Discussion in 'Green Room' started by VenomXt, Oct 6, 2004.
figured id start this thread i will post what i think when its over.
cheney looked bored/complacent, resting his chin on his hands...
cheney looked almost as bad as bush....well...not nearly as bad as bush, but edwards clearly presented himself and his platform much better.
Kerry/Edwards in '04.
Personally I think Cheney won the debate. He knew what he was saying, and has the experience to back it up. Both candidates said things that contradicted past statements, but I still feel Cheney came out on top.
I wish Cheney would do the presidential debates and leave George at home...sorry that didn't fit the topic
Yeah Cheney did a MUCH better job then Bush did in this debate. I do believe Edwards did a better job at explaining what they plan to do though, instead of just bashing the other canidate like Bush tried to do and Cheney followed up on.
I thought both candidates did well articulating their respectative views, but Cheney clearly came out on top.
i was interrupted and didnt get to finish the end of the debate but as hard as this is to say Cheney ( the devil he is) sounded better. But i think edwards still was in the right.. What pisses me off is when Cheney defended Halliburton once again.. sigh.
overall the debate was very close...
cheney started better and edwards finished better...
both did lots of spinning, cheney in particular taking some brilliant liberties...
edge probably to cheney in this one though its not a clear cut win...
point of note... the moderator was absolutely horrendous...
I think the VP won!...will talk more after the teacher is done talkin
good debate...not as engaging as the Kerry bush, but lots of fun
before the debate, I thought Chaney would embarrass Edwards, but it was clear Edwards took Chaney by surprise, made him uncomfortable, and took him off his game
as two individuals, Chaney clearly won this debate
considering how much credit the vice president was given concerning his intellectual ability prowess, Edwards won for how well he stood toe to toe...challenging every thing that came out of Chaney's mouth, putting clear pressure on Chaney's failing credibility.
by the way, polls this morning give Edwards a clear win
that's interesting to me
Edwards was not as quick on his feet as he could have been...for instance, when Chaney has the nerve to include Iraq casualties as part of the coalitions numbers, Edwards should have been able to jump on the ridiculous notion of adding the Iraqi casualties along with the numbers of casualties from countries that are there to help them.
anyway, I'm surprised the polls give a huge edge to Edwards...in my mind that's because the public didn't expect him to stand toe to toe
Does anybody know if there is a webcast of the debate so people can watch it again? I didn't have access to a TV last night, so I couldn't watch it live ><
I personally don't put a lot of weight on the debates, and I don't watch them. I only look over the highlights the following day. I have met waaaay to many "articulate" talkers who were complete a$$holes in reality, and on the other side of the coin, too many people not so efficient at public speaking but very wise underneath. Debates are too confined, to controlled. Wanna impress me? Let them go, toe to toe, no holds barred. Now THAT would be entertaining at the least! May not get any useful info out of it, but it sure would be fun!
Wasn't there 30 something rules laid down for the kerry/Bush debate???
Debates in my mind are useful but not really conclusive as to which person / party are better.
Here in the UK I am sure Michael Howard could give Tony Blair a run for his money if they held a televisual debate as he is a fairly effective speaker, but the problem is he is viewed as weaker than Blair in some circles - and this is despite the fact that Blair received alot of flack due to his "interpretations" of the reasons of going to war - because the backing party do not have enough strong / charismic speakers or any really strong policies to outflank Blair.
The UK times have an interesting article on the debate though that focuses on Cheny's attacks.
Another interesting thing is why is it referred to as a war? since a war involves clear sides, and Al-Quaeda isn't a traditional side as such, so how can you win a war against terror and a non traditional side?
man, they should have at least one real confrontation type of debate...I challenge you, you respond, you challenge me.
give the questions to the debaters, not the moderators...that would be sweet
as far as how important these debates are;
it's really the only time a candidate can have the ear of people that plan on voting for his opponent.
those voting for bush turn adds for kerry off
those voting for kerry turn bush adds off.
but at a debate, you have the ear of your opponents supporters.
Someone made a comment about all the polls going to Edwards. All of the on-line-Non-Scientific Polls went to Edwards. The one scientific poll I saw done by ABC news can be found here:
I'll take scientific poll over an on-line poll any day.
I'll take scientific poll over an on-line poll any day.
the cbs poll only surveyed 178 people. and had a margin of error of +/-7 points.
Polls that are supposed to reflect the nation's views are going to have to survey more than 178 people.
the fact that we are even discussing who won or lost the debate actually brings the very point home;
this is an under acheivment for any perception that chaney is an "intellect"...the fact that Edwards stood toe to toe, held his own, and Chaney wasn't a clear winner speaks volumes.
Cheney won, hands down. After Cheney got him on not including the Iraqis in the 90% casualty numbers, all Edwards could do was jump on Haliburton over and over. Kerry/Edwards will lose. I'll bet on it =]