So it comes to the debates....again....
 

When Kerry got the nomination I thought it would come down to the debates. Apparently I was correct. It doesn't take a giant leap to think this about a nation considered 40-40 politically (with 20% wishy-washy). As the nation learns about John Kerry, they don't like him, that’s pretty obvious. A lot of people don't like Bush, but there is nothing 'likeable' about Kerry. This idea has already been discussed on these boards. Still there are the debates. The debates are why Bush won in 2000. Gore the experienced politician and debater vs. the Bumbling Cowboy. Instead Bush held his composure while Gore looked petulant. Gore also managed to get caught in a couple of lies, and suddenly this Cowboy didn't look so bad after all. I always hear people always say the debates don't matter, and really if you follow these matters, they don't. I know enough about Bush to know what he is going to say about any 'normal' question. I know enough about Kerry to know I have no idea what he is going to say, but I'll know he said the opposite at some other time. I know I am voting for Bush unless something totally unexpected happens. Likewise anyone who has followed Kerry all this time and still wants to vote for him will do so almost regardless of the debates.

The debates themselves is more a test of who looks better and who did their homework. Trick questions are easy when you prepare for them. Now maybe someone will be able to pull off another 'name all the leaders' question that made Bush look bad in 2000. That same question was given to the seven or nine or however many democrats in the primaries at a debate, none took the questioner up on the offer, but these debates are more controlled by the candidates then a lone reporter in a room with a canidate he doesn't support.

Now my predictions are as follows.

Kerry, who has been moving left this week claiming blacks are being systematically repressed by republicans, and suddenly he even revived gun control, will be firmly center. He will try to convince Americans they don't have to pay the new taxes, only the 'rich'. He will suggest nothing radical in Iraq, but just that things are horrible and that he can somehow make it work better. He will NOT bring up Vietnam. I would not be surprised if he tries Reagan's immortal debate line with Carter. He will offer no solutions, because doing so will piss off at least part of his base. Mind you I could be wrong, but these are the things I would do if I were Kerry and things I think would work. If the polls are even worse for him he may go for a long shot and fall on his face.

Bush will be Bush. He will be asked about the lack of WMD's. He will semi-blow that off but will talk about the dormant but not disbanded programs and the very long range missiles Hussein was trying to build and let people make the link from there. He will have a list of 'good' static’s from Iraq he will mention and he will mention that no one said the war on terror will be easy. If questioned on the economy he will have the current figures which are pretty good, he will bring up the start date of the recession as well.

There is more they will both talk about, health care (I can almost hear them both, Kerry will mention the uninsured, Bush will mention the lawsuits and his plan for clinics in poorly served areas), North Korea (they will say the same thing), Iran (they will say the same thing, though Bush will not rule out any military force, Kerry won't bring it up unless asked directly where he will say he couldn’t rule it out but it would be a last resort and we wouldn’t do it alone).

Things neither will want to talk about.

Immigration - Can't piss off the Hispanic vote.
Abortion - Lose lose for both of them.

Ok its late and I'm getting to tired to continue. I'm curious as to what others think will be outcomes, questions, and answers to the debate questions.

You got a link to the article btw?

And I think gay marriage will be one of the topics neither side will talk about - its lose lose for both.

So in other words, your prediction is that Kerry will be vague and Bush will lie through his teeth.

I think you're correct.

As for the upcoming debates, it'll be good to have some substance in the midst of all the rhetoric.

Kerry needs to really go on the offensive at the debates. Make Bush answer questions on the spot (which he is really bad at). Focus on what is going on in Iraq now and the fact that we are destracted from the war on terror. Avoid talking about either canidates military carrier unless GWB brings it up then throw out the fact that Kerry at least served overseas.

Talk about unemployment and the economy being way down from the clinton years. He has so much ammo to throw but unfortuantly I think Kerry is afraid to attack Bush.

These polls vary so often and come from so many places I dont even consider them much anymore.

if only that were true. The debates are carefully formularized by both parties so that neither has to talk about what they don't want to talk about and so that the questions are all "approved" beforehand.

I'd LOVE to see a debate with substance, but, sadly, that's not going to be this year.

--
topical sig: www.opendebates.org

Current polls:
Gallup: 54 Bush 40 Kerry
Pew: 46 Bush 46 Kerry
IBD: 47 Bush 47 Kerry
Harris: 47 Bush 48 Kerry
Pew: 46 Bush 46 Kerry

Which one doesn't belong?

too bad Bush has a difficult time in debates (or has in the past). i believe he's an infinitely more likeable personality on tv. if it weren't for his poor extemporaneous speaking skills he might take a lot of ground in a debate.

um, difficult time in debates? First I've heard that one. Everywhere I turn people are commenting on how he's an excellent debater and "won" every debate with Gore.

i have the sense that, this time out, the polls are as much about generating interest in the press coverage of the election as they are about the election.
but maybe that is a function of where i live--i do not know anyone who is undecided, nor do i know anyone who knows anyone who is undecided.

i sometimes wonder who these people are, the Undecideds--where they live---if they are a family somewhere that fields telephone calls from polling companies as a full time job.
sometimes beaver or wally undecided is out when the calls come.
sample error 3%...

i do not have the sense that the debates are that important

does anyone have a sense of much play in the electorate at this point?

not based so much on the papers/tv, but on their social networks?

of course the advertisers who would support the debate programming, brought to you by archer daniels midlands and bud light, hope that there are many undecideds out there.

but seriously, i dont see it...do you folks?

I think the debates will have more effect on the polls prior to the election than they will have on the election itself.

The only way the debates will have an effect is if Kerry's campaign gets something to stick in the American conscience between now and then and he can drive it home at that point.

I don't see it either, but I live on the west coast. The constant harping on these ephemereal characters bothers me, but not much I can do since they are supposedly tucked safely away Ohio or something--presumably where no one can ascertain their beliefs with any great certitude.

I had a few discussions with someone watching the talking heads make these grand claims regarding who controls the elections. Her point was that undecided voters are diffuse throughout the regions, which I believed would actually undermine their efficacy as a voting 'bloc.'

Then I brought up the point that the electoral college ultimately decides which candidate will receive the votes. Thus, in a very real sense, the undecided voters do not control the elections--the EC does. This point was not taken very lightly, and a sense of nihilism began to set in. To which I responded that I did not wish to discourage anyone to vote; rather, if the voting system is (or appears) farcical, then voting is made all the more important. How else can the system be legitimated (or delegitimated) unless the dynamic between what is real and what is promised (e.g., how people vote versus the notion that their voting 'matters' in a free nation) is played out on the national election stage.

I think my conclusion was that I then deconstructed the interplay during the florida fiasco as a movement to legitimate the voting system moreso than a struggle over who would win the presidency. In that sense, it was extremely important that the votes be counted, and that the court rule which votes would or would not matter in the endgame. Otherwise it seems the electors could have just cast their votes and called it good.

now I'm rambling, so no, I don't know of personally or remotely and undecided voters. but I attribute it more to infusing legitimacy into the process moreso than generating voting interest.

I have to agree with you here. Bush is also a better speaker now, four years in the whitehouse will do that, plus the whole 'Bushism' thing will mean less. Its one thing to see a guy you don't really know make a 'speaking' error, but now people expect it and are not alarmed by it.

Kerry is not a great speaker so ironicly this might help the idea of issues mattering more as neither will win on delivery.

Bush has come a long way as a speaker, I'll grant him that. However, he still has problems when publicly speaking without a script.

As for Kerry, I get the impression that he's just not that into it. I detect no passion in him when he speaks. He constantly sounds tired and as though he's memorized his lines too well.

The debates will be interesting as such, and I will definitely watch, even though my mind is already made up.

If you forget about the stakes, they will be quite amusing I think.

lol... point taken, but coming off better than al gore in a debate is like beating a one-legged man in a kickfight.

Gore and Kerry in a staring match.....who blinks first?

Indeed. People are aware that Bush is a complete dimwit, so him bumbling and bimbling will not surprise anyone anymore. ;)