View Story | 119 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Gore lost the debate spin, not the debates themselves.
Gore did not act that obviously annoying in the first debate. Just look at the first reactions and actual transcript objectively. It was a very delicate organised work of selecting the soundbits and ramming them through all MSM channels for whole weeks that formed those "debate memories". Perhaps the diligent activists were surprised themselves by the success.
And you know what? In 2004 Bush learned a lot from Gore. He learned to sigh when he could not really answer (pretending that the remarks are ridiculous, whereas Gore was reacting to really ridiculous talk). His "character" was different in each of the three debates. And he got everything both ways! Is there anyone else who can be that lucky?
Then there was the myth created that substance does not matter in presidential debates. Yeah, substance is irrelevant when outright lies of one candidate are kindly ignored, but trivial lapses of the other candidate (with whom he visited the Texas flood, how cramped are Florida school classes) are cruelly exaggerated. After all, it was Bush's math that was fuzzy, but "fair and balanced" media corps decided otherwise!
Gore played seriously in the debate game run by clowns. Even the moderator was concerned to support the Bushie moderator. And let's not forget, the third debate started with a backhanded "apology" to Gore.
So yeah, the spin was memorably lost. But how much is this Gore's fault, and how much is this smallmindedness of scribes who were supposed to guide the debates objectively?
by das monde on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 12:52:30 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
by das monde on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:00:10 AM PDT
Nation-Building blog: purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
by azizhp on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 06:35:30 AM PDT
by das monde on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 03:39:28 PM PDT
So Gore lost the debates to Bush?
Except that he didn't. He lost the second but won the other two, or scored a tie.
October 3, 2000 debate
ABC News Poll. Oct. 3, 2000.
Gore 42% Bush 39% Tie 13%
Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Oct. 3, 2000.
Gore 48% Bush 41%
October 11, 2000 debate
Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Oct. 11, 2000. Bush 49% Gore 36% Tie 13%
ABC News Poll. Oct. 11, 2000. Bush 46% Gore 30% Tie 18%
October 17, 2000
Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. Oct. 17, 2000
Gore 46% Bush 44% Tie 10%
ABC News Poll. Oct. 17, 2000 Gore 41% Bush 41% Tie 14%
http://www.pollingreport.com/white.htm
Do you think Clinton did better in 1992? No he didn't.
Debate #1 Perot beat Clinton and Bush
A poll conducted by CNN/USA TODAY on Oct. 11, 1992 found that of those watching, 47 percent rated Perot the winner, 30 percent voted Clinton and 16 percent voted Bush.
Debate #2 Clinton beat Bush and Perot.
A CNN/USA TODAY poll conducted Oct. 16-18, showed 58 percent calling Clinton the winner, 16 percent said Bush won and 15 percent said Perot.
Debate #3 Perot beat Clinton and Bush.
A CNN/USA TODAY news poll taken after the third debate found that viewers thought Perot had won. Opinions, however, were tied between Clinton's and Bush's performances; 28 percent thought Clinton had done the best job, 28 percent Bush, and 37 percent said Perot.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history.story/1992.html#debate1
Now you could ask, how could Perot beat Clinton? The same Perot who was destroyed by Al Gore a year later?
by stardate on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 10:47:55 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 119 comments