So Who Won This Time?
Don’t ask me, I didn’t make it through the first five minutes. Last night’s debate has divided the blogosphere, with the right (mostly) hating the format and the left (mostly) loving it. Even my own comments section shows a sharp divide of opinion…and the divide extends to the debate winner. JPod wonders if Obama is ever going to show up , but Mark Halperin says it was Obama’s best showing to date.
As for myself, it became quite clear that I was not going to be able to watch this train wreck, and I feel that I was far from alone in this view. These events, to mean anything at all, require a strong moderator who clearly moves the candidates from sound bites and position statements to, well, debates. That just seems inherently impossible in such a gimmicky format.
Then again, I didn’t make it past the second question, so maybe I’m just an old-fashioned grouch…and if so, let me gripe about one more thing here: it is impossible to have a ‘debate’ in 90 minutes with 17 candidates on the stage. Both sides have got to figure out a way to get the also-rans out of the picture…sorry, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, but we’re electing a president here, and we need substantive questions and answers from people who have a real chance at winning their party’s nomination.
The only fair way, it seems to me, is to (in the future – it’s too late this time) gradually increase the price of admission. First debate: a freebie, everyone gets in. Second – must get more than 2% support in three consecutive weekly polls financed by the debate sponsors (just thinking out loud here – the details are not set in stone, just possible suggestions). Third debate, 5% support – etc.
Couldn’t be any worse than the status quo, and we might actually have some ‘debate’ at the debates…
I think you’re probably an old-fashioned grouch, and I mean that not in a disparaging way. Personally, I didn’t watch the debate (I heard some coverage this morning on the radio, and I’ll watch some clips tonight after work), but I have the feeling that anything that encourages active engagement by the electorate cannot be a bad thing. Maybe it shouldn’t be the standard format for debates (and maybe it’d better be called a Q&A than a debate), but there’s something much different about watching a constituent ask a question than hearing a moderator read a question he says is from a constituent.
While it is true that having constituents ask questions is valuable, whether a moderator reads the question or, as was done last night, the constituent does, someone screened them ahead of time. So, maybe my issue is with the screener who allowed the snowman question and the one about whether Barack Obama considers himself an “authentic” black man.
I like your idea Mark. I really want to know what these folks believe (both parties) and to better understand their vision for the country. I can get some of that information from their position papers, web sites, and speaking engagements, but there is tremendous value in having the candidates defend themselves and their point-of-view in an adversarial environment. That’s the sort of debate I want. As you say, this would be impossible to do with 17 candidates, which explains, I think, why we had that silly thing that was put on last night.
I’m with Fargus: anything which gets the electorate involved is a good thing, at least provided that Simon Cowell isn’t a participant. (Although think how much fun it would have been if Chuck Barris replaced Anderson Cooper). It’s retail politics for the YouTube age. I bet if James Madison were around today, he’d think it was great.
I found it silly what with the faux snowman asking about global warming to the two supposed “rednecks” asking a question and the ultimate insulting portion was the guy with the military style gun asking the candidates what they would do about his “baby”. These people are supposed to be the possible next President of the United States and I felt like I was watching an episode of America’s got talent, just beneath the dignity of the office, sad.
Yawn, still 6 months to the first primary. Perhaps I’ll care then.
“Debates” are almost always a waste of time that change no minds. Everyone wants to recreate 1960.
Since Kennedy/Nixon, only two debates to my memory had any real impact. Reagan/Carter, since it was the only one in 1980 did seem to (according to the polls) help swing the election. Earlier that year, the “I paid for this microphone” NH debate seems to have helped President Reagan regain his momentum.
Otherwise, not much. Kerry won the 2004 debates for instance. President Bush did well in 2000 but lost the popular vote.
VP debates are even more useless though.
Hard to say if anyone actually won this thing… nothing of any substance was actually discussed. As in most Democratic forums it was a lot of questions about how the candidates “feel” about different things. Compassion trumps policy every time.
Kucinich and Gravel…(two of the biggest nut-cases in recent memory), won because they got their faces and ridiculous voices on free TV for 2 hours…. Joe Biden won because he seemed to be the only one of them that seemed irritated by how ridiculous an exercise it really was.
The concept is not bad, real people asking real questions… but does anyone really think that the ones that were selected represent the broad majority of people in this country?? If it does, the entire debate should be about the education system which has evidently completely failed us..
I once worked for the company which produced People’s Court — there was a survey at the time which indicated that a quarter of the American people thought that Joe Wapner was on the Supreme Court — so I don’t think the questions were too surprising — my guess is that it’s more or less the same thing as when candidates are in coffee shops in New Hampshire and Iowa, except on national television.
12 minutes to wapner…uh oh, fart…i’m definitely not wearing my underwear….k-mart in cincinatti.
Sorry, had to do it.