I was surprised that I didn't see a topic addressing this. So, for your debating pleasure:

Who will win Thurdays debate?

The emphasis will be on foreign policy.

I have been listening to the Pundits, and they all seem to feel that George W. Bush has such an unfathomable lead going into the debates that they feel Kerry has no chance of winning the debates, or cutting the spread.

Kerry has been warned by all of the comedians that if he speaks, he is apt to put the audience to sleep...

On the other hand, I have been looking over some of my Bush Quotations...

I think that if Bush speaks, and people listen to what he has to say; then Kerry stands a very good chance of winning the debates.

The pundits of course are likely to be evenly divided and declare their favorite the winner. Ergo, officially it will be called a tie by the media.

The most likely outcome of this year's debates however, is that the candidate that loses the coin toss and has to speak first will be declared the loser.

My suggestions to Kerry would be

• Simplify your message
• Avoid sarcasm and condescension
• Use humor when possible
• Show emotion, but don't get sucked into an argument

If Kerry can do these things, I believe he will win the debate. If Kerry does something to mock or make fun of Bush, the public will pity Bush, and Americans love the perceived "underdog."

Kerry must come across as the more rational candidate, not the more scholarly one. We all know that Dubya's "Bushisms" didn't keep him out of the Presidency before.

Who will win Thursdays debate?

I think Kerry is definitely the underdog here.

Since the emphasis is on foreign policy, and Kerry's main weakness is his apparent lack of a consistent foreign policy, Kerry is vulnerable.

However, this is a huge opportunity for Kerry, if he can seize it.

If he can successfully explain to the American people what he meant by all his apparently contradictory statements that Bush has been harping on (I did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it...I voted for the war but then did not vote to fund the troops...The removal of Saddam makes us safer/This is the wrong war at the wrong time...

If he can sort these things out, I think he can win some votes.

Unfortunately, given the format and the complexity of these issues, I doubt Kerry will be able to cohesively and convincingly do this in the allotted time.

On Bush's side, I still feel he is (mis)underestimated ( ) by his opponents. They seem to expect him to trip over his own tongue. But Bush is very comfortable talking about the issues and (to me, at least) seems to have a firm grasp over them. He just did an interview with Bill O'Reilly and he came across as decently articulate. In his press conference the other day with Allawi, he was in command and forceful with the press. His answers were not a string of "Bush-isms".

I also think there is a danger for Kerry if he comes out too forceful. Just yesterday, John Edwards said the President "will absolutely lie about anything". If Kerry uses such an un-Presidential approach I think he will lose big. Kerry must be persuasive and smooth in order to win, and I am not sure that he has it in him.

I think Kerry's staff will have studied the debates that were very successful for Bush (Richards and Gore I) and those where Bush lost his cool (Gary Mauro, and Gore II).

Kerry can be a very effective public speaker, so I suspect he knows he can't come out like a rabid dog and attack the president left and right. He will wait for an opening (and it will come, as Bush has some serious questions to answer on foreign policy) and, if effective, exploit it.

Bush, on the other hand, is in a position he's not used to. He's not the underdog here. He was vs. Gore and Richards and I think that's when he is most effective. It will be interesting to see how he handles being the chased in this equation.

Initially I give Kerry the edge, mainly because he has the most to gain from the debates. Bush clearly has the most to lose. Unfortunately I'll have to watch it after the fact as I have a game at 9pm on Thursday

Doc

Who will win Thursdays debate?
Normally I would probably say Kerry, by a hair but there is something no one has considered yet... Fox News will be providing all coverage for the debates this Thursday. So I fully expect that we'll see things like Bush on camera when Kerry is speaking, etc. Who knows what other devious things they'll come up with "Because of journalistic standards, [they're] not going to follow outside restrictions". I don't know why they just don't go ahead and make Sean Hannity the moderator while they are at it.

But, on to the reasons why I think Kerry will win but just barely.
- Bush has "won" his previous debates, but he was always the challenger, not the incumbent. Regardless of what kind of standards are in place for Bush, I think that changes if you are the incumbent. If nothing else it puts him in a different and unfamiliar position.

- Even though Bush has been practicing for the debates all week, it is a fairly proven fact that he doesn't do well with non scripted speaking. This may come into play with some of the questions from the moderator, but it certainly has a great potential to come into play with Kerry's questions.

- If Kerry is able to get Bush agitated, it could likely be disasterous for Bush. In previous speaking engagements he has even walked off the stage when someone irritated him. I actually hope this is a strategy Kerry pursues because it will completely shake Bush and cause him to lose.

- Kerry has played the expectations game well up to this point. He has consistently said that Bush would be a tough opponent in the debates (even if he doesn't think that) and therefore the bar for expectations might not be lowered for Bush so much.

- Kerry has the most to gain from the debates, Bush really only has something to lose here. Bush is viewed as strong on foreign policy and Kerry as weaker (although I personally don't agree with that). Bush has to maintain that strength and can't really gain anything per se but Kerry has some good opportunities to gain ground here and I think his campaign is very aware of that and will take advantage of it. I can also see the candidate questions potentially being very interesting here.

Unfortunately I won't be able to watch the debate live because I'll be traveling back to the US.

What's this got to do with anything? The networks have ALWAYS rotated who will provide the video feed during public speaking events such as this.

The guidelines for the debates covers cameras. There is little to nothing that the network can do to influence the shots. link

What I am curious about. What if one of the candidates breaks these rules. Such as leaving his podium to walk around the stage, or continually going over his time limit. Will an inability to follow the rules mean that you lose in the eyes of the audience?

Yes, they do have rules governing cameras, but you seem to have completely ignored the statement in that article from Fox News:

The article was written because of a discussion over the debate rules. If you actually think about what could be done here, the camera crew could easily show Bush when Kerry was talking or vise versa. They could also do things like not focus on Bush if he looked uncomfortable or unsure, but focus cleanly on Kerry if he was sweating or wiping his brow.

Remember how the first televised debate was lost?

It's obvious now that FOX "News" is a blatanly Republican organization. That said, regardless of what happens during the "debate," they will declare Bush the winner.

Since both candidates are pro-war, pro-imperialism, and pro-corporation there will be little for Kerry to disagree with. Bush will win by using the words liberty, freedom, and democracy for the entire show because those are the only words he knows. He will simplify our actions in the middle east as good versus evil and make Kerry seem unpatriotic and weak.

Kerry might have had a chance if he had stuck with the "We were misled" arguement throughout the campaign. I am thoroughly disappointed with the Democratic Party and their candidate.

I agree with this analysis wholeheartedly. I spent the weekend with a bunch of blue-collar friends, and they were all voting Bush. Because they don't 'get' what Kerry's saying. And yes, the flip flop accusations have helped in this regard. I read something on this earlier today - don't overestimate the American public's interest in foreign policy. Most people have a lot going on in their lives, and aren't interested in wonkish policy debates. Just tell them that you have a plan to keep them safe and explain what that plan is and how it's better than your opponent's. Something Kerry just can't seem to do.

Just found it - from National Review online. It's a simplification, but illustrates the challenge that Kerry faces on security.




CJ,
While I understand your point, and you are of course entitled to your skepticism, it still bums me out to see more Fox-bashing. How many news producers, writers and talking heads continue to rotate in and out of the Democratic party, and no one every suspects that they have a 'bias.' The Washington press corps are overwhelmingly self-identified democrats (who voted for Mondale!!!) The 'newspaper of record' cheerleads non-stop for liberal causes... etc. etc. etc. Yet Fox News is the sole 'unfair' network, who has a sinister plan to seal the debate for Bush.


A small point here - Fox News doesn't get to declare a winner. You only see what Fox News declares if you watch Fox News. Every independent newspaper, TV station, network whatever will have a take, and the American people will decide, but you don't see Fox News unless you watch Fox News. They are just providing pool TV coverage for the networks.


Last note and on this one you got it right - a RNC source notes that Kerry is 'a sweater' and that 'women don't like sweaters.' Watch the thermostat.

If Kerry cannot come up with a consistent and punchy explanation for his perceived wafflings, he will fail.

However, if the DNC and Kerrys political team haven't been preparing for that since the beginning of time, they deserve to lose. This is a punch we all expect to see, so I assume that they've done something to prepare for it. Knowing Kerry campaign managers success in the past though, I'm not expecting any miracles.

What a great topic! Analysing the speaking and thinking styles of the candidates I have these conclusions:

A) Bush cannot debate. He will never be able to debate. I re-watched the 2000 debates w/ Gore and listened to his argumentation. Bush is incapable of cohesively linking his arguments to form a strong conclusion. He is only capable of repeating the "message of the day" as read to him by Cheney and friends, or referring to his favorite sound bytes. His speeches of the last three years have all, every one, been essentially the same message: 'Terrorists bad... USA good... That means you! SO vote for me!". The only reason Bush was able to look good in the 2000 debates is because Gore was even WORSE about using brainless rhetoric to harp on the emotional strings of stupid people. Bush looked good because Gore is what you call a "Fish."

Speaking of "Fish," Kerry has unfortunately the same problem when it comes to argumentation. Like most politicians he has trouble addressing a question if it falls outside his comfortable memorized rhetoric. Both Kerry and Bush have to rely on the good ol' Red Herring (Thats a great question, and it reminds me that I wanted to say [insert rhetoric here]) to survive such challenges.

C) Bush has the upper hand... which is amazingly sad for someone who is as terrible at debating and speaking as he is. ( I did speech and debate for years, ending just last year, so believe me I am fresh to make these accusations. I have debated better FRESHMAN debaters then Bush). Bush has the upper hand because both candidates will have to rely on their usual rhetoric to survive the debate's and appear "consistent," however the media and the Bush administration has managed to make Kerry's rhetoric look bad (the flip-flop crud). Kerry can't change his rhetoric because it'd just make him less "consistent."

I believe that Bush will most likely make himself look even more stupid when analyzed by everyone who cares about debate-ability, and understands what makes a good speaker and debater. Bush will impress his league of idealogues and probably look and feel pretty good. Kerry will do the same with his band of merry democrats, but it is likely that Bush will appear to be on top because Bush's rhetoric looks better in the public eye right now.

Bush rhetoric is: GODFEARWARTERRORPATRIOTISM... I hope to god he bites off his tongue or something before going on stage.

I think Kerry has the advantage here. He can take pretty much any position on any issue presented and defend it as "his postion" from some point in the campaign where he made a comment about it. If Bush attempts to refute it, Kerry can just dance a little sidestep and take a different position then turn around and claim Bush never addressed it.

I am prepared for a "flip-flop" battle of the highest proportions!

Kerry will (or at least should) use the format to swamp Bush with "poisoned well" style postulations. Topics such as, "Was the war in Irag about 911, WMD, Saddam Hussein, or terrorism?" or, "Did you like imposing your steel tarrif or desperately revoking it because of international pressure?"

By highlighting Bush's "flip-flop" moments with questions that leave no opportunity for a good, direct answer Kerry can undo some of the flip-flop rhetoric that has been tossed in his direction.

Bush, of course, will be trying to highlight those moments where he has already painted Kerry as a "flip-flopper". The problem with this tactic is that it is beginning to fall on tired ears. While the Cult of Bush will never sway in their clamorous appplause for Bush's one-liners, the moderate types are waiting to hear something new from him. If he spends this debate snidely whippping out salvos from his "flip-flopper" arsenal he will not impress his most important audience, the moderates and undecideds.

I agree that Bush has less to gain and more to lose from this debate. He is very good at the subtleties of debate inasmuch as he can use snottiness and cockiness without seeming snotty and cocky. If Kerry tries to match him in this he will look the fool (and be the fool for playing to W's strength)


Let's be honest though, there are many definitions for "win" when it comes to things like this.
Look at the thread about the O'Reilly vs. Krugman debate. Some people thought O'Reilly's bullying was effective debate abd others thought it was juvenile and childish.
This Thursday will be no different. Sadly, I believe that the candidate who best elucidates on his points will be perceived to be the loser in this debate by the masses. Americans no longer have the patience to listen to and follow through on a line of argumentation. They respond to over-simplification and emotivism. Logic, reasoning, and well drawn-out arguments fall flat on the national stage. If Kerry doesn't give strong, clear responses in the short times allotted he is doomed. If George Bush tries to say too much in his alllotted time he is doomed.

Expect to see Kerry squashing his sentences together in a desperate attempt to cut his rhetoric and Bush taking pauses between phrases to reduce his word count. It will be interesting.

I'm afraid anyone expecting any sort of major mistake, misstep or gaffe by Bush or Kerry this Thursday is going to be sadly mistaken. It isn't like these guys haven't done this type of thing before.

People are going to pay attention to the outward appearance of Bush and Kerry (Kerry is 6'4" to Bush's 5'11") and whose suit fits best and whose American flag pin is most distinctive and maybe---just MAYBE some attention will be paid to the substance of their remarks instead of their style.

It's the post-debate debate that is going to determine who "wins" the first debate. Bill O'Reilly had better rest up because the "spin-meisters" are going to be in full effect Thursday night all the way into the Sunday talking heads shows.

Personally, my feeling is the Bushies aren't going to wait for the debate to decide who "wins" the debate. They are going to play their game of diminished expectations regarding Bush's debating skills as opposed to Kerry's, but if they win the definition game afterward they win the debate even if Bush "loses" it. I agree with Paul Krugman in today's New York Times that the fix is already in:

Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Mr. Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.

But what will the print media do? Let's hope they don't do what they did four years ago.

Interviews with focus groups just after the first 2000 debate showed Al Gore with a slight edge. Post-debate analysis should have widened that edge. After all, during the debate, Mr. Bush told one whopper after another - about his budget plans, about his prescription drug proposal and more. The fact-checking in the next day's papers should have been devastating.

But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's lies - "against the other's minor errors."

The result of this emphasis on the candidates' acting skills rather than their substance was that after a few days, Mr. Bush's defeat in the debate had been spun into a victory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp

Anyone who understands what a really, juicy and thoughtful debate is will see through this stage-managed spectacle that is going to be about as spontaneous as a World Wrestling Entertainment Summer Slam steel cage match.

The moderate types already know Bush, they are waiting to hear from Kerry. Most are unsure of Kerry and feel that his true colors will shine through in this debate.

This debate holds the key to the presidency. In one evening plus a week of internet, radio, news and america's debate, the answer as to the winner of the election will be clear and here is how.

• If the candidates are both boring then this will turn away the moderates from even voting and increase the republican vote since most moderates vote for the democratic candidate.
• If the republican candidate wins, then the voting will cast for a republican candidate, and vice versa.
• If both win, we wait for the next debate.

So, to pre-empt the "Bushie" pre-emption, you quote Paul Krugman - aka Chief NYT cheerleader for Kerry?

If there are lowered expectations for Bush in the debate, it's the ABB crowd who has lowered them. How many times have we seen here in this forum all kinds of statements about how stupid Bush is, how awkward he is with the English language? That hasn't come from the pro-Bush crowd, NT, that's come from your side and now y'all are afraid that it's going to come back to bite you. But, it won't be your fault, it will be those nasty Republicans at FOX News.....

Looking back to past Presidential debates, the candidate who "won" was the one who managed most to be themself. "Let Reagan be Reagan" and now it's "Let Bush be Bush". As long as they don't try to make President Bush into someone he's not, he'll be just fine. Kerry's problem is that even he really doesn't have a clue of who he really is.

It's not the "ABB crowd" that is playing the lowered expectations game for Bush, Aquilla, but Bush's own people.

For example:In a repeat of the spin war before the 2000 presidential debates, Republicans are trying to lower expectations for the president by portraying Kerry as an expert orator who has never lost a debate.

"Sen. Kerry is a very accomplished debater," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said. "I think it's his greatest skill."

Yeah---right. This is where Bush goes into his "Aw shucks" mode and acts as if he can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The thing is that Bush's "rope-a-dope" strategy has worked before with Ann Richards and Al Gore and sucked them in.

But Democrats have pointed out that Bush has won just about every debate he has been in -- even against top-notch orators such as Gore and Texas Gov. Ann Richards in 1994.

James Fallows, the former Washington editor of the Atlantic Monthly, who has written extensively about presidential debates, said the Bush campaign may be less successful in lowering expectations.

"I think it's harder to do for them this time ... if you are the president of United States, you can't really say, 'I don't know much, I'm not going to do that well,' " Fallows said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGE590O731.DTL

Fallows compared how Kerry and Bush have performed in debates and says that Bush, while not a compelling speaker, has the ability to prepare well, repeat his key points and hold his own against skilled debaters such as Gore and Richards.

What I do concede is the debates are far more important for Kerry than they are for Bush. In a head-to-head confrontation with Bush, Kerry has to show well. Terms such as "winning" and "losing" are vague and inspecific in something as subjective as a debate, but unless either candidate makes an incredibly brain dead faux pas, I'm not expecting any kill shots from either side.

I think this debate is Bush's to lose. While foreign policy is the area that has caused the most dissent, it is probably also the area he is most comfortable speaking about. This is also the area where most of Kerry's flips have occurred. In criticizing Bush Kerry has indicated he would do things differently...but hasn't come up with any specifics on how that would be accomplished. Several nations coming out recently and stating they wouldn't contribute troops even if Kerry were elected indicates that this is something much easier said than done. So, Bush needs to stay on message, and Kerry needs to come up with some workable details on how he'd improve. Those can both be accomplished, leading to a 'tie'...which, given the current polls, Bush wins.

As to the down-playing of expectations...I think both NT and AmLord are correct. It is probably a strategy of Bush's team...you win if you exceed expectations, so lowering expectations is a decent strategy. Certainly, the ABB crowd has made lowering the expectations a very easy thing to do....it is difficult to argue against something that essentially agrees with your criticisms. So, as in many of his past debates, Bush just needs to avoid being foolish to come off looking good.

Hobbes, it may be impossible for President Bush to avoid being foolish.

Here's my thinking: I'm sure in this foreign policy debate, the actions and attitudes of President Bush before the Iraq whatever (war, invasion, occupation, liberation) will be brought out. It will be impossible to argue that he has kept to the original plan, since the only plan was to take Iraq. The tremedously naive expectations for the aftermath are simply too obvious to avoid.

Forget about all the reasons for going to Iraq, although that makes him look pretty foolish too. It's the here and now. It was foolish to expect anything other than what we are experiencing in Iraq, although I did expect more attacks with crude nukes or bio/chems. It may also proove to be foolish to expect anything than a very unstable country suffering in ways never foreseen by this administration.

President Bush is an idealist. If he starts going into never-never land with what is to happen in Iraq over the next 4-5 years, he'll come off like a fool with a fool's expectations.

People writing his scripts are idealists too. I'm expecting a lot of neocon mumbo jumbo coming from Bush's mouth.

Can Kerry pull off being the realist? I think so, and if I'm right in this prediction, then he'll win this debate. It could even cause a major change in the vote.

Idealism versus realism. At this juncture, the choice is clear.

And then you have things like this. Does it bother anyone else but me that ABC News has already written an published their post-debate analysis 5 Hours before the debate actually occurred?



I'm glad that the reporters at ABC news can see into the future and all, but shouldn't they at least wait until after the debates?

Edited to add: How is either candidate supposed to have a fair shot of winning when you have things like this going on?

Edited again to add: This is a transcript of the original text because ABC has pulled the story. But interestingly enough Yahoo is running the same story but the author forgot to change all of the past tense to future tense.

I'm actually with CJ on this one... It looks as though ABC is predicting the future. Either that or somebody does not know about the use of past and present in their vocabulary.

Heck I read it again while in the middle of posting this, and it still makes no sense the way they are reporting like it already happened.

Edit to add:

It looks like this story is coming from the AP. As the Boston Globe has the same story

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/274/politi..._first_o:.shtml

I think Kerry has won the battle of low expectations. I've never had lower expectations of Kerry than after watching the MSNBC panel basically discuss why his prosecutor strategy won't work.

I was going to tape the debate, because I have a class during that time. I might as well just hear what everyone says about it, because it doesn't seem like Kerrys going to pull through at this point anyway.

It all 'pre-game' conversation. Who's playing, who's injured, who will win. It almost never turns out how the pre-game describes it.

Why is ABCs response all that bad. Is anyone going to seriously say they will be suprised by any comments out of the mouths of these 2 veteran politicians in a completely controlled forum.
The only suprise will be whatever dumbbut thing one of them might say too quickly.

Suprised!? Really

[FONT=Times]Impossible for the President to avoid being foolish? The last time I checked FLIP-FLOPS aren't the choice of dress for a serious man who lives in the Real World. FLIP-FLOPS tend to offer a bit more whimsy to one's wardrobe (as a "author/musician you should be able to pick up on some of the metaphors that I'm layin' down). Thinking that Kerry can lead this country with conviction and true vision is what I (and many) would call FOOLISH. If you were to ask Kerry to point to where he stands on the issues, his fingers would begin to point wildly in every direction. Kind of like the "Scarecrow" in The Wizard of Oz-with every moment yielding a different answer to the same question. Bush was dealt the hardest hand that a President can be dealt; and he has faced things head on, not wavering in his belief for how this situation should and will be handled. John Kerry has yet to show decisiveness, much less conviction, in his quest to lead this country. That my friend is an idealistic person-a thinker of random ideas with no conviction or clear plan of action to make those ideas reality.