I don't think that Kerry was able to score a decisive victory in this debate. And I think that this was his best chance to do so.

I am really concerned about the economy and I think many Americans share this concern. Unemployment, lack of growth and the deficit are real concerns. Kerry failed to offer a vision that was persuasive.

Part of that was how he was coached and a bigger part was that he is simply not a charismatic speaker. In fact, President Bush seemed to connect more with the audience.

Seems pretty close to me. I'm curious as to how they score the things. As far as I have seen Bush won the first ones but Kerry came up later on...

No matter they just seem to say the same things over...

ABEEDA.com please sign up. It's free!

No, Mitch, I would say as far as "points" go, Bush won this third debate.

i agree, but I was talking about all the debates put together

You are over-generalizing, Draginol, and you know how smart that makes you sound...

well since he was talking to you, his comment makes perfect sense

Bush won this debate handily. So the final tally is 1-1-1. Kerry won the first debate, the second debate was a tie, the third debate was a Bush win.

Myrrander, I have new-found respect for you. Your objective non-partisanship is "refreshing".

Sandy2, YOU however are a blatant partisan. To call this debate a "tie" qualifies you to work for CNN or Al-Jazeera........take your pick.

As for Keith Olberman and the rest of the CNN left wing political hacks, WHY would anybody bother watching these people? Olberman, Greenfield, Woodruff, Brown, King and the rest of the Kerry campaign operatives at CNN are a DISGRACE. Every time I accidentally switch on CNN for more than a few seconds, I feel so "dirty" I have the overwhelming desire to take a shower.

Is it any wonder that CNN gets blown away by Fox News Channel in virtually EVERY market in the USA? Is it any wonder why the Canadians have such a low opinion of the United States when they permeate their TV markets with CNN but do not allow Fox News Channel to broadcast in their country?

I believe that President Bush will begin to PULL AWAY from John Kerry in the next 19 days. I believe on the eve of the election, Bush will enjoy AT LEAST a 10 point lead over Kerry, and this race will be OVER.

Remember this posting on November 3rd, you Kerry supporters. I will enjoy telling you I TOLD YOU SO!

Some may recall that Gore "won" the debates last time in terms of the polls even though, in hindsight, it was pretty obvious that Bush won. I think one reason for that is that Democratic voters tend to be more touchy feely -- more impassioned -- and hence tend to be more inclined to think their guy won no matter what.

Well, Draginol, there is a reason why Gore supposedly won the 2000 debates against Bush, and there is a reason why Kerry has won all three debates based on the post-debate tracking polls. I guess maybe you missed the memo?

It has been WIDELY reported that Terry McAuliffe, the Chairman of the DNC, sent out MILLIONS of e-mails to his flock of leftie sheep, urging them to bombard the mainstream media (TV, radio, print) with phone calls, e-mails, and letters, showing their support for John Kerry's debating skills.

Add in the FACT that the CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,MSNBC, NPR and the usual suspects are ALL going to state that Kerry won all of these debates, just because they are BLATANT Democratic Party partisans.

It happened in 2000 with Al "Bore", and it is happening again. I remember the 2000 debates CLEARLY (I have them on tape), and Bush CLEARLY won all three of those
debates.

Patriot:

Actually, Olberman is MSNBC. The same network has both Matthews and Scarborough. He had the first debate Kerry and the second a tie. Just for reference purposes.

Kerry smoked Bush it was a clean sweep.. Bush won you wish he did!! Care to make a bet on who is going to pull it out of his butt to win? I would be willing to bet $100.00 if your willing that Kerry will smoke those 2 loosers in office send Bush where he belongs back chopping wood in Texas where he has spent more time then any president in history. Heck the man was vacationing when he should have been paying attention to the threats being put on his desk. Further he should have paid attention to Clinton Admin when they tried to tell them about the terrorists.

Yet another version of looking through the eyes of a partisan rather then looking at the person for how he REALLY is. I researched Bush as a person not as a republican same with Kerry. Is Kerry perfect? No he made a few mistakes on judgement along the way. Did he vote as the otherwise is saying? Absolutely not if you research the PUBLIC records you will find out for yourself why he voted how he did and exactly what he supported and did not. He has stood up for the people of this country more times then any GOP will admit. This is why the politics from the otherside is attacking negative ads. Anyone who studies politics and REALLY understands it knows this is the only way for someone who has no record to act. Discredit your opponent make his good record seem bad. They did a good job but the debates clearly took all the rhetoric and slapped it down. Good luck guys better luck in 2008

So the final tally is 1-1-1.

You know, Flamethrower, I actually agree with this assessment.

Reply #29 By: mgosh - 10/14/2004 1:13:11 AM I'm voting for Alf.

But then we'll be missing a bunch of cats.

Reply #31 By: Larry Kuperman - 10/14/2004 6:00:26 AM I don't think that Kerry was able to score a decisive victory in this debate. And I think that this was his best chance to do so. I am really concerned about the economy and I think many Americans share this concern. Unemployment, lack of growth and the deficit are real concerns. Kerry failed to offer a vision that was persuasive. Part of that was how he was coached and a bigger part was that he is simply not a charismatic speaker. In fact, President Bush seemed to connect more with the audience.

The economy is not in as bad a shape as most people think. The following is a reprint from Reuters:

Bonds News advertisement WRAPUP 1-U.S. economy still on track, inflation benign, Fed says Wed Oct 6, 2004 06:34 PM ET By Alister Bull WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - U.S. economic expansion remains on track and inflation under control, a senior Federal Reserve official said on Wednesday, while another top policy- maker warned that U.S. savings rates would likely remain weak. "I think we're in a pretty solid situation and can look forward to a good long business expansion, provided we don't have any more unforeseen shocks," St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole said. "The US economy, the best we can forecast it, there's expected real growth proceeding at the rate of (a) 3-1/2 to four percent track and unemployment will be gradually coming down," he told reporters after a speech in Springfield, Missouri. The country's economy stuttered during the second quarter amid record oil prices but the Fed has said that momentum has been restored, underpinning forecasts it will raise interest rates another quarter point before the end of 2004. But Poole, a voting member of the Fed's policy committee this year, noted its recent statements that policy would be tightened at a measured pace should not be taken as an "ironclad" commitment to mechanically move every meeting. "It is possible -- I would argue likely at some point -- that new information will cause the FOMC to adjust the target at a pace different from what is currently anticipated." "The pace could be faster or slower, depending on how the economy evolves," he told the Ozark Chapter of the Society of Financial Service Professionals added. The Federal Open Market Committee meets again this year on Nov. 10 and Dec. 14. HOW HIGH? The Fed has upped its benchmark funds target rate by a quarter percentage point three times this year to 1.75 percent and markets expect to see 2.0 percent by the year's end. Analysts are divided on how much further the Fed will go, with some seeing it taking a long pause at two percent to ensure economic expansion is not derailed by high oil prices. But Poole cautioned this would be determined by events. "Where the funds rate has to go is going to depend on the circumstances. Three to 5 (percent) might be informative in the sense of a long-run average. It should not be read as saying clearly the Fed is going to stop when we get there because the conditions might force us, or require for equilibrium, that we be above or below that point," he said. In separate comments on Wednesday, Fed Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson avoided direct reference to the economic outlook but made plain the long-term problems associated with the country's low rate of household savings would not be swiftly remedied. "All told I would not expect the personal saving rate to return in the near term to the peaks seen twenty years ago, and I would be surprised even by a return any time soon to the average rate that prevailed between the 1950s and the 1980s," Ferguson said in remarks to bankers in Nashville, Tennessee. U.S. households save less than one percent of disposable income but remain avid consumers, contributing to a yawning trade deficit as imports outstrip exports and a current account funding gap of 5 percent of GDP which many deem unsustainable. But Ferguson said all was not doom and gloom and noted there was even a silver lining to the aging population. "At the same time, I want to note that we likely will not need so high a national saving rate in the future because, as the growth rate of the labor force slows with the retirement of the baby boom generation, less investment will be required to equip each worker with the same amount of capital." Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and another policy committee voter this year, is scheduled to speak on the economy at 8:45 pm EDT/0045 GMT. (Additional reporting by Jonathan Nicholson in Washington and Karen Culp in Springfield, Mo.)

Jeb's brother simply did better than his 1st "debate," that's all

the reason Kerry's poll numbers are rising, is because he was not really known to the public,
and was "painted" by adverising [which works to a degree]

The "debates" showed a real human, as opposed to a painted-man

Jeb's brother would have been much better off feigning illness

pete

Reply #41 By: Peter the great - 10/14/2004 12:05:17 PM Jeb's brother simply did better than his 1st "debate," that's all the reason Kerry's poll numbers are rising, is because he was not really known to the public, and was "painted" by adverising [which works to a degree] The "debates" showed a real human, as opposed to a painted-man Jeb's brother would have been much better off feigning illness pete

I would not put too much stock in *any* poll numbers just yet! If I were you (which I'm glad I'm not) I'd wait a few days and then talk on the subject. Any poll numbers that you see right now are more than likely flash polls which usually end up being nothing at all.

I actually thought Kerry had a better showing at this debate than the previous two. Let me qualify that by saying I pay almost zero attention to style or 'celebrity' and more to the substance or concepts each candidate delivers.

Kerry spent huge portions of his time in the previous two debates listing GWB's mistakes/negatives and very little on what his plans and concepts were.

In this final debate I finally began to get a feel for Kerry's vision of the role of government.

As far as scoring,

First debate - Kerry, not so much because he did well at putting forth his vision (he didn't), but more because Bush merely repeated two or three points over and over, causing them to lose what power they had as ideas.

Second debate -Tie, pretty much a 90 minute repetition of each candidate's sound bites of the last year.

Third debate - Bush, mainly for appearing to have more active (vs. reactive) solutions to problems, ie: finding solutions for the root cause of problems rather than throwing money at them after the fact. Example: Minimum wage - Educate people so they are worth more and earn more, rather than paying them more for no improvement in ability, skill, or productivity. Basically, it's the 'teach a man to fish argument'.

Reply #43 By: pictoratus - 10/14/2004 2:28:52 PM I actually thought Kerry had a better showing at this debate than the previous two. Let me qualify that by saying I pay almost zero attention to style or 'celebrity' and more to the substance or concepts each candidate delivers. Kerry spent huge portions of his time in the previous two debates listing GWB's mistakes/negatives and very little on what his plans and concepts were. In this final debate I finally began to get a feel for Kerry's vision of the role of government. As far as scoring, First debate - Kerry, not so much because he did well at putting forth his vision (he didn't), but more because Bush merely repeated two or three points over and over, causing them to lose what power they had as ideas. Second debate -Tie, pretty much a 90 minute repetition of each candidate's sound bites of the last year. Third debate - Bush, mainly for appearing to have more active (vs. reactive) solutions to problems, ie: finding solutions for the root cause of problems rather than throwing money at them after the fact. Example: Minimum wage - Educate people so they are worth more and earn more, rather than paying them more for no improvement in ability, skill, or productivity. Basically, it's the 'teach a man to fish argument'.

Yeah we might have gotten a feel. But there was no substance! Again all he said was this is the wrong way to do it and I have a better way.

Jeb's brother simply did better than his 1st "debate," that's all

Kerry smoked Bush it was a clean sweep..

well lets see, some of the most extreme lefties on this forum, tell ya anything? Guys, look around the forum and tell me what the moderates of your party are saying. You have to be the most biased people ive ever seen if you think Kerry won, and to Desert Fox, I will simply say that if i knew you and was sure you would pay, I would gladly make that bet because I believe this is kerry's peak and he will decline in the next couple weeks