Final Presidential Debate (10/13/2004)

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:41 am

Well I thought I'd help break this virgin R&P forum in with a little debate debate.

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 13
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
9:00 PM EDT

I watched most of the first two presidential debates, and will be tuning in for tonight's, as well. In general I'm not very political; if you asked me to list 10 fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats I'd likely fall asleep by the time I hit number three. However in trying to decide who will be receiving my vote next month, I've been paying a bit more attention lately.

I thought Kerry did pretty well in the first debate (aside from the endless 'I can do better' with no examples as to how he'd do that), showing more enthusiasm and giving a better-spoken effort than Bush. The 2nd debate ran a bit more in Bush's favor, I thought. Ole W was energetic and at least passably entertaining. ('Need any wood?') Bush seems to do much better when he's not dead-tired and standing behind a podium.

Without denegrating into which candidate is teh r0xxors and will pwn the other, what do you expect to see out of each candidate this evening? What does Bush need to do to 'win' the debate? How about Kerry?

Also, I'll break in the polling feature by asking who you think would win the election if it were held today. I'm interested to see how things stand before and after the debate. Please note--I'm not asking who you will vote for, but who you believe holds the baton right now.

[Edit - I almost forgot to post a link. Transcripts of previous debates]

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:57 am

Zaxxon wrote:Also, I'll break in the polling feature by asking who you think would win the election if it were held today. I'm interested to see how things stand before and after the debate. Please note--I'm not asking who you will vote for, but who you believe holds the baton right now.

Voted accordingly. Good disclaimer, as my actual intended vote is the opposite.

~Neal

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:07 am

Unfortunately, I think that Bush would win if the election was held today. From what I've seen, right now Bush has a slight lead in most of the states that will determine the outcome (Florida, Colorado, etc).

As for the debate tonight, I think it's Kerry's to lose. Considering that most of the public believes that Kerry would do a better job on domestic issues (other than taxes, of course), he would really have to mess up to lose tonight. I just hope he doesn't get caught in the trap of defending his record in the Senate instead of attacking Bush's record as president.

Another factor that may help Bush tonight is that people expect Kerry to win the debate. Expectations are so low for Bush (a poll I saw this morning on CNN said that only 35% of people thought Bush would win tonight), that just by holding his own some people might claim he won.

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:07 am

The poll results should be interesting to see as people continue to vote.

FWIW, my vote for the baton holder is the same as the one I already voted for (via absentee ballot).

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:15 pm

Isn't it a pretty common phenomenon that people believe that the candidate they are voting for is going to lose the election? I'm guessing that in the poll above msduncan would select Kerry and trig would select Bush. Perhaps lowering expectation is a way of softening the blow should your candidate end up biting the electoral dust on November 2nd...

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:20 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:Isn't it a pretty common phenomenon that people believe that the candidate they are voting for is going to lose the election? I'm guessing that in the poll above msduncan would select Kerry and trig would select Bush. Perhaps lowering expectation is a way of softening the blow should your candidate end up biting the electoral dust on November 2nd...

I tend to feel this way, in general. Yep.

~Neal

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:32 pm

Hey, I think Kerry is a baby killing psycho, and only a cock-swilling psycho would vote for him!

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:27 pm

I'm watching tonight's debate, but I'm not too terribly interested in it. I don't think it's going to change a lot of minds either way at this point (barring some collosal f**k-up by one or the other). I know Bush is expected to do the most poorly in the domestic issues debate, but I'm sure he has been coached to the ends of the earth and back so I'm not too worried about him. Kerry will again do well, Bush will hold his own, and come November 2nd it's going to be too close to call.

By the way, I blew CC's theory by voting for Bush.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:46 pm

Dirt wrote:Hey, I think Kerry is a baby killing psycho, and only a cock-swilling psycho would vote for him!

That may be, but at least he's not Bush!

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:59 pm

I think they both haven't done that good, but i'd say Kerry by a margin. That may be because Kerry is closer to my political area but also because Bush seems a little TOO confrontational and a little too pleading towards the audience.

But it doesn't really matter since the debates are scripted and controlled by both parties. You can't seem a real debate with unexpected questions and the like. Too much scripting, too little real debating makes CSL something, something.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:09 pm

Hmm, after just a few minutes I think I've heard the same phrases that were said in the previous debates. I think I may just exterminate some more cities in Rome Total War. The speeches of the generals before battle are more interesting...

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:48 pm

siljanus wrote:Hmm, after just a few minutes I think I've heard the same phrases that were said in the previous debates. I think I may just exterminate some more cities in Rome Total War. The speeches of the generals before battle are more interesting...

LOL, I'm surfing LJ image theft listening myself. It's rehash city agreed.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:57 pm

siljanus wrote:Hmm, after just a few minutes I think I've heard the same phrases that were said in the previous debates. I think I may just exterminate some more cities in Rome Total War. The speeches of the generals before battle are more interesting...

Yep; lots of tired rehashing tonight. I'm not sure who 'won' tonight, but I know Bush was caught stuttering and sounding less than eloquent, while Kerry trumpeted 'I can do better' 234 times without much substantial concrete plan divulging. And he pissed Mitma off by brushing off medical malpractice reform, which doesn't help his case in my book...

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:45 pm

I went looking for the transcript on what Bush said re: not being concerned about Osama. Here is the official transcript from the Whitehouse website if anyone was curious:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

Mike Allen. I'm working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael.

Link

And someone on Atrios has the video now: Video

PR_GMR · Post by **PR_GMR** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:48 pm

I thought it was a compelling debate. A close match. Bush learned from his poor performance on the first debate--he stepped up from that performance and was more of a match for Kerry in the subsequent debates.

Kerry, IMO, showed grace under fire on this debate. His answers were thoughtful, perhaps a bit rehearsed, but thoughtful and informative. He came across as confident and Presidential. I particularly liked Kerry's answer, addressed directly into the camera and to the American people, about appointing a Supreme Court judge that won't compromise the amendments of the Constitution. In general, I think it was a good move for Kerry to look into the camera more often in this debate (on the first debate, he concentrated almost all of the time into answering to the moderator and not to the audience)

I don't think there was a clear winner on this debate.. It's going to be an interesting Election day because this presidential race should be a dead heat. If it were a horse race, it would be won by a nose... and doesn't Kerry have the bigger nose?

Mitma · Post by **Mitma** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:16 pm

I don't really follow politics. I decided I should try to make an at least somewhat informed vote this year. So I watched the first two presidential debates all of the way through. In the first, I couldn't understand Kerry for the first half and hour, but I thought he turned it around and "won" that debate. The second one I thought Bush did a better job. Maybe partially because at least he was entertaining me with some of his random comments. Tonight I was the least interested in watching. The first thing I heard on the radio was Bush saying something about healthy Americans bypassing the flu shot to help with the crisis, and Kerry following up with something about insurance. Well I have insurance, but that isn't going to help me get the flu shot....so right off I started mad at Kerry. I watched for about 30 minutes or so and then I just couldn't stand it anymore. I don't know who to believe. They are both spouting their own "versions of fact." I started to flip channels ( I am GOOD at that!

ask Zax it makes him dizzy!). Every now and then I thought I'll go watch, but I just couldn't do it. I found an E! story on the Olsen's and a "Made" on MTV more interesting. At least I could believe most of what those people were saying.

I am a scientist. Actually I am an MD/PhD student who will be a physician-scientist....so I am torn between Bush's seeming lack of support for the NIH and Kerry's seeming disregard for the enormous burden of medical malpractice insurance to doctors and the health care system.

It's funny when I was a kid, my friends and I had our whole administration worked out. I wanted to be president. Today that just makes me wonder and laugh. (My bro is into politics, so I told him when he is prez to make me surgeon general!)

As a scientist, I get data. It might be positive and it might not be, but the data tells me something. It helps me to figure out a problem. The rhetoric used by these candidates to me is useless data. And it is driving me crazy!!!

Edit: Wow! I never thought I would ever post that much in R&P!

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:06 am

Was it just me, or did anyone else get the feeling Bush had been coached to look 'at ease' when not speaking as Kerry did in the first two debates, and the result of it was that he had this creepy grin on his face that kind of looked like he was shitting his pants?

Mitma - just read your post and would encourage you to check the websites for each candidate and read through their stance on the issues - I don't see how a self proclaimed scientist could be anything but appalled at Dubya, but I'll let you make your own decision...

I'll also point you to this article from a non-partisan source regarding medical malpractice, which may not be as large an issue as you have been lead to believe:

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

Edit: here is the comparison thing I mentioned:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993610/

Mitma · Post by **Mitma** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:26 am

Kratz,
I appreciate the two links you posted. Thank you.

I am really trying very hard to read the one about malpractice, but I am so tired. I will definitely read it tomorrow. The same goes for the comparison site.

As for fact checking, I understand that there are websites dedicated to this.
I guess I just get frustrated with hearing them say numbers that may or may not be entirely accurate. After a while there are so many numbers that no one will remember them all. I get tired of them telling me they have a plan that will do such and such. But how? How will you pay for it? The money has to come from somewhere. I guess it is partially the nature of the debate and the time frame. Politics is just not my thing, and I don't follow it enough to really argue/debate about it. Sometimes my opinions get the better of me, but I do try not to argue about things I don't know about.

As for being a scientist. Yes I am a scientist, or at least working on becoming one. But I am more than just a scientist, so that is not the only thing that will decide my vote.

Mitma · Post by **Mitma** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:48 am

Ok, so I guess I woke up a bit, and managed to read some!

I read the summary about medical malpractice. I have to say I was looking at the issue as a future doctor, not as someone paying for healthcare. After reading the summary, I was more curious, so I went searching and found
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37945

According to it, the issue is not so much with the legal system as with the insurance companies. Apparently it is not tort reform, but insurance reform that is needed.

Again, thanks for the info, Kratz.

Good night!

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:16 am

Mitma wrote:
According to it, the issue is not so much with the legal system as with the insurance companies. Apparently it is not tort reform, but insurance reform that is needed.

It's both.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:29 am

Mitma wrote:According to it, the issue is not so much with the legal system as with the insurance companies. Apparently it is not tort reform, but insurance reform that is needed.

Regarding medmal specifically, how do your sources (or anyone's) square away the fact that the majority of doctors in the majority of states are covered for their malpractice by mutual insurance companies? Mutuals by their nature cannot make a profit. I'm covered by a similar mutual for any malpractice I may commit. If they overcharge me one year, I get it back the next. If claims exceed reserves I'll be hammered on the following year's premium.

If the argument is that the insurers made reckless investments of reserves in the tech bubble, the mutuals are guilty of nothing that wasn't done by mutual funds, foundations, banks, and the other institutional investors that really control our economy. If the root claim is that our economy by virtue of its structure, which pools investment capital in large floating funds, is responsible for the rising cost of health care, it's responsible for every other ill in society as well. We are all to blame.

That may be the truth, but it's not such an appealing demon to blame for this relatively trivial problem.

sissyc · Post by **sissyc** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:20 am

Kratz wrote:Was it just me, or did anyone else get the feeling Bush had been coached to look 'at ease' when not speaking as Kerry did in the first two debates, and the result of it was that he had this creepy grin on his face that kind of looked like he was shitting his pants?

No, Kratz, it wasn't just you! I was watching the debate with my husband and a friend of his - I kept having to tell them not to laugh so loud! Every time the screen split to show Bush's face while Kerry was speaking - they nearly fell over laughing! It WAS pretty funny - I thought Bush looked a bit like Dennis the Menace with that stupid grin on his face!

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:55 am

Using California as an example, my understanding is that the passage of "tort reform" in that state did little or nothing to reduce insurance premiums. Later, when insurance reform laws were passed, the effect on insurance premiums were noticeable.

After the passage of "medical malpractice reform" here in Texas last year, physicians premiums have continued to rise while people injured by medical negligence (especially non-wage earners like children, the elderly and housewives) are bearing the full brunt of that legislation.

Kratz, thanks for the links!

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:00 am

but it's not such an appealing demon to blame for this relatively trivial problem.

Tareeq, you are quite correct, trial lawyers are far more appealing targets to demonize. Big business/big insurance gets to protect their bottom line and "break the Democratic Party's rice bowl" all at the same time.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:07 am

Tareeq wrote:
If the argument is that the insurers made reckless investments of reserves in the tech bubble, the mutuals are guilty of nothing that wasn't done by mutual funds, foundations, banks, and the other institutional investors that really control our economy. If the root claim is that our economy by virtue of its structure, which pools investment capital in large floating funds, is responsible for the rising cost of health care, it's responsible for every other ill in society as well. We are all to blame.

That may be the truth, but it's not such an appealing demon to blame for this relatively trivial problem.

I've heard this issue brought up on NPR and the Leher News Hour. Rising premiums being due not to the increase of lawsuits but due to companies having to cover their bottom line due to their investments going tits up.

It may not be appealing, but it's too bad it's not brought up more. Then again, we would have to examine our capitalist free market system a bit more closely and who really wants to do that?

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:35 am

Tareeq wrote:
Mitma wrote:According to it, the issue is not so much with the legal system as with the insurance companies. Apparently it is not tort reform, but insurance reform that is needed.
Regarding medmal specifically, how do your sources (or anyone's) square away the fact that the majority of doctors in the majority of states are covered for their malpractice by mutual insurance companies? Mutuals by their nature cannot make a profit. I'm covered by a similar mutual for any malpractice I may commit. If they overcharge me one year, I get it back the next. If claims exceed reserves I'll be hammered on the following year's premium.

If the argument is that the insurers made reckless investments of reserves in the tech bubble, the mutuals are guilty of nothing that wasn't done by mutual funds, foundations, banks, and the other institutional investors that really control our economy. If the root claim is that our economy by virtue of its structure, which pools investment capital in large floating funds, is responsible for the rising cost of health care, it's responsible for every other ill in society as well. We are all to blame.

That may be the truth, but it's not such an appealing demon to blame for this relatively trivial problem.

Just want to point out that the problem is not that the insurance companies were invested as much as where they were invested. Was their portfolio set up to seek a 10- 15% return or were they in high risk areas to maximise income?

Octopus Overlords

Final Presidential Debate (10/13/2004)

Who would win the election if it were held today? (Pre-debate vote!)

Final Presidential Debate (10/13/2004)

Re: Final Presidential Debate (10/13/2004)

...