Analysis saying Kerry won?
Politics 10/14/2004 |I’m not entirely caught up with the post-debate threads that made it into my newsreader last night and this morning, but according to a couple posts from Kos last night, I may have been too pessimistic in my debate wrap-up — people seem to be giving Kerry a definite win.
The Scorer’s Table unenthusiastically reports this bout as going to Senator John Kerry by 12 rounds to 4, with 5 rounds even. On individual points, Senator Kerry is awarded a net total of 19 points, and President Bush a net of 2, having undermined his own effort with no less than eight points subtracted, three of them in a disastrous 12th Round in which the President had to be told time was up, answered a question with, in essence, ‘all of the above,’ and stumbled by inadvertently criticizing himself by claiming the borders of Texas were tighter than they’d been when he was Governor there. He also lost points for having twice invoked the 2000 election, and for once having given back at least a minute of time when the question hadn’t really been answered.
So — final tally 3-0 for Kerry? Not bad, not bad at all.
“Download” by Skinny Puppy from the album Last Rights (1992, 11:01).
[See also: Can Bush do anything but lie? | Presidential Candidate Selector | The Seattle Times: Kerry for President | Vote for Kerry, Lose Your Job | Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes on George W. Bush ]
« Shots of Gig’s Music Theatre | Different companies, different standards »
One Response to “Analysis saying Kerry won?”
Leave a Reply
jer@nyquil.org
Bryan
Michael Hanscom
Prairie
October 15th, 2004 at 9:00 am
As a listener who leans more toward Bush than Kerry, I have to agree that Kerry “won” the third debate. My impression was that Kerry was able to share statistics regarding how his initiatives would be funded. (Yes, I know there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, but at least he made the effort.) Bush’s strongest effort in this regard (Kerry voted for tax increases x times) wasn’t that strong in comparison.
In essence, the candidates needed to do two things: (a) capture the undecideds, and (b) motivate their own faithful. Kerry clearly did a better job at the former, while Bush did a better job at the latter. When a neo-conservative hears that Kerry makes Ted Kennedy look like a conservative, that’s a call to action.
I have to offer the caveat that I listened to all of this debate (and most of the other debates) on radio, and students of the 1960 election will remember that radio and TV can give different impressions of debates.