, smirks, head-bobbing

...and remarks towards...

"War on Terra" (exhale)
"smokin' em out... the Terrarists"
and lots of...

"uh....



.....uh, a yeah... UH....!

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

13. Be nice,don't be mean.....screw the hell out of that

POUND THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF BUSH....DO YOU REALIZE PEOPLE HATE BUSH...I SAY GET PISSED BUT USE GOOD FACTS...SHOW EMOTION...PEOPLE LIKE EMOTION...HAMMER THAT TWIT FROM TEXAS.

[earthside]

15. Expectations

Expectations were so low for Bush four years that is was almost impossible for him to lose. Then Gore went kind of loopy, too.

This time there can be no low expectations for Junior. He has been "president' for almost four years. He is a self-described "war president".

And Kerry will have the benefit of the Gore-Bush debates to study.

Kerry will out class Bush ... If ...

There are debates. Will Bush find some way to avoid the debates this year? I think he will.

[Still_Loves_John]

20. I think this is a good point

I think that now people won't be so quick to defend Bush as the simple minded but good natured guy. He has been president for four years and can't really play that card effectively anymore, especially when he's running on the war on terror.

[JDPriestly]

18. Kerry is a lawyer; Gore wasn't

As a trial lawyer, Kerry has been trained to handle witnesses -- brilliant experts as well as illiterate criminals. He will instinctively know how to handle himself in the debate. Don't worry.

As for the discussion after the debates. That's where we come in. We need to flood the news media with pro-Kerry sound bites that reflect our analysis of the debates -- e-mails, letters, everything we've got. Some of the media is just too hardcore bought-by-the-right. They will ignore us. But, some are just lazy. Handing them great sound bites saves them work and makes them look competent. A strong response from us won't erase media bias, but it can help a little. Kerry will do the rest.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. The Debates Kerry Has Prepared His Whole Life For?

From The New Yorker:

They say that Kerry was distracted in Washington, that he didn't really focus on the campaign until the Senate recessed. "It wasn't a lack of focus," Kerry says. "It was a strategy. I figured people wouldn't really be paying attention until the fall debates."

The last four debates were fabulous political theatre—two very smart men having at each other. "John's at his best under pressure, when he's being seriously challenged," Paul Nace, an old Navy friend, says. "He gets really cool, very calm. He really is a warrior—he just loves it. I took one look at him as he was walking into Faneuil Hall for one of the last debates and I thought, Bill Weld has no idea what's about to hit him."

Weld—who calls the debates a "bloody draw"—says that Kerry successfully attached him to the national Republican Party. (Weld had said some embarrassingly positive things about Newt Gingrich two years earlier.) "The turning point came when he asked me if I'd vote to keep Jesse Helms as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That was a killer."

I asked Weld how he responded. "I ducked it, of course," he said, with a smile. "I mean, I hated Jesse Helms. But what could I do?"

Kerry won the election by eight percentage points. "John has always been underestimated politically," Marttila says. "But that race had the quality and intensity of a Presidential campaign, and he won. I don't see how they can underestimate him anymore, but they probably will."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021202fa_fact1

[Southsideirish]

23. Once more expectations for shrub will be very low and everyone

will expect Kerry to annihilate him . Oddly enough many people identify with shrub and see him as an Everyman. Then they view his erudite, polished well-spoken opponents just as we did the smartest kid in the class - we hated them. Therein lies the way Bush does "well" in the debates - he gets the "Doug Heffernan"/sympathy vote.
Regarding Kerry - the pundits will say, "Kerry didn't meet his marks" because expectations for HIM will be so unrealistically high. How can you beat that unless we run Doug Heffernan himself ("King of Queens")

[incapsulated]

24. Unfortunately, you make a good point

Everything is the moderation and the post-debate spin. These debates aren't necessarily weighted in the favor of the most intelligent, in depth responses. Bush was given "wins" just by not saying something incredibly stupid, the bar is set so low for him, all he has to do is survive. Kerry will be scrutinized because he is the contender and is being introduced to a lot of voters that don't follow the primaries. However, what the pundit morons are looking for is often superficial, stupid and unpredictable. Kerry is obviously light-years more intelligent than Bush, but this is often reduced to a bizarre beauty contest with "personality" winning more points than brains. How Bush could ever "win" on that score is beyond me, but that is how it was spun during the 2000 debates, and it won't be any different now, especially given his new status as the sitting POTUS.

There is no telling how this will turn out.

[DuckFan4ever]

26. Kerry may struggle in the debates.

If he comes off as distant and aloof, which at times he is prone to. :beer:

[Ronin1]

27. I'm worried....

I'm afraid Kerry will get rattled.

[formernaderite]

28. Rattled...nah. I'm afraid he'll talk tooooo much.

Unfortunately "Senators" love the sound of their own voice.

[dennis4868]

29. It's a no win situation for Kerry.....

no matter how well he performs in the debate the media will knock him down. They did this for Bush in 2000 and they will no doubt do it again for their GOD-IN-CHIEF this time around. Kerry is screwed!

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I think that the media has given up on Bush...

With the exception of FAUX I think they are accepting the fact that Kerry is going to win.

[DuckFan4ever]

31. That kind of attitude is certain to spell defeat.

You can never underestimate the power of big $, and GW Bush has a lot of it. No matter what the polls say complacency is not a smart attitude. Sorry to be so direct. Just don't think anything should be taken for granted.

[bklyncowgirl]

32. It's the little things that matter

The debates are crucial but not necessarily who scores the most debating points.

How they say things and how they look counts for more than what they say. Remember Nixon's sweaty palms, Bush Senior looking at his watch, Al Gore's sighs?

Media spin also counts a great deal and let's face it, a good part of the media is going to cover for Bush as they have all along. Provided he doesn't any major gaffes--I'm hoping for a Gerald Ford liberating Eastern Europe moment here folks--Bush will be given lots and lots of cover. Kerry on the other hand will expected to be a reincarnation of the merged spirits of Clarrence Darrow and Will Rogers with Franklin Delano Roosevelt thrown in for good measure.

[union_maid]

35. I agree that Kerry drones

He does, but sometimes he gets control over it. He'll need to do that now. He's still a better speaker than Al Gore was back then. Now, Gore seems to be all fire and brimstone, but then most of his stuff sounded like he was reading it for the first time when he spoke, even when he didn't use notes. His debate appearances were a disaster. Yes, he was right on his points, but the Ronald Reagan makeover was a big distraction from substance, for one example.

One important difference between then and now is that Bush has a record to defend. He's going to have to speak specifically and not in generalizations. He doesn't seem to be able to speak at all lately, though.

[monchie]

41. My prediction is that Kerry will win the debates...

...but ten seconds after they're over, the so-called "liberal media" will dutifully and endlessly regurgitate Republican talking points for the next several days until they're accepted as fact.

Remember the Gore sighs.

Remember the Dean scream.

Unfortunately, that's the way the media system in our society works now that we're creeping toward totalitarianism.