From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:05:15 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Oct12.053058.14591@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
> In article <1bapvhINNebl@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>1) Perot won hands down.  He will be rewarded in the polls.
> 
> Depends what you mean by "won."  He didn't directly answer a single
> question -- he sounded much more like Kibo's parody "I'll work out
> the bugs in ninety days."

  Let me ask you a question:  If Perot felt he was the Messiah, wouldn't he be
able to solve it now??  Look, Perot said that he'd put plans on the table by
Christmas, and, if he's like his business image, he might just get the job
done.
 
> But by appearing on the same stage as the other two, in the 
> sixty-second format without followups, everything went by the board,
> and he looked just as good as the other two.  That might not be
> enough for Bush, who needs to dominatingly win a debate, but Bush
> might be indirectly helped by Perot siphoning some anti-Bush support off of
> Clinton.

  I do and don't think so.  I think Perot needs to siphon off of Clinton, and
he's already begun siphoning off  Bush supporters.  I think Bush's people see a
sinking ship, and many may go to Perot as a last resort to swing the election
away from Clinton.
 
> It won't matter.  It will sink back down to single-digit levels in
> the waning days of the campaign, just like it did in 1968 and 1980.

  Then Clinton will probably win every state, if this debate is any indication.
 
>>2) The commission was right, this is a lousy format.  Not a single
>>good question was asked (puffballs all) and as soon as the candidates
>>began to address the issue, the minute was up and it was on to the
>>next disjoint question.  This was perfect for Perot.  Serves Bush
>>right.
> 
> I agree.  But Bush probably likes it this way.  He was dead wrong in just
> about every question he answered, but because of the crowded stage,
> nobody had a chance to catch him in a lie.  Thus, it's likely that some
> of the mud stuck.  Still, Bush didn't have the laugh-lines he did in
> 1988, nor was he as negative as he was when I saw him speak in Chicago.
> He did not at all attack Clinton's record in Arkansas.

  Bush is a joke; it's hard to believe why anyone takes him seriously.  He
embarrassed himself repeatedly, even letting Clinton turn Bush's own father
against him.
 
> But once again, the format sucks.  I hope the single moderator helps,
> but Perot would add an irrelevancy every once in awhile.  I liked
> Clinton's remark "nice speech, but it's more complicated than that"
> but I'm not sure how it would play.  For all Perot's talk about action
> being better than talk, he didn't show anything but talk.  I wasn't
> going to vote for him anyway, and I've seen enough of him to know not
> to vote for him, but even without his paranoiac tendencies, he said
> nothing tonight that would convince me to vote for him.

  Then you basically have already decided, and the debates are irrelevant.

  As I said, at that point, you then know that Clintion will win.
 
> Clinton won on the issues.  Adding in intangibles and the muddle of the
> format, it was pretty much a draw.

  Which is enough for Clinton to maintain his insurmountable lead.

						Mike Falkner