patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!
Local Voices

Why We Love Debates

This week the candidates will begins a series of three debates over the course of October which will cover topics ranging from social issues to foreign policy. Already pundits on both sides of the aisles are warming up the hype machine and making sure you know that these could be the debates which shape our generation. This is largely nonsense. Debates in modern politics are less about actually hashing out the ideas and more about providing a joint appearance where the American people can judge between the two standing next to one another.

While the debates do give us the last chance to catch a glimpse of the candidates outside of their hermetically-sealed campaign stops, it’s probably not best to expect a ground-breaking revelation which completely sweeps the race of its feet. That kind of reaction to a debate is rare historically, though two notable examples do show that it could happen.

What we should expect from the debates is a safe, methodical performance from both candidates. Mitt Romney and President Obama are both talented debaters and have a lot to lose going forward. Couple that with the fact that debates are generally not the place for presentations of hard policy and more a theater for the display of ideas, and we have a scenario in which we see more of a juxtaposition of two candidates views for America going forward.

There will be attacks, parries, and stumbling. That’s what is meant to happen. What is unlikely is a massive error by one of the candidates which commands the race going forward.

Debates generally don’t shape races. The race goes into the debate on a trajectory and the debate either cements the current course, or offers a slight adjustment. Only twice can I think of a debate in the 20th century which really changed the course of the presidential election. These were the Kennedy/Nixon and Carter/Reagan debates.

In Kennedy/Nixon, the ability to televise presidential debates greatly changed people’s perception of Kennedy and influenced the race in a way which had never been done. A sickly looking Nixon was compared to the Kennedy unfavorably by viewers, even though his performance wasn’t awful and was favorably reviewed by many who listened on the radio. And Carter was not a favorite of the electorate. With Reagan’s strong second debate which sold the American people on his ideals plus the ongoing turmoil both domestically and abroad, a combination of factors helped seal Carter’s defeat. Outside factors have just as much of an ability to shape a race as the debates themselves.

The debate on October 3rd will give us one last look at two candidates vision’s for America. It is one of the last chances to sell their ideas to the American people on a national level. Who knows, maybe we will see a debate which truly rocks the race and provides political scientists with a performance to study for years to come like Kennedy/Nixon.

More likely though will be that the campaign continues on the same course we’ve run since before the conventions. Picking a President based on who quips the best on liner might not be the best way to elect our officials, but don’t expect to see a hard-nosed discussion of policy either. Oh well, it should still be a good show.

Reprinted from State Senator Curt Thompson's (D-5th) blog. Also, check the Senator out on Facebook and Twitter.

C.J.

4:03 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The quality of the debates frequently comes down to the quality of the moderators. For example, last night, NBC's David Gregory did Massachusetts voters a huge disservice by wasting significant time on Warren's native American heritage and former legal clients of both Brown and Warren. He essentially decided that, rather than polling them about specifics of the issues, he would go back and forth between being Brown's campaign surrogate and Warren's campaign surrogate while simultaneously demonstrating his ignorance on subjects that really mattered.

In short, part of the reasons that these debates lack hard-nosed discussions is because they lack hard-nosed moderators who are as well-informed on important issues as they are on the latest attack ads

Reply

Watts

11:56 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Obama is a great public speaker, but not the strongest debater. Romney is a terrible public speaker, but a fairly strong debater. I'd like to say that this is going to come down to substance, but the reality is that the low-information voters that are left out there aren't likely to suddenly become seekers of substance. This is going to be more about appearances.

And the one negative that both candidates have when debating is that they can cross over into a level of condescension that is not becoming of either of them. The goal of each will be to walk the fine line of beating up the other, without looking like a bully. I don't expect to see any "substance" (as in hearing anything new) from either candidate. The only thing that I might expect is a swing toward the center from Romney. But for every step that he takes toward the center, Obama will be able to lay him out by reminding everybody how the center is quite different from what Romney has been providing so far in the campaign.

Reply

Susan

1:08 pm on Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Like most things in the American political process the election system is too long. Speeches, well former President Bush Jr. won't go down as a great speaker and yet he won, twice. So if you don't have a TV, which I haven't ever found in America. This is just a huge waste of money and it just gives the media something to talk about for 2 more months. Since we have all made our choice by now.

Reply

Watts

1:11 pm on Thursday, October 4, 2012

Just like I said, the debate was not about substance, but of appearances. Based solely on appearances, Romney won. But that wouldn't have been too hard to predict, because Romney already looks like the guy who comes inside the picture frame that you buy at the discount store.

The only bit of new information that we found out last night is that Romney wants to dump PBS and he seemed unusually delighted to say so.

Reply
Comment_arrow

James

1:49 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

I was delighted he said it too. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives about $450million from Congress each year. About $280million goes to PBS and the local stations. Federal funding makes up about 12 per cent of the PBS budget. Why do we need to fund this crap when we spend a trillion a year we don't have? Big Bird is richer than Romney anyway. Sesame Street pulls in about 50 million a year and the Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell, made over 950K in 2008.

Watts

1:11 pm on Thursday, October 4, 2012

Fact checking the debate:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

"Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator."

Reply

George Wilson

12:56 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Didn't Mondale and Kerry win the first debates when they ran for president? Worked out great for them.

Reply

George Wilson

1:34 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Yes I know that Romney flip flopped told a few lies with conviction and moved back politically to the center and Obama was not at the top of his game. But the one thing that struck me was Romney's demonic stares during the debate and did anyone notice that he looked like a crazy man on amphetamines and he couldn't stop running his mouth both characteristics of someone on speed. Just curious if anyone else had this observation?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Chris

1:52 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

George, I didn't see that at all but of course I've never used drugs. Perhaps you have insight that many of us live without.

Comment_arrow

Concerned Citizen

2:01 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Wow, demonic? And you think Romney is on drugs? Hope you realize how foolish you sound. Obama may well win the election due to a large majority of folks like yourself who simply have blind loyalty but the fact of the matter is he got destroyed in that debate. For the first time ever Obama was actually hit with facts about his failed policies and he had NO answer.

Comment_arrow

David

2:09 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

George is off his meds again. Obamacare just isn't taking care of you, is it? The drug plan of Medicare just costs too much, doesn't it, George?

Leave a comment