i hate these debates

[ElFenix]

MC: So, Senator X, in a choice between A and B, which do you prefer and why?
Senator X launches into talking point related to C
*clapping*
MC: Good answer Senator X. And you, Senator Y, which do you prefer and why?
Senator Y rambles on about talking point C with a little D mixed in
*cheering*

 

[Excelsior]

I DVRd it, and now they've been stuck on healthcare for a long time.

 

[Rainsford]

ElFenix, I couldn't agree more. I hate to see that even Obama does it, but it seems pretty hard to resist...there is really no incentive to stay on topic, and all the incentive in the world to turn the whole thing into a free campaign commercial. This issue was addressed well, I thought, by The West Wing TV show of all things. Rather than having a moderator ask questions back and forth and not really pay attention to the answers, each candidate could respond to the question, then his or her opponent could ask a follow-up question which the candidate would then answer. Of course they could ignore the question and continue with the campaigning, but it looks a lot more obvious when you're evading a direct question by your opponent.

My biggest problem with the Democratic debate was that it was hard for both Obama and Clinton get to past how awesome they apparently think the other one is. Which is great, but they are SUPPOSED to be differentiating themselves, not presiding over vigerous agreement. Not only does it make it look like a choice is totally pointless, but it brings up the question of who can win against the Republicans...because I'm sure the Republicans will burn the house down to win the election, just like they always do. If the focus was more candidate vs candidate, it would better encourage the kind of real debate these campaigns sorely need.

I think Kerry proved in 2004 that this works fairly well. He lost the election (for a number of valid reasons), but I think it was as close as it was in large part because Kerry just wiped the floor with Bush in the debates. Kerry did a great job showing that he was presidential, and that Bush was not, mostly because he actually DEBATED a lot of what Bush said rather than just jumping into his pre-scripted talking points at the first opportunity. Bush, who clearly was NOT prepared for anything other than pre-scripted talking points, looked like a tool. Had the first debate, especially, been held closer to the election, I think we'd have Kerry as President right now...in spite of all his faults and shortcomings. And just imagine a real debate that was full of that sort of actual debating, from both candidates...it would be a HUGE improvement, I think.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think Kerry proved in 2004 that this works fairly well. He lost the election (for a number of valid reasons), but I think it was as close as it was in large part because Kerry just wiped the floor with Bush in the debates. Kerry did a great job showing that he was presidential, and that Bush was not, mostly because he actually DEBATED a lot of what Bush said rather than just jumping into his pre-scripted talking points at the first opportunity. Bush, who clearly was NOT prepared for anything other than pre-scripted talking points, looked like a tool. Had the first debate, especially, been held closer to the election, I think we'd have Kerry as President right now...in spite of all his faults and shortcomings. And just imagine a real debate that was full of that sort of actual debating, from both candidates...it would be a HUGE improvement, I think.

If you haven't, go back and watch the Bush/Kerry debates. Maybe we just fundamentally disagree but I remember thinking "Kerry just wiped the floor with Bush in the debates" but with a couple years perspective realized my own bias was responsible for that. Whether or not you agree with the policy points I think Bush held is own in how it played with Americans at the time, a time when the Iraq war wasn't as unpopular.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think Kerry proved in 2004 that this works fairly well. He lost the election (for a number of valid reasons), but I think it was as close as it was in large part because Kerry just wiped the floor with Bush in the debates. Kerry did a great job showing that he was presidential, and that Bush was not, mostly because he actually DEBATED a lot of what Bush said rather than just jumping into his pre-scripted talking points at the first opportunity. Bush, who clearly was NOT prepared for anything other than pre-scripted talking points, looked like a tool. Had the first debate, especially, been held closer to the election, I think we'd have Kerry as President right now...in spite of all his faults and shortcomings. And just imagine a real debate that was full of that sort of actual debating, from both candidates...it would be a HUGE improvement, I think.

If you haven't, go back and watch the Bush/Kerry debates. Maybe we just fundamentally disagree but I remember thinking "Kerry just wiped the floor with Bush in the debates" but with a couple years perspective realized my own bias was responsible for that. Whether or not you agree with the policy points I think Bush held is own in how it played with Americans at the time, a time when the Iraq war wasn't as unpopular.

I guess I was thinking of some specific moments more than the debates as a whole. I think the first one was wall-to-wall Kerry slapping Bush around, but you're right, the other debates weren't quite so one-sided. Still, the example I'm thinking of is what I love in a good debate. Bush answered a question about invading Iraq by saying that "we were attacked" and that he had to defend the country. Kerry immediately countered that Osama bin Laden attacked us, Iraq did not. Bush's response was peevish, awkward and unpresidential as hell, I was half convinced he'd lost the election right there. Political debates need more moments like that.

 

[Lemon law]

My dominant impression of the Bush Kerry debate was on the second debate. GWB looked pretty bad in the first half, but when he realized that Kerry was not going to keep the heat on him, GWB seemed to relax and regain his stride.

Kerry should have kept lambasting GWB on his record, and that, IMHO, cost him the election.

But now the respective nominations are Obama's and McCains's to lose. And for the sake of party unity, they will be kept as tame showcases.

The debate fireworks should start after the party conventions and when the general election debates start.

 

[Pabster]

I agree, OP.

In fact, I've been blasting these "debates" for about 3 or 4 election cycles now. They're a total farce.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I agree, OP.

In fact, I've been blasting these "debates" for about 3 or 4 election cycles now. They're a total farce.

Well it would help if they were "debates" at all. The way they work now, there is no reason at all the candidates have to be in the same room...or even hold the debate at the same time.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I agree, OP.

In fact, I've been blasting these "debates" for about 3 or 4 election cycles now. They're a total farce.

I find debates almost useless and haven't watched one yet. I can hear them speak for 10 minutes or read some of their writings and can pretty much tell their mind set - and then the politics that will follow. Debates can be good for checking out a candidates form (which is what a huge number of people vote on despite thinking they are into substance). Bush was awful vs Kerry, and he's an awful speaker on any given day - it's often painful to watch. Kerry sounded great - but he was saying things like how he would give Korea the material to make nuclear power. It was a defalting moment to realise I had to vote for a guy who could barely make a sentance in order to avoid a guy who's idea of keeping peace in the world was being the useful idiot.

 

[Moonbeam]

"I find debates almost useless and haven't watched one yet."

And here I was, almost about to tell ELFewhine not to watch if they made him upset.

Goes to show. There's dumb and then there's dumber.

 

[Butterbean]

And then there's dumbest - and they are the ones watching the debates mostly (unless its a persons job). This is the shallowest of elections with shallow disocurse that appeals to a third world mindset.

Cues incense burning bleach blond coed: "Oh I want hoope!... because its like - CHANGE..and change is good because there is no change in the past..only the future has change..and if like things change we can be the change and be..be ..the hooopppe!!!11!"

Shame what passes for edumacation these days

 

[Thump553]

I must have seen a different debate. In last night's debate, both candidates fairly addressed the questions presented to them the vast majority of the time. An essential debating technique is to recast the question (in your answer) so as to stress your strong/talking points. The political debates I have seen, going back to Kennedy v. Nixon, have been like this, nothing new in the last few cycles.

The debates aren't perfect but they go a long way towards showing the candidate's thought processes, values and judgment abilities.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
And then there's dumbest - and they are the ones watching the debates mostly (unless its a persons job). This is the shallowest of elections with shallow disocurse that appeals to a third world mindset.

Cues incense burning bleach blond coed: "Oh I want hoope!... because its like - CHANGE..and change is good because there is no change in the past..only the future has change..and if like things change we can be the change and be..be ..the hooopppe!!!11!"

Shame what passes for edumacation these days

In the 90 minute debate last night, I don't believe I heard the word "hope" mentioned once, and "change" more than 2 times. But don't let reality stop you from your condemnation of something you know nothing about.

 

[beyoku]

Maybe they are not getting at each others throats (Clinton in particular) because its crunch time and they are both democrats who MAY be on the same ticket ?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Had the first debate, especially, been held closer to the election, I think we'd have Kerry as President right now...in spite of all his faults and shortcomings.

You are some really bad assumptions here. One of those assumptions is that Kerry lost (as in from general population voters in many states, as opposed to in the electoral college) in 2004. The other related assumption is that the vote is somehow related to who gets appointed president.

Kerry actually won. That is not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. 2 of the Ohio election officials were eventually arrested for the fraud, but this was too late. There is tons of evidence of large scale fraud in more than 30 other states. The point is, we haven't had a legitimate election in this country in a long time, and probably won't any time soon. Kind of makes the debates pointless (unless those rigging the elections care about the debates, vs. which candidates they control...)

 

[FoBoT]

they are a way to give the candidates free air time, they don't help define where the candidates stand on issues
if you want to know their position on issues, just go read their web sites, all the details you want are available there

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"I find debates almost useless and haven't watched one yet."

And here I was, almost about to tell ELFewhine not to watch if they made him upset.

Goes to show. There's dumb and then there's dumber.

thanks for the personal attack :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Kerry actually won.

Sure he did. :roll:

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've been blasting these "debates" for about 3 or 4 election cycles now. They're a total farce.

And a waste of time and money. (Ok, so that's good practice for being in government... badum-tshhh) Most of the voting public lacks the patience to sit through one, let alone a dozen. Only the news media and other politicians listen to them, and the rest of us get the readers' digest version in the morning. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"I find debates almost useless and haven't watched one yet."

And here I was, almost about to tell ELFewhine not to watch if they made him upset.

Goes to show. There's dumb and then there's dumber.

Well I thought everybody knew how to stop the pain from hitting oneself with a hammer and you start a thread about how much the hammer hurts. I thought, given the evidence that you had somehow missed what seemed obvious, that you could use some extra encouragement.