On the ABC news instapoll:

They had George Stephanapoulous on as they announced the poll results, 44%Kerry, 41% Bush, 13% Draw. Stephanapolous immediately pointed out that they had sampled 3% more Democrats than Republicans.

Peter Jennings then shot him a dirty look.

Posted by: Thief at October 9, 2004 02:23 PM

I don’t need a poll to tell me who won that debate. President Bush outclassed Kerry in every category.

Kerry’s performance was more of the same in this debate - only he was rattled this time. It was as though he heard his own rhetoric coming back at him and was astonished to find how difficult a bill of goods he had to sell. (“I have a plan…” just doesn’t work.) “Mr. G-Lib” got away with alot in the first debate; not so this time.

From the standpoint of scoring an actual debate, Kerry wasn’t even in the ballgame. You just don’t get away with ignoring the tough questions and answering with your more comfortable talking points, yet Kerry did this time and again. Big minus in a debate - no matter what the format.

Bush did it ALL in this debate. He gave crisp, clear answers to the questions and provided specific, detailed information. Moreover, he showed us the passion, understanding and charm that we all know he has in abundance. Then he turned around and body slammed Kerry on his Senate record. Wham! I swear, Kerry never knew what hit him!

That’s the way to do it, Mr. President!

BIG Win for Bush - HUGE!!!

Posted by: Jim at October 10, 2004 02:11 PM

Jim…I guess we saw different debates. I thought the President did a poor job justifying the single defining thing he’s done during his term, investing us in Iraq. And I’m tired of his anger (it isn’t passion) showing when he’s confronted. I don’t believe he separates his personal feelings from the goals of his office, and since he’s never put himself in harm’s way, I don’t believe he has an accurate sense of what that means to the men and women on the ground. Even the Marines are complaining about why they’re there now….not a good sign at all. Kerry struck me as even-keeled and, frankly, much smarter. Neither of them answered all the questions asked (those damn debate “rules” don’t allow follow-up questions, so the candidates aren’t forced to fully answer them), but at least Kerry didn’t get mad at the questions; I thought Bush acted very unreasonably toward the questioner who asked about importing medicines from Canada.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 10, 2004 07:43 PM

Still, no matter who you believe won the debate, Kerry got the worst of it. The Kerry campaign keeps saying, “A long resume doesn’t mean good decisions.” They are right. Look at Kerry’s “long resume” of a record. It is so horrible I can’t even believe he is running for president. Plus, you can’t have it both ways. It is a clear fact that Kerry tells the people what they want to hear. He can be on one side of an issue in Virginia, and the other side of the issue in Florida. Plus, if we are to believe what he tells us, then it is a clear fact that Saddam Hussein would still be in power.
As for the debate as a whole, with Bush slamming his record, Kerry failed miserably. Personally, I think it is very amusing how the media portrays the debates. In the first debate, Kerry did win. The media said “Kerry lambasted Bush.” In this last debate, Bush clearly won so the media posted, “Kerry barely eeks one out.” So much for an unbiased media.

Posted by: BH57 at October 11, 2004 12:08 PM