An ABC News poll of October 5 posed the question: Who, in your opinion, won the [vice-presidential] debate?
Of 509 registered voters who made up the sample survey, 43 per cent plumped for Cheney against 35 per cent for Edwards. Significantly, 19 per cent called it a tie which is bad news of sorts for the Republican campaign.
John Kerry, according to all pollsters, had won the first debate by an overwhelming margin and wiped out the lead the Bush-Cheney ticket had in the race; given that, Cheney needed to be do serious damage which he obviously has not been able to, judging by poll figures.
What is equally interesting about this poll is the party-wise weighting 38 per cent of those polled were Republicans, against just 31 per cent Democrats (27 per cent were independent).
Those figures lead you to some interesting conclusions. First, that the percentage of those who gave the big fight to Cheney is skewed by the fact that more Republicans than Democrats were polled.
Secondly, the percentage of those who thought Edwards won the debate (35) is higher than the number of Democrats who were polled (31 per cent) indicating that a section of the independents was sufficiently impressed by the Democratic nominee's performance.
The results tee it all up nicely for the Thursday debate number two, in a series of three between President George W Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry, October 8, 9pm ET (6.30am IST on Saturday, October 9) at the Washington University, in St Louis, Missouri.
Format-wise, this one differs from the first in that it follows a town-hall pattern, with the two candidates sitting on stools facing moderator Charles Gibson, anchor of ABC's Good Morning America programme.
The audience of around 150 will comprise in equal parts of 'soft' Bush and 'soft' Kerry supporters; the audience will submit questions to the moderator who will pick the ones to be asked.
A minimum of 16 questions are to be asked in the 90 minute debate; there is no limit on topics, with the proviso, expressly stated in the rules of engagement, that as many questions on foreign policy and homeland security will be asked as those on economic and domestic policy.
On the foreign policy front, expect the war on terror and the war in Iraq to dominate. Both questions gain an added edge thanks to three developments earlier this week.
The first was a statement by Paul Bremer, former head of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, who suggested this week that the US paid a heavy price for not having sufficient troops on the ground in Iraq in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The statement buttresses a charge the Democrats have been making with some consistency that the administration entered the war with no sufficient planning; that as a result of mismanagement, the country was allowed to slip into anarchy, and that this has caused a heavy toll.
The second was a statement by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, conceding that the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was wrong; that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Significantly, he also said he had no knowledge of any links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, before rapidly backtracking.
But perhaps most damaging is the report released on Wednesday by the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group, which again states categorically that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
It is this report that is likely to fuel the most heated exchanges: Democrats, led by Kerry, will claim that the report gives the lie to the "clear and present danger" President Bush used as justification for an immediate war. Republicans, led by President Bush, will point to the statement in the report that though Saddam Hussein's weapons programme was significantly weakened by UN sanctions in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, his ambition in this direction had not been dimmed this, it is likely to be claimed, indicated that Hussein was still on the lookout for WMDs, and thus posed a threat.
The stakes are high for both sides. For the Democrats, the first debate was a godsend coming at a time when the Kerry-Edwards ticket was trailing by as much as eight percentage points in various opinion polls, John Kerry's strong performance not only halted the slide, but restored parity and reduced the race to a dead heat.
More to the point, the debate completely reshaped popular perception of the strengths of the two candidates. Thus, a Los Angeles Times poll of 725 registered voters nationwide found that Kerry came out tops on almost all counts:
Asked who won the debate, 15 per cent gave it to Bush, against a whopping 54 per cent to Kerry, while a further 30 per cent called it even. Even if you consider the poll sample weighted equally between supporters of the two parties, that indicates that even the Republican support base thought Kerry had won.
Who do you think seemed more knowledgeable? 29 per cent Bush; 42 per cent Kerry; 28 per cent 'even'.
Who do you think had the strongest personality and character? 33 per cent Bush; 40 per cent Kerry; 25 per cent 'even'.
Who do you think responded best under pressure? 16 per cent Bush, 54 per cent Kerry, 27 per cent 'even'.
And, finally, who appeared the more likeable? 39 per cent Bush, 38 per cent Kerry, 22 per cent even.
Therein lies the problem for Bush going in to the debates, two factors were taken as a given. One, that foreign policy the subject of the first debate was his strength. Second, that of the two candidates, he was seen as the stronger personality, the one more likely to keep his cool under fire, the more likeable character.
In the course of 90 minutes face to face, Kerry managed to erase those perceptions and actually led the incumbent on the 'knowledgeable', 'strong', and 'best under pressure' categories. Significantly, even in the likeability stakes, Kerry, portrayed throughout as a dour character, was just one percentage point away from Bush; in other words, well below the margin of error.
Other polls have produced other results. A good resource to keep abreast of the pulse of the people is the non-partisan PollingReport.com, which gives you a comprehensive resource of all polls across the US, by date and subject matter.
Irrespective of individual findings, the commonality across the polls has been that Kerry has bridged the gap between the two candidates. With just 26 days to go, if Kerry can keep that momentum going in the two debates to follow, he could well head into the home stretch in the lead.
And that in turn defines the job for President Bush arrest Kerry's march; turn it back and fight his way into the lead again, ahead of the third and final debate. It's a tough ask. On foreign policy, the president's presumed strength, the news is uniformly bad; on domestic issues, Kerry's supposed strength, the challenger has two shots at putting the president on the mat, since domestic issues will comprise half of the second debate, and all of the third.
Preparations, meanwhile, are reportedly in full swing; agency reports indicate that a sum of $1.25 million will be expended on the second debate.
Much of that comes from the four hosting sponsors AG Edwards, Bank of America, BJC HealthCare, and Emerson, weighing in with $150,000 each.
Washington University will spend an estimated $500,000 on the event it is hosting; logistical provisions include the laying of 1,600 voice and data lines, 1,500 temporary phone numbers; 55 miles of fibre optic cable; and a whole new cooling system to keep the venue at the prescribed 65 degrees.
Also Read:
The Great Debate: Kerry fought, Bush survived
External Links:
Rumsfeld: Al Qaeda comments 'misunderstood'
Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq
Bremer: More troops were needed after Saddam's ouster
© 2025 Rediff.com -