President Bush needs to pound Kerry on his flip-flopping. If he does not, I am afraid he will lose reelection.

What, if anything, should the President say tonight about abortion? Should he exploit John Kerry's stance on partial-birth abortion? Should he call all Catholics to reject John Kerry? Will talking about abortion alienate moderate pro-choice voters? What do you think?

Still think the debates don't mean much Orrin?

BJW:

Yes. They'll end right back where they began with the President just above or about 50% and the Senator about 45%.

Kerry is so incoherent on moral issues, I don't know why anyone would think that a 'domestic issues' debate would be his strong suit.

FJ, I agree, but unfortunately not everybody thinks the way we do. For the folks in the middle, W blew the first debate, the press jumped on it and now its an uphill fight. Hope this blog stays optimistic though, if Kerry wins.

Man, what a gift that strong woman question was for Bush. Who's Kerry's wife again. Oh yeah!

The God-speaking-to-Bush question turned out to be a great one for him too.

Kerry's closing statement just stinks, and reveals everything even his own supporters dislike about him. Every time he starts a sentence with 'I believe,' the thought that follows goes off the pomposity chart.

Oh, and I wouldn't want to suffer the beat-down that Teresa's gonna give him tonight for talking about his Mother and not her in answer to the last question.

Jim Angle says focus group AND press reacted negatively to Kerry bringing up Cheney's daughter....

"I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints."

This would have sounded far better as "A litany of complaints is not a plan."

But then, we know Laura Bush is better at speaking English than her husband...

Boring it was, but Bush wins this one, definitely. He _finally_ nailed Kerry on his vote against the 1991 Gulf War - I'd been waiting a while for that! If he'd only been this aggressive, confident and amiable in the first debate this campaign would be just about over except for the shouting. All the same, it's going to be _real_ interesting watching the MSM try to spin its way out of the hole Kerry dug.

Not a great debate but I think Bush won. He seemed more straightforward, personable, and gave better answers on some questions. That said the MSM will spin this as a Kerry win (see ABC poll above). I also thought Bush won the 2nd debate but his poll numbers have dropped since then.

Fred, my thoughts exactly. I wouldn't want to be the cabana boy back home tonight in the boudoir at 1313 Mockingbird Lane.

Bush showed his real, honest, and strong love of Laura. When Kerry's turn came he "me too'ed", shined the question on, and then immediately started talking about his mama.

For this and a host of other reasons Bush won this one, and it's going to help him.

Yes, the shot of Teresa immediately after the debate was quite telling - there was fire in them eyes.

I was struck that Kerry continued to talk about bringing allies in - he must think this means something, because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most Americans do not. It is not something most any other candidate would do (not Dean, not Gephardt, not even Lieberman).

It was disappointing Bush did not pounce on Kerry after the second SS question, when Kerry told Bob Schieffer he would never cut benefits and would not make other adjustments. Bush should have said, quite forcefully, that Kerry did not mention raising SS taxes, because that is the Democratic solution. Always. He could even have mentioned a number - taking them from the current level (7.65%, I believe) to say, 8.5% in order to "save" the system, as Kerry put it. For Bush to pass meaningful SS reform, the key is to convince people that taxes will SOAR unless the program is changed.

During the debate, the tradesport Bush contract rallied several points.

After the debate, once the media spin started, the contract lost everything and then some. That's MSM delivering those 15 points to Kerry.

The trading is fairly heavy still, so it'll probably move some more, though I have no idea which direction. Currently, tradesport has Bush at 55.2% chance of winning re-election.

I'm almost despondent. The MSM's going to try to bury it. I can't believe how absolutely shameless those scoundrels are.

grrrrrr.

I didn't watch a minute of any of the debates, because they are a farce and I follow politics far too much so I already know to an absurd level of detail what the candidates have been talking about. And that's why I wouldn't be able to watch without exploding about the fact that Kerry can say something contradicting everything he's ever said before, and most of the audience won't have a clue because they don't follow these things. Which speaks well for them.

But it seems quite obvious that Bush was a catastrophic disaster in the first debate. Before that Kerry was a joke, and was truly on the verge of falling apart and losing much of his support to Nader. Now Bush is the one switching gears, attacking Kerry for being a liberal rather than for having no convictions whatsoever. That is not a good sign, though it's certainly likely to be somewhat effective.

But the 1st debate was all that mattered--the 2nd was on a Friday, and today conflicted with 2 LCS baseball games, so the audience was surely much smaller than for the 1st. And Bush had to know that the media is doing everything they can to pull Kerry's pitiful campaign across the finish line, so agreeing to 3 (4 counting the VP debate, which isn't nearly so important) chances to let them talk about how great JFK is and how awful Bush is was a huge mistake, despite oj's crowing that Kerry would Lurch about for 4 1/2 hours and alienate everyone in America.

I think it's still likely that Bush wins, though I can only say that mostly because I read blogs, including this one. If I only paid attention to the MSM, I would have to say that Bush is in trouble. If I listened only to my colleagues at work (university types) I would wonder how Bush could get 10% of the vote.

Crikey, I wish Bush were more coherent as a speaker. It is a colossal problem. If he were a Reagan (or a Clinton!) he would have been elected twice in huge landslides.

Enough. The Cards won, so the day was a good one.

Yeah, the next GOP candidate really needs to be a devestatingly effective public speaker.

OJ is right. Don't worry about the Tradesports contract bouncing around, that's just a little stochastic action. The debates only matter to the degree that we layer a non-existent narrative on top of a presidential campaign that's been over for months now. W. will win easily and Ray Fair, his econometric model, and fundamental economic forces will be vindicated. The election is over. Dubya is a lock.

As noted above I thought Bush won this debate. So I come into work and the news flash in the elevator is Kerry wins 3rd debate. And a common coworker statement is "I didn't see the debate but Kerry won easily apparently". I'm still optimistic for Bush but I'm becoming more convinced the MSM is going to deliver this election to Kerry.

That first debate has so energized the loons where I live, (Kerry/Edwards yard signs every 2 1/2 feet) that nothing the candiddates have said these last two debates matters. Here in Ohio, they are signing up squirls and chipmonks to vote nov 2nd. I hope they are preaching to the choir but if any of you guys out there in the burbs have been to a city lately, you will see there are many squirls. Does anybody have any data on the effectiveness of these get the vote out drives? - Perry

David Hill, a highly respected pollster, addresses the "new voter" phenomenon that is reported breathlessly by clueless dinosaur media every two years here:

http://www.thehill.com/david_hill/101304.aspx

The only reason why this time there will be lots of new votes is because the Dems have decided to export Chicago electoral procedures to the rest of the nation.

I thought there was no Eric Roberts.