Presidential Debate Opinions

[chas]

the debate was mildly entertaining in spots. you can catch both sides having trouble. kerry says we spent $500 million on iraq, how did we spend on homeland defense? bush says, $12 billion. kerry says, it's not about the money. bush seems to answer some other question -- atleast not the one that the moderator asked. further, bush should just stop searching for the right word -- just spit it out already.

generally speaking though, we are footing 90% of the troops and 90% of the bill in iraq. even if we had un backing, we would still be footing a major (atleast 80%) portion of the effort. why? america has deep pockets both in terms of money and troops and equipment.

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
There are polls that say the oppossite numbers as Zogby. However, I trust Zogby. I work with zogby polls on a day to day basis. I know many people that put their trust in Zogby to make real strategy decision - they are not affiliated with a media outlet and have no interest in creating "drama". Zogby is the way to go.

Without knowing the specifics of the methodology of these other polls I can not explain the differences - but when I cite Zogby, I do so not for partisan reasons, if Zogby had Bush's approval reversed I would still tell you how much I trust the corporation.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest, but the "almighty Zogby" can only get a certain cross-section of the populace when doing the polling. You should go to a number of places who get their poll #s from differing sources to try to eliminate the biased polls. I'm sorry, but the ones I listed were the first ones to pop up in Google.

I'm no expert in getting data, but you saying that one polling sample is gospel is rediculous.

[GrigoryRasputin]

Not really - I can tell you Gallup, accidently or otherwise, has been oversampling Republicans.

Keystone Poll (a PA State poll)has oversampled from certain counties leaning one way or another.

Rassmussen has had some sampling questions as well.

Zogby, as far as Ive ever heard, has never had their sample placed in question. Theyre real pros.


If a poll is taken correctly it wouldnt take a "specific cross section". The science of polling has been refined and, when done correctly, is very reliable. On a national poll a proper sample of 1000 will reflect the opinion of the entire nation. Pretty amazing, huh?

Anyway, as I said... Zogby is what I know many people trust. I trust it. I trusted it when they had Kerry 30 points down in the primaries. Its a solid poll and has its sampling down to a fine art.

[jc Kyle]

i'm impartial to both presidents.. i mean, i don't really know the issues.. but man, Bush sounds uneducated

[navyblue2000]

to sum it up:

Kerry: "wafflewafflewaffle"

Bush : **more silence than speech*

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by navyblue2000:
to sum it up:

Kerry: "wafflewafflewaffle"

Bush : **more silence than speech*

LOL, true... true

[98goldbird]

First off, polls are ridiculous and who really cares what the polls say? I mean, really, if the polls say that Kerry is winning by a landslide, does that mean I should vote for him? Aside from that, the debate was stupid...

1. It was scripted
2. Bush couldn't remember what was scripted
3. Kerry just said what the people want to hear
4. Bush pleased the Republicans, Kerry pleased the Democrats....whoopidy doo
5. No truth has still come out about anything
6. Kerry's a Flip-Flopper and can't keep to his statements.
7. Bush is a Flip-Flopper and can't keep to his ideals.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm tired. Anyways, NO, I AM NOT A LIBERAL AND I WILL BE VOTING FOR BUSH. Had to say that in regards to the points I posted.

[L32Projekt]

I'm not going to argue any points of yours aside from the scripted comment. It's not scripted, never was and won't be. If it were scripted, don't you think that performances on both side would have been better? These are politicians, not actors. Honestly, scripted... what are ya thinkin'? What's next, we didn't land on the moon? :D ;)

[Johnny Ray]

As I listened to them I kept wondering which one owns a f-body.

I don't really care about what they say they are going to do, I want to know what kind of car they drive.

:cool:

[MrCoffee]

I liked how Kerry was up there with the calm and collected stature. and some of the things he said did bring up good points.
But I loved the way my man George W was up there with the "b!tch I run this shyt" poses and when he said, "I'm not going to say the senator isnt telling the truth because he has the same information I have" I about died from laughter. That my boy.
No matter what side your on you have to respect it when Bush said all the good things about Kerry as a dad and how its got to be hard for both of their daughters. Made respect for that, and if kerry said it first he'd get it, but bush is quick on the draw with that stuff.

[LARRYfireBIRD33]

I'll only say this and leave it be...when will Bush actually answer the question that is asked him...he always has and has continues to skirt the questions posed to him. He also does not retort when Kerry mentions some pretty interesting points. For instance, Kerry mentioned that since 9/11 we have secured less nuclear materials/weapons in the former soviet than we did in the 2 years previous. Now that's an important statement b/c Bush says this is a war about terror, not Iraq, and yet didn't get back to that. Kerry mentioned that we're setting up bases just outside of oil fields and not around nuclear plants,etc. Bush failed to respond to that. And when Kerry mentioned how we HAD inspectors in N. Korea, as well as fuel rods in place, and that since Bush has taken presidency those things have changed. All this is leading to N. Korea having nuclear weapons. Bush didn't respond to this comment so much either, he just said (forgive me for which element it was) it's plutonium and not iridium, and then kinda avoided it. And let's not forget how important Afghanistan is in all this. Bush never likes to talk about it, he just says something like "my opponent thought Saddam should be taken out, he had the same information I had." That totally avoids the point. I'm not trying to be a Bush hater,nor a Kerry lover - b/c i really am neither. But Bush just needs to answer some of the questions asked of him. I've said my piece.

[Linxs]

Originally posted by LARRYfireBIRD33:
I'll only say this and leave it be...when will Bush actually answer the question that is asked him...he always has and has continues to skirt the questions posed to him. He also does not retort when Kerry mentions some pretty interesting points. For instance, Kerry mentioned that since 9/11 we have secured less nuclear materials/weapons in the former soviet than we did in the 2 years previous. Now that's an important statement b/c Bush says this is a war about terror, not Iraq, and yet didn't get back to that. Kerry mentioned that we're setting up bases just outside of oil fields and not around nuclear plants,etc. Bush failed to respond to that. And when Kerry mentioned how we HAD inspectors in N. Korea, as well as fuel rods in place, and that since Bush has taken presidency those things have changed. All this is leading to N. Korea having nuclear weapons. Bush didn't respond to this comment so much either, he just said (forgive me for which element it was) it's plutonium and not iridium, and then kinda avoided it. And let's not forget how important Afghanistan is in all this. Bush never likes to talk about it, he just says something like "my opponent thought Saddam should be taken out, he had the same information I had." That totally avoids the point. I'm not trying to be a Bush hater,nor a Kerry lover - b/c i really am neither. But Bush just needs to answer some of the questions asked of him. I've said my piece.

You failed to mention that Kerry continued to revisit questions after the moderator moved on and asked a new one. Kerry just could not let something go and move on to the next question.


Kerry also flip-flopped (correct me if I am wrong) in the debate...
In one instance he talked about continuing peace talks with Saddam instead of how Mr. Bush forced him out and then latter said getting Saddam out of power buy force was the right move. Did I catch that right (I had a very long day then had APICS training till 8:00pm)?

Anyway, I was watching both their faces during the debate, Kerry was smirking during the entire event (that I got to see) and basically looked like a real *** to me. I saw Mr. Bush do the same however he did not make it near as obvious.

I think generally the debate was "ok" and think both parties side stepped numerous questions. Neither one was par or above par when considering answering the question.

[LARRYfireBIRD33]

while kerry revisited a question, he did so after the moderator didn't give him the 30-second retort. Kerry twice didn't ask for the retort, b/c they weren't supposed to do it every time...Bush, on the other hand, did so EVERY time.

[navyblue2000]

I was listening to a radio talk show this morning, and it appears that the good senator is just as eloquent a speaker (or NOT) as the incumbant candidate...

He mentioned a city in Russia, that was actually a Nazi prison camp... profoundy wrong figures on money spent in Iraq..."weapons of mass destruction" crossing Iraq's borders every day, instead of "terrorists"...etc...

[Linxs]

Originally posted by LARRYfireBIRD33:
while kerry revisited a question, he did so after the moderator didn't give him the 30-second retort. Kerry twice didn't ask for the retort, b/c they weren't supposed to do it every time...Bush, on the other hand, did so EVERY time.

Because Kerry was passing out incorrect information, The presidents retorts were correcting Kerry's inaccuracies.

I still don't understand how you can guarantee to win the war in Iraq in 4 years??? Sorry terrorists do not play by the rules and war in general is too unpredictable to guarantee anything....


edit Fixed in correct to incorrect

[ October 01, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Linxs ]