General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTweety again: George W. won his presidential debates; Gore lost.
Is there any substantive argument that Gore lost the debates to George W. Bush?
Can you *win* a debate if you are wearing a wire to a cheat sheet?
Tweety needs to get over this.
Curtland1015
(4,404 posts)...then I guess he won.
fugop
(1,828 posts)I thought in substance Gore trounced him, but all the media talked about was Gore sighing and being orange. That's when it was absolutely obvious how much the press hared Gore. I really blame the press for screwing us in 2000.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)DemzRock
(1,016 posts)and ignored content. They could have just as easily flipped out over Bush's crazy blinking.
mucifer
(23,545 posts)Unfortunately that is all that matters to the media and the undecideds. Actual content isn't important.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)mucifer
(23,545 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I can agree with you that that it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Mostly because this is a very large nation, with a complex government, with administrative and legal codes, embedded in a society of conflicting values. Even the definition of the 'middle class' and its values, a bell which all candidates ring, is actually not shared.
It's too much to grasp for any one person, and so it's impossible to prepare to respond to a real Q&A session . So everyone's given up on the overall 'content'. Few Americans can name all the cabinet departments, fewer can name the major issues immediately facing each department.
If a series of specific questions were asked each candidate of the order "what is the most pressing problem of the US Coast Guard?" Or, "what's the most pressing problem of the Centers for Disease Control?" The presidential candidates would have difficulty providing impromptu responses. Even if candidates could respond coherently to such questions, the response of most viewers would be 'meh...'
Campaigns in general, and the debates in particular, can't really be very deeply about content that reveals how well the 'product' will actually function. The approach to the televised questioning is to provide a one or two sentence reply that enable the candidates to shift to a scripted marketing slogan.
I'm not sure how many candidates win with their messages, but it is certain that candidates lose by making public faux pas, which are essentially marketing mistakes.
Raine
(30,540 posts)spanone
(135,838 posts)i sat and watched every debate with my dying mother and we couldn't believe the media bullshit.
dsc
(52,162 posts)a feeling that he shared with virtually the entire mainstream press. If Gore had walked on water tweety would have bitched that Gore couldn't swim. If Gore had cured cancer the press would have written Gore makes it more likely you will die of heart disease. If Gore had brought us world peace the headline would have been Gore ruins economy in Virginia.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)he did come across as condescending for some people.
Obama definitely won't have that problem
digonswine
(1,485 posts)that even a hint of a decent debate showing surprised some, giving him the "win." BS obviously.
Faygo Kid
(21,478 posts)in the first debate, when he sighed etc., then they overcompensated in the second debate, when they made him a robot. His handlers blew it.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)when he persuaded that woman to have an abortion
mn9driver
(4,425 posts)In 2000 the quality of the national media coverage of the presidential race was mind bogglingly, breathtakingly superficial. Bush ran a campaign of Tax Cuts For Everyone, and You Can Hava A Beer With Me, while Gore explained how the deficit would soar if that happened and that government was actually sometimes useful.
The media fawned over Bush, while making fun of Gore's clothes, his mannerisms, and fabricating a reputation for him as a serial exaggerator. There was virtually no substance to the coverage; it was day after day of nonsensical non-analysis.
The debate coverage was no different. Gore's reaction to Bush's batshit-crazy debate answers became the story instead of the answers themselves. Tweety was right in there shoveling the steaming piles of BS along with everyone else. He was a shallow, vapid tool then, and I suspect he still is.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)during the "Mission Accomplished" kabuki show.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Substantively speaking, it is beyond me why ANYONE would say Bush* won the debates. I watched them.
The media did make a big deal about Gore stepping up close to Bush* when he was slamming Gore, as if this were an aggressive move. Gore had been quoted as saying, as a youngster he watched his father campaign and was ashamed that during the times he was criticized, the older Gore did not defend himself. Al Gore promised himself if he became involved in politics and was attacked, he would step up and defend himself. He meant verbally, as I am not going to lay down and let people walk all over me.
That incident was terribly distorted by the media and was one of the reasons they said Gore looked bad. Their commentary made THEM look ignorant.
Sam
Thrill
(19,178 posts)He looks stiff like a Robot. And it just comes across as you're full of shit on TV.
I hate to say it. The relaxed candidate, that can get their point across in short sound bytes is the one who usually wins.
frogmarch
(12,153 posts)I repeat, IF - Bush did win, it was because he had a Speechalist.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)AND he won the popular vote by 500,000.
and he won Florida by up to 50,000. (or pick a number, because every recount put Gore ahead.)
Bush won 5 judges on SCOTUS.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)That ain't winning.
I doubt Tweety would say Bush won the debates on debates on points, but he won them in the only real sense of winning or losing a political campaign debate.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . when he said that, in his opinion according to his criteria, Dan Quayle won the Vice Presidential debate over Lloyd Bentsen. Let's just say that was a minority point of view with which I did not agree. Nevertheless, Mr. Matthews did have a checklist which he used to make his judgment, and said by the same criteria he held that Governor Dukakis outperformed Bush the Preppy a few days earlier.
This did not translate into any real admiration on Mr. Matthews part for Mr. Quayle. Weeks later, just before the election, Matthews gave his reasons for voting for Dukakis over Bush. Among those reasons was Dan Quayle's presence on the Republican ticket.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It's just how he holds himself. He's very stiff. This isn't a problem Obama has, though. In fact, it's more a problem Romney has. I think the debates will go very well. Obama comes across as warm and caring, and Romney comes off as arrogant and disconnected from the reality of people's lives.