It looks like the blogospheric reaction isn’t good for Bush. Over at The Corner, the consensus seems to be that Bush missed an opportunity to TKO Kerry. I’m inclined to agree, much to my chagrin.
Allah says that Kerry drew blood, but didn’t get the impact he needed to shift this race.
Instapundit seems to call it a draw.
Powerline says Kerry made headway, although they give Bush the nod by the slimmest of margins.
PoliPundit predicts a Kerry bounce from this debate.
Mitch Berg is more skeptical of that, however.
On the other hand Hugh Hewitt says that Bush won big. I can see his points, and perhaps he’s right, but I doubt it. Bush seemed too defensive and his natural humanity didn’t come through except for the one anecdote about the family of the fallen solider. I have a lot of respect for Hugh Hewitt, and I agree that it is imperative that Bush win this election, but I can’t agree with him on this one.
9/11 Democrat Roger L. Simon thinks that a lot of viewers lost interest in this debate. I think that’s a big factor. The last half of the debate was boring to someone who isn’t an IR geek like me. People are less concerned about North Korea and Darfur than they are about North Dakota and Denver. They want to know who will protect them against terrorism. I think Kerry made the best case he’s made yet for him being that person, but I don’t think he closed the deal.
John Hood has something along the same lines. He states:
I’d recommend not falling into the trap of scoring this debate as if it were the culmination of a forensics tournament. For the viewers who tuned in for the first 45 minutes or so, I think Bush was a more effective communicator. He sounded authoritative, his message was clear, and his message makes some level of sense even if you aren’t predisposed to agree with him or with a Republican president per se. Kerry did not come across well during the period. Later, Bush seemed to get a little tired and annoyed, and Kerry picked up a little steam. But Kerry’s problem is that his message is inherently complicated and would be difficult to communicate effectively for anyone. The war was a mistake, but I’ll fit to win it anyway, but it is a distraction, and I’ll send more equipment, but we’re spending too much on it, and I’ll inspire other countries to join us, but the countries who are there aren’t doing much worth commending, etc., etc. Bush doggedly responds: you won’t win if you waver. We will prevail. I’m realistic — it’s a tough, hard slog. But I’m optimistic — we will win and freedom in the Middle East will be transformational. You don’t have to be a slick rhetorician to win this kind of exchange. Remember, also, the repetition is a good thing, not a bad thing. Let’s face it: we are wonky weirdos. Most viewers probably came in and out of the room, they visited the little voters’ room, they went to make a sandwich. You have to talk to the whole audience, including those who missed your key point the first couple of times you made it. Kerry had a little more riding on tonight than Bush did, and it just didn’t happen for him. The debate as a whole was informed, substantive, and revealing — but it did not change the dynamics of the race.
The Kerry spot has similar thoughts:
Prediction Three: Here’s my shocker: No bounce for either side out of this. This evening’s comments just reinforced the messages that came out of each party’s convention. Of course, Kerry got no convention bounce, while Bush got a fairly solid convention bounce, so maybe he’ll get a little bump.
But my sense is that in the coming polls, Bush retains his lead, outside the margin of error, in the mid-to-high single digits.
UPDATE: Kerry Spot reader Keith offers this observation that I agree with: As much as some of us political geeks may have enjoyed tonight, because there was nothing shocking or surprising, there’s no way that much of the public is going to watch two more 9- minute sessions of this. They’ll catch a few minutes, but so far the debate has just confirmed what they already knew.
One thought on “The Blogosphere Reacts”