What is the point of the debates anymore? Apart from dividing people?

[Deja Q]

Both sides get sold out to the highest corporate dollar and that's all they care about.

In the 2004 elections, there were DOZENS of times Kerry could have answered Bush and even countered with many "flip flop" incidents that Bush had made on the same issue! But didn't!! Even I with my obvious learning disability could have given better responses!

Then, at the end, we have Kerry pulling a dubya by telling an audience member how she'd never become a millionaire or whatever... Swift move mate, that's a good way to LOSE a vote - even if Kerry WAS correct; the working class is usually raised to believe in potential fantasy rather than dealing with reality head-on. (after all, also being religious, we are taught via the story of Joseph to forgive those who sell us to slavery...) But I digress; I thought dubya was bad enough congratulating a mother for working THREE jobs, clearly so obtuse to the fact that with three jobs, mommy can't even begin to spend time with her children - which is what families are also supposed to do! (* dropped his guard; he wants us all to have 3 or more jobs, with no benefits or even minimum wage and you bet they'll try to nix that little law at some point; they've been eliminating a lot more...)

Never mind how many DUers wondered about the authenticity of the "anonymous people" asking the candidates questions. Those of you who had are utterly correct. Some of the questions were indeed paperweight pablum or tabloid trash.

Which gets to my point: Why bother with debates? Who are they supposed to convince? Election 2004 nailed it for me; both sides merely speak off of paper with pre-printed arguments and stock answers. *, inarticulate as the day is long, obviously couldn't do well when reciting his lines. (the fact people still refuse to look outside the box is another problem too.) Kerry's little whoopsie with the audience member didn't help...

[Cocoa]

1. there's at least a degree of being held answerable

not nearly enough, but by far the part of the campaign that's least in control of the campaigns.

[TwilightZone]

2. Hindsight isn't apparently 20/20.

Kerry did a great job in the debates, particularly the first one - I'm surprised at the number of people that seem to have forgotten that. In fact, many DUers proclaimed the election over after the debates, in Kerry's favor.

In which debate did Kerry supposedly tell an audience member that she'd never become a millionaire? I must have missed that.

[Yupster]

4. I think it was the townhall debate

He was talking about some tax rates, and told this lady that there were only three people in the studio who would benefit from the rate? cut? whatever. I think he mntioned himself, Bush and the moderator (Rusert?)

I let out an audible ouch when he said that.

I work with many small business people, and most of them you would never know had a hundred thpousand much less five million dollars. They are often soft spoken, polite, drive regular cars, live in regular homesw, and are a lot more business savvy than you'd ever think.

I could just imagine some small business people in the audience and tens of thousands of them across the country thinking "what a pompous asshole" when he said that.

Then there was the weirdness about saying Bush owned a part of a lumber company in that same debate. Bush's tax return included an old oil royalty payment from an independant oil company named Crosstimbers. Maybe that's WTF Kerry was talking about.

[TwilightZone]

6. I do recall that, but I think you might be overstating the effect.

The vast, vast majority of people in that audience (and in the country, in general) don't make more than $200k/year, so the average person in the crowd likely related to it more positively than you would expect.

Re: lumber company - Factcheck.org identified that Bush made $84 from a timber-growing company shortly after the first debate.

That's why Kerry used it in the debate.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html

[Yupster]

8. Your source corrects itself

"Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust."

It was an independant oil company namede Crosstimbers I believe.

It was one of the more memorable moments in presidential debate history, and Bush did jump on it.

It's true that the vast majority of people wouldn't be offended by Kerry's 200 k comment, but why offend anyone? I thought it was a stupid way to make his point.

Of course put me on national TV and start asking me questions, and I'm sure I would say many stupider or even stupidiest things than that.

[TwilightZone]

14. Continue reading.

"Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such."

So, Kerry was correct.

[jobycom]

3. They are good at showing competing talking points, I guess

The problem isn't the debate. It's the media convincing everyone that the person who won is the person who looked coolest or smelled best or whatever. Everything but the answers. Thus, the candidates perform for the media, rather than giving answers. The media won't replay a particularly intelligent and honest answer that used facts and logic. They will only replay the one that seemed off-message, or that addressed some issue the media had already decided was the key issue of the debate.

Bush has been getting hammered in debates since he began. His debate with Ann Richards was so bad that Karen Hughes spent more time after explaining what Bush really meant to say than Bush spend saying it. At one point he and Richards were asked about Bush's welfare cuts, and Richards said she wouldn't cut welfare because it would hurt children. Bush's answer was "Of course I won't cut welfare to families with children." The audience gasped, the moderator followed up with "But welfare is only available to families with children now." Bush looked like he'd been hit by a board. Headline the next morning: "Candidates trade jabs in debate," or some such non-story, probably written years before the debate itself.

That's all debates have become. A chance for the media to declare that both sides pleased their supporters but scored no "knockout punches" even when knockout punches are scored.

If we had a real media, we'd have real debates, and Bush would be managing a sno-cone stand--and I don't mean crushed ice with colored syrup.

[Yupster]

5. Bush debates differently than any other politician I know

First, like Joby said, Bush is awful at debates, any debates regardless of the format.

He's a fine debator except he does poorly at thinking on his feet, and he has touble speaking in understandable language. Otherwise, he's just a swell debator.

Anyway Bush doesn't debate at debates.

He goes into the debate with 3-4 talking points that he wants to get across, and he'll mention them over and over again in the introduction, in as many answers as he can whether they fit or not, and in his closing statement.

I wonder if it's effective, because by the end of the debate you certainly know what he came there to tell you.

There's always a point in Bush's debates when he's said the three things he wanted to say every way he can think to say it, and then he just doesn't have anything left to say. It's funny to watch.

What he is good at though is answering questions briefly, especially after the opponent has had a long complicated answer. He seems to have a sense of when people are confused, and will answer his side in three words. This might also have some effectiveness as confused people trying to process the other answer will hear Bush say, "no I won't" and they'll nod their head and think "this is a guy I understand."

Bush maybe the worst debtor I've ever seen as a presidential candidate, but he's interesting the way he approaches them.

[jobycom]

7. But he only gets away with that because of the media

Bush knows going in that he doesn't have to say anything, that the media will only judge him by whether he sticks to his talking points. In the olden days, they would have analyzed the long answer of his opponent, then debated whether Bush's answer showed any understanding of the issue. That's what the public would be told to look for.

Now the media just states that Bush stuck to his main points, and the public is told that's all they should care about. Forget the meanie old man with the really long answer. Who cares if it's right, it's just too long. That's what the media has done to debates.

[Yupster]

9. I don't think so

I don't think the media ever analyzed what candidates said at debates.

In 1960, it was that Nixon sweated a lot.

In 1976, it was that Ford said Poland was dominated by the Soviets.

In 1980, it was the affable way Reagan said "there ya go again."

In 1992 it was the way Bush looked at his watch.

I don't think the media ever did a decent job of analyzing debate answers. It's always been just as superficial as it is today.

[jobycom]

12. You're probably right, but I still remember more discussion of content

In Reagan/Carter, and even Bush/Clinton. The superficial tag-lines were there, but it seems like they were only part of the picture, whereas now, they are the whole picture. In 84, in Mondale's first debate against Reagan, they talked about Reagan's makeup and Reagan looking old, but they also talked about Mondale's better knowledge of the issues. With Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry, even though Bush clearly lost in all of the polls after the debates, and clearly blundered several times, the media never talked about it. It was all about the superficial.

[A Simple Game]

11. I think you may be right.

Even now I can remember two of the things * was pushing in the debates, can't for the life of me remember what Kerry was pushing.


Maybe we should just wait till the next morning after a debate and ask people what were the main points of the debate, that would tell who won. Using this standard, * won all of the debates.

[leesa]

10. They are pointless excercises. They should have real debates that

last for hours and days like they used to. That is the only way to determine anyone's weaknesses or qualities, not through canned soundbites and 20 second replies.

[wli]

13. propaganda of course n/t

[mtnsnake]

15. Here's the only way future debates can be effective

1) Each debater must be dressed in a mask and costume so that none of the television viewers or post-debate analysts can recognize who they are. Not even the host would know.

2) When it's their turn to speak, their voices must be mechanically garbled so that no one can tell who it is by the sound of their voice. For example, if it was the 2004 debates again, Kerry's voice could be Donald Duck and Bush's could be Mickey Mouse.

3) Following the debates, everyone...including the post-debate hitmen from each party...gets to vote for Donald or Mickey, etc. Nationwide polls would also be taken before the identities are released.

4) Only after the votes are in and the polls are taken will it be announced who the real faces are behind the masks and who the REAL winners of the debates are. If they had done that in 2004, Donald Duck would've kicked Mickey's ass!