2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan we please dispense with the talking point: "Debates don't Matter?"
Of course debates matter, don't kid yourself. If debates didn't matter, why do front-runners
universally want to limit how many there are, and challengers always want as many as they can get? Duh.
Even the M$M admits debates DO matter, they matter to CNN too in terms of more advertising
and influence in the political process.
Please note that this list (by CNN) of 10 examples debates made a difference, doesn't even
include Obama famously saying "Please proceed Governor" to Mitt Romney in that 2008 debate.
1960 -- Kennedy vs. Nixon: First TV debate
Just having Kennedy on the same stage as an exerienced vice president made a difference for JFK because he could hold his own with Nixon. But then, of course, when it was listened to on the radio, it made it seem like it was pretty equal, and even some people giving an edge to Nixon. But he looked so terrible. His makeup was bad. He wasn't feeling well. He looked sallow, He looked scornful. And people just reacted to that image of a vigorous, young Kennedy, and an almost sick-looking Nixon. And from then on, somehow JFK became a figure.
1976 -- Carter vs. Ford: No Soviet domination of Eastern Europe?
Ford had done well in the first debate, but in the second debate he was asked a question about Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. And he answered it incomprehensibly. There was already a perception, a vulnerability, that he wasn't intelligent. And then this thing just got parodied, just got talked about, and became a huge event. When ordinary people watched that debate, they didn't feel the Ford had screwed up. But when it was pointed out, that he didn't understand what was happening in the Cold War in Eastern Europe, then suddenly they had shifted their minds, and he seemed much worse than it had seemed at that moment.
1980 -- Reagan vs. Carter: 'There you go again'
In 1980, Carter was primed to go after Reagan about his record, especially on Medicare. He was going on the offensive: 'You did this! You voted this way! You said that!' And Reagan, just with humor and subtlety, said, 'There you go again.' And it somehow relaxed Reagan and it took the offensive away from Carter. It was a brilliant answer to a really serious critique of Reagan's past that might have been troubling for him.
1980 -- Reagan vs. Carter: 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?'
There was no more brilliant closing than Reagan's 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?' What it did was to make people think, 'Yes. That's what's happened to me. My economic life, my family life, my working life, has been hurt by the economy over these last four years.' And once they realized that, it almost gave a poster to the entire campaign. It wasn't just a great moment in the debate, it became a theme encapsulated in just a few sentences. And in the end saying, 'if you are better off, then you vote for Mr. Carter. If you're not, you do have another choice. Me,' And at the same time, Carter gave a very weak closing statement.
1984 -- Mondale vs. Reagan: 'I will not exploit ... my opponent's youth and inexperience'
In the first debate between Reagan and Mondale, Reagan had appeared old. He was the oldest candidate in history at that time. He seemed confused by some of the questions, his answers had wandered, and the issue of age really became a large question among the press. So when he comes back in the second debate, and they ask him, 'Do you think age is a problem?' He had that answer prepared, and boy did he nail it. It was subtle, it was humorous, and Mondale knew, he said right then, that he had not only lost the debate, but probably the election.
1988 -- Dukakis vs. George H.W. Bush: 'If your wife, Kitty Dukakis, were raped and murdered?'
The question asked to Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a difficult one. I mean, 'What would you do, given your feelings about the death penalty, if your wife, Kitty Dukakis, were raped and murdered?' And what you would've expected might have been a home run, where Dukakis would've said, 'I would've wanted to kill that person who murdered my wife. But we have a country of laws and that would be wrong.' But instead, he answered in a policy-wonkish way about the death penalty that underscored a vulnerability that he already seemed to be without emotion and without passion.
1988 -- Bentsen vs. Quayle: 'You're no Jack Kennedy'
During the campaign, Quayle had already been saying many times that he had as much experience as Jack Kennedy did, so Bentsen was primed for that and when he mentioned it again in the debate, I'm sure Bentsen was saying 'Yay! Here comes my line!' And again, Quayle handled it OK and said it probably wasn't called for but it was such a zinger of a line that people loved it and told one another about it and it became the line of that debate.
1992 -- George H.W. Bush looks at his watch
It looked like he was bored, that he didn't care about the debate and that underscored the feeling that he wasn't connected to the problems of the people and the country. He later said when he was looking he was looking at his watch he was thinking, 'I hate these debates, I'm so glad it's almost over.' In that debate Clinton showed his empathy -- he was wandering around the stage. He talked to the people, almost wrapped their arms around them. The debate format in that year was perfect for Clinton because they could wander away from the microphones. When Bush is seen stiffly to be looking at his watch and seemed not engaged, and not connected, it underscored Clinton's enormous capacity to emotionally connect.
1992 -- Stockdale vs. Gore vs. Quayle: 'Who am I? Why am I here?'
When Perot had chosen Stockdale as his , Stockdale appeared to in that debate to be stunned; he almost didn't seem to belong there. He looked like an observer of the other two candidates and that was underlined when he said, 'Who am I, what am I doing here?' What it underscored was a problem of judgment on Perot's part -- how could he have chosen somebody who himself was wondering, 'Why am I here?' It made no sense to the audience and it hurt Perot's credibility as a presidential candidate.
2000 -- Al Gore sighs
Focus groups right after Al Gore and George W. Bush debated seemed to give a slight edge to Gore because he was more articulate, he had better answers, but once the television cameras caught that sighing, that constant look on his face where he seemed annoyed by the whole idea of having to be there with Bush, it seemed to underscore, as somebody said, as a teacher's pet who knew all the answers but was annoying and irritating. And they kept playing it over and over again and it became parodies on the comedy shows and late night TV. Then people began to project onto Gore a personality trait of just annoyance and irritation of people in general and it became devastating for him to live that down.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/debate-moments-that-mattered/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)They want less debates on DU. More debates are not needed, they say.
We have an ill democracy. The only cure for an ill democracy is a big heaping dose of democracy. Debates are democracy writ large.
The anti-debaters seem to be to be happy our democracy is ill.
msongs
(67,413 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)But it does effectively give the DNC a monopoly over the Democratic Primary debates,
to the point of micromanaging them, and that isn't very 'democratic' of her, is it.
pscot
(21,024 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Perhaps the most compelling evidence for the irrelevance of debates is that polling in past races hasn't changed much at all following them. John Sides, a political scientist at GWU and official friend-of-the-blog, summarized the research on this in the Washington Monthly. He notes that a study by UNC's James Stimson found few noticeable changes in polling after debates, and cites the work of Columbia's Robert Erikson and Temple's Christopher Wlezien, who focus on election forecasting using national polling.
Erikson and Wlezien find that there's a "a fairly strong degree of continuity from before to after the debates."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/03/what-political-scientists-know-about-debates/
Essentially, even the best zingers and worst gaffes barely moved the polls.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Partisans will say their man or woman won and in the event their man or woman lost they will say it doesn't matter...
Many candidates don't get name recognition until they get to a debate or two. I think your "best political scientist" is basing his claims on some kind of ideal fairy world where all of the candidates are already equally well known.
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)They are war mongers, wanting to invade the entire Middle East.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)one, I missed the "talking point that debates don't matter."
I think the POINT is that they are a really important part of the process, you just don't need one every other day.
Six is ample, especially in his day and age when almost everyone in the country has the capacity to record it or view it in its entirety after the fact.
That said, what you posted is a string of "got you" moments ... Which, in reality runs AGAINST the belief that they are important.
You are losing the argument kof the importance of debates when your last example is one where a candidate pretty much beat the ass of the other candidate from start to finish, but the outcome was defined by his "sighing."
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Weathervane states only get 2-4 at most, and that's just not right.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)he looked like the most relieved person in the world when he gave his concession speech.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)The DNC debate schedule is a travesty.
Iowa gets to hear ONE debate before voting? Good thing it's a caucus but still, that doesn't sit well with me.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)between the nominees of the 2 parties.
By that time people know approximately where
these stand. It is far different for primary challenges.
I wished not only for the presidential primaries, but
also for the congressional and state ones that their
importance would be amplified by the media.
Yes, I know that this is just wishful thinking.
still_one
(92,204 posts)to say most on DU know or believe they know where the candidates stand on the issues.
However, for those not aligned with a political party, the debates do serve the purpose of exposure, where they stand on the issues, etc.
As for the 2000 election, and also with the Kerry election, the media misrepresented a lot. They misrepresented the Howard Dean "yell", and gave the impression that he wasn't in his right mind. They made fun of Al Gore, not discussing the internet legislation he sponsored, and pushed to make the internet public, but joked that "he said he invented the internet". They gave bush a free pass on almost everything, and when bush said he would appoint justices in the mold of Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, they glossed over that.
Kerry's run was even more of a disgrace with the media. They first tried to smear him by saying he was having an affair with a campaign worker early in the campaign. When the woman he was supposed to have had an affair with called the media out on it, the sunk back into their holes. Then they gave free reign on the swift boat pukes. In fact they used that ad as a news story, which gave the swift boat pukes free air time.
Both Gore, and more so Kerry's campaign did not come out fast enough, or strongly enough to refute the garbage being thrown around by the media. That was a lesson that the Obama campaign learned very well. Every time they challenged President Obama on an issue, Obama was on top of it. From the "weather underground" association misrepresentation, to the Reverend Wright. In fact Obama did what Kerry should have down, called a major press conference.
Regardless, you make a good point at least in regard to a large segment of the country
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)The debates you are arguing for are Primary debates. The Primary Debates won't change your mind. They won't change mine either. 99% of DU has pretty much dug into their individual positions too.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)based upon identity politics.
Why would those people care about a candidate's stance on issues? Their support is based on the awesomeness of the person, not the awesomeness of their policies.
840high
(17,196 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Apparently, the DNC thinks it's more likely that Hillary will say something bad than something good, and they're afraid of letting the other candidates get on base at all.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)They twist and turn....
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)We were told to expect a debate in Iowa AND a debate in NH in the August/September timeframe, a debate in October/November in SC, a debate in Nevada in November/December, and two other debates in January.
Why did we go from two in August/September to not having one at all until mid-October?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Debates among primary candidates not so much, really. Generally, they get low viewership (last night's clown parade excepted). Most people generally make primary election decisions on two basic issues: electability and popularity. Most people. Yes, there are some people who pay attention to the debates and decide based on issues, but they're in the minority of primary voters.
Frankly, most people who are likely primary voters or caucus goers have already decided who'll they'll vote for. Most people don't vote in primary elections at all. Further, the people who watch primary debates, especially Democratic ones, are looking for reinforcement for their predetermined choice, and they get it.
Those who think that Hillary Clinton cannot hold her own in a debate are simply wrong. She can do that very well, and will avoid serious gaffes. Bernie Sanders, as a debater, is sort of an unknown, as is O'Malley. Sanders is very outspoken and can be abrupt in dismissing others' points of view. While that will reinforce the views of his fans, it probably won't overcome the support Clinton comes into the debates with. O'Malley, frankly, has such low poll numbers that it's unlikely that he'll get much of a bump from the debates.
Frankly, I expect the Democratic primary debates to produce little change in poll results. I think most primary voters already know who they'll vote for, and I think few people who are disinclined to vote in the primaries will decide to do so, based on the debates. In fact, they're unlikely to watch them in the first place.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)with the first ring, but most people need two or three pushes of the snooze.
Most of my friends are not yet engaged in the election. In California, very few of us expect our vote to sway anyone because we don't vote until June and it is a rare presidential primary in modern times that has not been decided before June.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)They are consistently very low because most voters, even consistent voters, are fine with letting the leading candidate run in the general election. Most people have other issues that take precedence over thinking about a slate of primary candidates. If they feel strongly about one candidate and the primary looks close, they may show up and increase the turnout. But, if the race has a clear, strong leader at the time of the primary, they won't bother. Their vote for the leader, if that's their preference, isn't needed, and a vote for someone substantial lower in the polls wont affect the results.
Primaries are evidence of a lack of concern by members of a political party. They're OK with whoever is leading.
And so it goes. I've tried several times to work on GOTV efforts for primaries. That's been fruitless every time.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Especially for state wide offices, they have become critical.
For the President, they are pointless.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)
