Debates: How John Kerry Won the Nomination

[spurster]

and is catching up in the Presidential race.

Maybe you were as perplexed as I was trying to figure out how Kerry could have won the Democratic nomination, yet be so lackluster in his campaign afterwards. I think the answer is that the Democrats had a zillion debates (wasn't it about once a week for a while) and John Kerry shines in this type of comparison. Frankly, I didn't pay attention to any of the Democratic debates in part because Kerry had the nomination wrapped up well before the Texas primary, and they had stopped debating (I voted for Dean BTW (insert primal scream here)).

I think the Bush campaign was caught a little offguard in the first debate and he will be a lot more prepared in the second debate to offset Kerry's skill. Bush cannot start repeating himself again. I think Kerry is vunerable on the big budget items he wants. I think Bush is vunerable on the perception that he caters to the rich.

People are watching these things. I think I read the audience was 65M for the first one, and is likely to be much larger for the second. It will be interesting to watch.

Hopefully this thread won't degrade to the usual catfights and focus instead on the strategy of the two campaigns.

[Spurminator]

Kerry all along has said exactly what the decision makers wanted to hear.

When he was up against other Democratic nominees who were blasting President Bush for his war policies, John Kerry took a more moderate pro-war-but-with-changes approach that made him a more reliable (and less scary) candidate for the Democrats.

However, now that he is up against Bush, he has to lean more to the left to differentiate himself.

[Marcus Bryant]

Interesting theory. The problem for Kerry is that Bush's slim, yet consistent majority has been built on his national security positions and that there are two debates remaining with the next one on a Friday night. Also, at this point Kerry can't seem to shake the 'inconsistency' charge. Kerry is certainly the better public speaker than Bush but it's the positions that last in the campaign.

We've known for the last year what Bush's positions would be and during that time everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at him. Maybe there is a great swath of undecided voters out there which have not been detected but I seriously doubt that. I don't think Bush is going to lose many voters on Iraq at this point. Perhaps if Kerry had been the "anti-war" candidate all along might this race have been different. But he's changed his position so often that he's seen as far too calculating. His Vietnam fetish was also a significant distraction and elevated the Swift Vets to significance. I am shocked that he did not deal with that issue effectively before he began his campaign just as I am that he did not enter the race with a clear position on Iraq.

[Nbadan]

I think the Bush campaign was caught a little offguard in the first debate and he will be a lot more prepared in the second debate to offset Kerry's skill. Bush cannot start repeating himself again. I think Kerry is vunerable on the big budget items he wants. I think Bush is vunerable on the perception that he caters to the rich.

Most people I have talked to feel that W. had 30 minutes worth of material for a 90 minute debate. Most troubling, W seemed to them to be a little inconvenienced to even have to be there, seemed taken aback by being publicly criticized by Kerry, and was always playing defense with his answers.

There are things that W. can physically do to improve his performance. Act like he wants to be there for one, but there is little chance that W will be able to improve much in his presentation skills. W has always been WYSWYG, and I don't expect that to change much between now and next friday.