If * had won even one debate, what would they be saying now?

[MikeG]

[nyhuskyfan]

1. Simple

If it was the first debate, they would be saying that George W. Bush still holds a commanding advantage over Kerry in foreign policy and issues of national security, which is the issue most people care about in a post 9/11 world. This isn't an election for domestic issues, so Bush defended his turf.

If it was the second debate (the town hall), they would be saying that George W. Bush simply relates to people on a much more personal level than Kerry and that people vote for him because they feel more comfortable with him. The ability to relate to people is a gift that transcends being able to recite boring policy issues at a podium. That's not what leadership is all about anyway.

If it was the third debate, then they would be saying that George W. Bush has closed strong in the last debate, and that's the most important thing because it is the last impression the voters have. He would have successfully reassured the voters that he is the man for the job, while also taking away the only issues that Kerry was supposed to have an advantage in with the voters. It's already established that Bush is the man people trust in the War on Terror, so now that he's shown he's superior on domestic issues, too, there's nothing for Kerry to run on.


In other words, Kerry NEEDED the sweep. A loss in any of the three would have given the spinmeisters the ammo they needed to spin this all towards Bush.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Local rw radio ass larry uncle tom judas elder

said that if chimp won the last two debates he would win the election. He didn't say what would happen if he lost them, however.

[mosin]

3. I'm sure...

that he does claim a Shrub victory in the last two debates. That's the standard pro-Shrub position. (Or perhaps a tie in the second debate.)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. Elder calls himself "The Sage Of South Central"

Sage is a kind of shrub, isn't it?

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. A foul smelling one too