Why no direct discussion in the v.-p. debate?

[dennilfloss]

I did not see the first presidential candidates debate so I do not know if the format used then was different but I am puzzled as to the format of the so-called vice-presidential debate. Now according to the dictionary definition "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides", it does qualify as a debate but the format I see tonight is so stiff and basically a conduit for scripted answers that it amounts to little more than two separate interviews by Bernard Shaw stitched together.

This contrasts radically with the Canadian experience of daily parliamentary debate, in which politicians ask each other questions and there is much more room left for surprises and spontaneity. IMO, it would have been far more revealing to see each vice-presidential candidate ask the other questions and vice-versa, allowing for answers to be rebutted or questioned further with a moderator there strictly to guarantee equal time. I just love to see a politician's face when a totally unexpected question is asked. How that individual handles himself/herself under this kind of pressure is far more revealing of their stature as a statesperson and their intelligence, their capacity to control their emotions, etc...

The debate I see tonight is too close to a courtroom witness examination where questions are answered simply with a yes or a no. It is similarly hardly conducive to truth. The two teams are so wary of making mistakes than we will learn very little from that vapid display. I am stopping watching it.

Let them at each other for goodness sake!

Tell it To My Heart (Taylor Dayne)

 

[WombatWoman]

I have never liked the stilted and structured style of these debates. I would rather see a back-and-forth discussion between the candidates, with a moderator stepping in only as needed (to prevent fisticuffs, for example.)

The televised "Town Hall Meetings" that some politicians have held are more interesting than the debates, since real people from the audience are asking the questions. On the whole, though, I think television has done great harm to the political process, at least in the United States, by making it necessary that a candidate be good-looking and charming in order to impress voters.

 

[Yeeny]

That is why I loved the debates between Bush Clinton and Perot. Perot may not have been the man for president, but at least he and his running mate kept it lively.

 

[dennilfloss]

"On the whole, though, I think television has done great harm to the political process, at least in the United States, by making it necessary that a candidate be good-looking and charming in order to impress voters."

Ross Perot never had a chance.

One funny aspect of presidential elections since televised debates appeared is that the taller candidate has always won. Might mean some lingering John Wayne legacy in US politics, with people associating taller with stronger and more trustworthy.

Ross Perot never had a chance. Neither did Dukakis.

Jesse ventura would clean up unless he went against Shaquille O'Neal.

Ross Perot wouldn't have a chance.

Wrong Number (The Cure)

 

[shopbruin]

i was reading either time or newsweek. the town hall meeting between perot, bush and clinton was so rigged towards clinton. apparently the clinton camp got to pick the chairs and podiums they used in that debate. so they deliberately got a chair that would make perot look like a little kid.

it worked - his feet barely touched the floor when he sat in the chair.

 

[Tominator]

WW
Every one of those so-called 'Town Hall' deals is totally scripted!

The format of tonights debate is agreed upon by both parties.