Undecided voters unmoved

If undecided voters across the nation remain as unmoved as undecided IU student voters following Thursday's first presidential debate, then President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry both need to gain more than either would have preferred.\nAn estimated six in 10 adults, or roughly 50 million people according to some estimates, were to have tuned in to the 90-minute debate from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla., that focused largely on foreign policy and homeland security. Polls show as much as a quarter of likely voters said their minds could be swayed by watching the debates.\nBut to the six undecided student voters the Indiana Daily Student surveyed following the debate, there wasn't much movement, or when there was, it was only miniscule.\nAll six students said they were interested in hearing more from the candidates before deciding definitely for whom they would cast a ballot this November. \n"The important thing isn't that one of (the presidential candidates) won or lost, but that this is very close," said Ed Burmila, an associated instructor for the political science department's Election 2004 class who helped moderate the post-debate discussion. "Anyone who tells you there is a clear winner or a loss is probably very partisan. Both left a lot of questions, and both answered a lot of questions."\nBefore the debate started, senior Zach Richer said he expected to see something stronger come out of Kerry's campaigning. Richer said he thought Kerry has been generally weak for the entire campaign season, which created frustration for Richer. \n"What Kerry needed to do was really question what has happened to the war on terror," Richer said. "Bring up Afghanistan, Iran, Osama bin Laden -- what happened to these key figures to the war on terror? Bush needed to make whatever Kerry said, no matter what he said, seem complicated, and I think Kerry exceeded what I could have possibly imagined he could."\nRicher said he wrote a note to himself at the beginning of the debate that read "George kicks ass," but as the debate progressed, he felt Bush's performance deflated.\n"At the start of the debate, I thought (Bush) was going to slaughter Kerry. I am very surprised at the end of the debate to think Kerry won," Richer said. "(Bush) was just nailing the debate. He was bringing it down to very simple solutions. I just think he ran out of steam. I think he hit the same thing too many times."\nSenior Aaron Gwin said he is the undecided voter Kerry really needs, and if Kerry can't capture him or likeminded voters, they could be Bush pick-ups.\n"I have a lot of faith Kerry can pull a huge swing vote, but he has to come out of his shell to do it," Gwin said. "In the past, I've identified as being a Republican. This is the first time where I've actually been able to look at both candidates with basically equal standing. But I have faith Kerry could say something or do something to sway my vote in his favor, but if he doesn't do that, people are going to go with what they know rather than what they don't know."\nGwin said Kerry did a good job of appearing dignified and steadfast, almost grandfatherly in a very respectable way, but comparatively, Bush struck him as a more real person. \n"I would say that because Kerry was conducting himself in a manner to elicit respect from people, that would almost send up a red flag for me," Gwin said. \nA voter can get more out of the candidates when the candidate puts an emphasis on what he's saying rather than concentrating on how he's saying it, Gwin said.\nBody language was a large factor in senior Kourtney Teegardin's analysis of the debate.\n"I think it went well for both of them. I think Bush was really defensive, but he did a good job. I think that Kerry seemed more stiff, but he looked relaxed, looked more formal and confident," she said.\nThe panelists watched the debate live on C-SPAN, which broadcast a split screen allowing viewers to watch one candidate speak as the other candidate reacted. Teegardin noticed the president putting his elbows on the podium and looking around the room, while Kerry seemed to watch Bush during the president's responses.\n"Kerry appeared more confident, but their responses looked equally confident," she said.\nKevin Makice, an infomatics master's student, said he was turned off by the president's casualness and approach of leaning into the debate podium.\nMakice said he believed that, when judging performances, Kerry picked up quite a bit during the rebuttals, while Bush did not seem very confident thinking on his feet and maybe relied too much on prepared material.\n"(Bush) must have had his talking points because of how many times he had to say the same things over and over again," Makice said.\nBefore the debate, Makice said he had low expectations and was looking for something, anything, from Kerry that showed a sign of life.\n"Of what I saw tonight, I felt a lot more confident in (Kerry's) ability to make decisions and lead than I probably ever have," Makice said, although he still hasn't made up his mind.\nBurmila, whose dissertation topic is presidential debates, said one of the terms the campaigns negotiated in a 32-page agreement for the debate was that a candidate would not be shown reacting to a question while the other was speaking. \n"I think having the split screen worked against President Bush, who didn't keep his reactions focused, but there were other things he did well," Burmila said. "The first thing I noticed was (Kerry) went to great lengths to look composed, calm, confident and dignified."\nBurmila said the controlled environment of the panel forced the panelists to watch the debate intently, but a lot of other people might not have observed the debate so closely.\n"By and large the important thing in television is how they came across," Burmila said. "That's kind of shallow, but for most individuals watching this, they're trying to get a feel for the candidates. Overall, I think that the impression that the candidates cast would give a little bit of an advantage to Sen. Kerry. The way he was conducting himself to a casual viewer could have come off as more presidential."\nJunior Jeremy Webster said when it comes to Iraq policy, Kerry can only differ from Bush so much. Webster said more specifics were needed on Kerry's behalf to complete any future plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq.\n"You can get them out in six months if everything works perfectly, but it's not going to work perfectly, unfortunately," Webster said. "In the next month, (Kerry) needs to establish very solid, concrete differences" between himself and the president.\nFreshman Emily Evans said what makes her so nervous about Kerry is that the general election is so close and the Massachusetts senator still hasn't been able to make American voters feel sure about choosing him. Defining himself and not criticizing Bush, she said, could have helped him in the debate.\n"Everyone knows Kerry disagrees with Bush," Evans said. "Kerry spent too much time saying he disagreed with him. He spent 60 seconds bashing Bush and 30 seconds saying what he was going to do himself. It could have done him better if he turned that around."\nMakice disagreed slightly, saying Bush's criticism was just as prevalent as Kerry's; it was just that the president used fewer words than the senator to do it.\nEvans said, though, one thing voters can all probably agree on is that they know how they feel about Bush, and that could prove advantageous.\n"They either agree with him or they don't. People aren't sure if they agree or don't agree with Kerry," Evans said.\nHowever, Burmila said he thinks for Americas going to the polls this November, merely agreeing or disagreeing will prove to be more complicated than that, and that might prove to be one of the reasons there was such little movement following the debate.\n"I think there are a lot of people who are not necessarily seeing this (election as) picking two different kinds of ice cream where either way you win," Burmila said. "People aren't necessarily ready to be persuaded by Kerry, but not prepared to say yes to four more years (of Bush). President Bush hasn't done enough to persuade people the last four years have been positive, and Kerry isn't saying enough to say how it would be different under him."\n-- Contact senior writer Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu .