I guess this means Bush won the Debates - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Esen · 11-03-2004, 06:29 PM

I remember during the debates a lot of people said that Bush was toast that he lost the debates.

My question is what constitutes winning the debate?
Is it the end result, hence Bush being elected.
Or the well versed and rehearsed speaking of the actual debate itself.

I personally hope that maybe we can also take out of this that the debates are great and all but it is the actions of the polition and his core beliefs that make him a good president.
Now I know I will get flamed for saying this simply becasue i am speaking in a way that may be seen as favorable to Bush.
It has already been made clear on the boards that over all TFP ( at least from th epolls and posts) seem to loke Kerry better.
But All I am really after here is .

Is it the end result that proves who realy won the debates or is it the prettiness of it?

One thing I do have to say on Kerry's behalf is that over all he conceded graciously even though Edwards would have brought in Bush's 3rd grade teacher if he could before conceding.
It just goes to show that no matter what side you beleive in that there is a certain degree of integrity on both sides.

Rdr4evr · 11-03-2004, 11:02 PM

Either the debates meant nothing or the majority of Americans were more on Bush's level mentally. It seems as if the average American can sympathize with Bush's simple mindedness and the fact that "he seems like a good guy to have a beer with." I believe most Bush supporters base their votes on Bush's so called "charm" rather than the issues.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I believe religion had a MAJOR role in his re-election as well. The same way Bin Laden gathers followers of Allah and uses that as a tool for war and murder, Bush uses Jesus to gather his followers to re-elect him so he may also continue his murderous mission for religious and personal gain.

So to answer you question, it all comes down to how you feel about the candidate personally rather than how you feel about his stance on issues. I don't believe this to be the case for all people, but the majority of your average Joes, which is quite unfortunate, but the sad reality.

Flyguy · 11-03-2004, 11:28 PM

This doesn't mean that Bush won the debates. This means that my previous point on the gullibility of the average American was confirmed. People completely bought the "fear factor." "Vote for me or we'll get hit again." Cheney directly said this a couple of weeks ago and so did Bush. What surprises me is that they won on "moral values." Moral values my ass. There's nothing "moral" about abandoning the people who got him elected (the middle class) for his corporate buddies, not allowing importation of drugs to help lower the cost of healthcare, drilling for oil forever without using science to try and reduce our dependence on mideast oil and saying fuck the environment in order to help his buddies make even more money. People don't do their own research on the issues, they only listen to 30 second ads on TV during primetime, they do whatever their minister says when he says that a vote against Bush is a sin, and they totally bought into their fear tactics. Bush can't protect us from a terrorist hit anymore that Kerry could have. If some guy has enough desire and wants to walk into a building with a bomb and set it off, he will. Bush in office or not.

Scipio · 11-04-2004, 12:27 AM

Losing the debates, and winning the election: not mutually exclusive!

Esen · 11-04-2004, 03:33 AM

It is funny how people are always quick to say that Bush supporters are gullible and such.
It has much more to do with being practical.
All of the patches that Kerry proposes are outlandish if you really think we will be able to afford them.
Taxes for us will go up. Even if he says he will not raise them.
A lot of people saw right through that. Many people were able to look at his track record and they see that Kerry supports what ever sounds good at the time.

Also for all of the disasters (that were beyond Bush's control) that we were hit with Bush did a good job of keeping hope that we can still continue to be a strong country.

And then this brings up another point. I like my current situation I like the job that I have. I'm ok with the taxes I currently pay compared to what they will most likely be if Kerry was around. I also walk through ground zero twice a day I know what the reality is of our countries safety.

Where I am leading up to all this is that it is not just what you say in a debate, it is how much of what you say is reality.

It is inteesting that Bush won most of the 30- 60 demographic and Kerry was stroner with the 18-30 range.

The more experienced portion of the country voted for Bush. The people who do not just see the effects of a leaders decisions but who have also felt these decisions before.

As for everyone saying it is becasue of religion that Bush won. Well you know what maybe that is an important issue to the country and if you disagree guess what you are in the minority.

Now do not get me wrong I do not think Bush is a saint and I do not think that Kerry is a loon or anything. Overall Bush stood for more people's beliefs and that came through in the debates.

flstf · 11-04-2004, 03:56 AM

I don't think debates help or hurt the incumbant all that much unless they totally screw up. People watching already know what the sitting president's views are, etc...

Debates can help or hurt the challanger though. For some it is the first time they have seen and heard the candidates views other than TV soundbites and slogans. Also it's important that he/she look presidential. I think Kerry gained from this election's debates and would have lost by more otherwise.

That being said, I also think the ability to debate well is not all that necessary to be a good leader. As I remember on my high school debating ream, the best debators were quik witted and clever but not necessarily leaders.

aktornado · 11-04-2004, 08:32 PM

If it was a college debate, I think Kerry probably would have been considered the "winner" in all three. Despite on who you agree with on the issues, I think it's pretty obvious that Kerry did a better job presenting his position.

But, Bush actually did win the second and third debate if you look at it from the perspective of expectations.

Going into the first debate, I think most people expected it to be pretty close. Kerry blew Bush away. Because of that, the expectations for Bush in the second and third debates were considerably lower. Kerry, being the hands down winner in the first, was then expected to do the same in the second and third. The general consensus is that they pretty much tied the last two debates, so because Bush beat his expected results, he sort of "won."

11-03-2004, 06:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
Esen TFPer formaly known as Chauncey Location: North East	I guess this means Bush won the Debates I remember during the debates a lot of people said that Bush was toast that he lost the debates. My question is what constitutes winning the debate? Is it the end result, hence Bush being elected. Or the well versed and rehearsed speaking of the actual debate itself. I personally hope that maybe we can also take out of this that the debates are great and all but it is the actions of the polition and his core beliefs that make him a good president. Now I know I will get flamed for saying this simply becasue i am speaking in a way that may be seen as favorable to Bush. It has already been made clear on the boards that over all TFP ( at least from th epolls and posts) seem to loke Kerry better. But All I am really after here is . Is it the end result that proves who realy won the debates or is it the prettiness of it? One thing I do have to say on Kerry's behalf is that over all he conceded graciously even though Edwards would have brought in Bush's 3rd grade teacher if he could before conceding. It just goes to show that no matter what side you beleive in that there is a certain degree of integrity on both sides. __________________ ~Esen What is everyone doing in my room?

11-03-2004, 11:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	Either the debates meant nothing or the majority of Americans were more on Bush's level mentally. It seems as if the average American can sympathize with Bush's simple mindedness and the fact that "he seems like a good guy to have a beer with." I believe most Bush supporters base their votes on Bush's so called "charm" rather than the issues. EDIT: I forgot to mention, I believe religion had a MAJOR role in his re-election as well. The same way Bin Laden gathers followers of Allah and uses that as a tool for war and murder, Bush uses Jesus to gather his followers to re-elect him so he may also continue his murderous mission for religious and personal gain. So to answer you question, it all comes down to how you feel about the candidate personally rather than how you feel about his stance on issues. I don't believe this to be the case for all people, but the majority of your average Joes, which is quite unfortunate, but the sad reality. Last edited by Rdr4evr; 11-03-2004 at 11:10 PM..

11-04-2004, 12:27 AM	#4 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Losing the debates, and winning the election: not mutually exclusive! __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

11-04-2004, 03:33 AM	#5 (permalink)
Esen TFPer formaly known as Chauncey Location: North East	It is funny how people are always quick to say that Bush supporters are gullible and such. It has much more to do with being practical. All of the patches that Kerry proposes are outlandish if you really think we will be able to afford them. Taxes for us will go up. Even if he says he will not raise them. A lot of people saw right through that. Many people were able to look at his track record and they see that Kerry supports what ever sounds good at the time. Also for all of the disasters (that were beyond Bush's control) that we were hit with Bush did a good job of keeping hope that we can still continue to be a strong country. And then this brings up another point. I like my current situation I like the job that I have. I'm ok with the taxes I currently pay compared to what they will most likely be if Kerry was around. I also walk through ground zero twice a day I know what the reality is of our countries safety. Where I am leading up to all this is that it is not just what you say in a debate, it is how much of what you say is reality. It is inteesting that Bush won most of the 30- 60 demographic and Kerry was stroner with the 18-30 range. The more experienced portion of the country voted for Bush. The people who do not just see the effects of a leaders decisions but who have also felt these decisions before. As for everyone saying it is becasue of religion that Bush won. Well you know what maybe that is an important issue to the country and if you disagree guess what you are in the minority. Now do not get me wrong I do not think Bush is a saint and I do not think that Kerry is a loon or anything. Overall Bush stood for more people's beliefs and that came through in the debates. __________________ ~Esen What is everyone doing in my room?

11-03-2004, 11:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
Flyguy Banned Location: Swooping down on you from above....	This doesn't mean that Bush won the debates. This means that my previous point on the gullibility of the average American was confirmed. People completely bought the "fear factor." "Vote for me or we'll get hit again." Cheney directly said this a couple of weeks ago and so did Bush. What surprises me is that they won on "moral values." Moral values my ass. There's nothing "moral" about abandoning the people who got him elected (the middle class) for his corporate buddies, not allowing importation of drugs to help lower the cost of healthcare, drilling for oil forever without using science to try and reduce our dependence on mideast oil and saying fuck the environment in order to help his buddies make even more money. People don't do their own research on the issues, they only listen to 30 second ads on TV during primetime, they do whatever their minister says when he says that a vote against Bush is a sin, and they totally bought into their fear tactics. Bush can't protect us from a terrorist hit anymore that Kerry could have. If some guy has enough desire and wants to walk into a building with a bomb and set it off, he will. Bush in office or not.

11-04-2004, 03:56 AM	#6 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't think debates help or hurt the incumbant all that much unless they totally screw up. People watching already know what the sitting president's views are, etc... Debates can help or hurt the challanger though. For some it is the first time they have seen and heard the candidates views other than TV soundbites and slogans. Also it's important that he/she look presidential. I think Kerry gained from this election's debates and would have lost by more otherwise. That being said, I also think the ability to debate well is not all that necessary to be a good leader. As I remember on my high school debating ream, the best debators were quik witted and clever but not necessarily leaders.

11-04-2004, 08:32 PM	#7 (permalink)
aktornado Tilted	If it was a college debate, I think Kerry probably would have been considered the "winner" in all three. Despite on who you agree with on the issues, I think it's pretty obvious that Kerry did a better job presenting his position. But, Bush actually did win the second and third debate if you look at it from the perspective of expectations. Going into the first debate, I think most people expected it to be pretty close. Kerry blew Bush away. Because of that, the expectations for Bush in the second and third debates were considerably lower. Kerry, being the hands down winner in the first, was then expected to do the same in the second and third. The general consensus is that they pretty much tied the last two debates, so because Bush beat his expected results, he sort of "won."