2012 Debates

[Foolmewunz]

Historically, everyone remembers Nixon/Kennedy, where the election really may have swung on the debates, but other than that there's been no historical knockout punch in the debates. Reagan clearly out-maneuvered Carter and won his debate (on style points) but that election was beginning to trend that way, anyway - so I wouldn't count that as a "knockout".

I doubt we'll see one this time. Mitt started training for this within days after the convention (and should've stayed in training because every time he broke training to address something he made an ass of himself), so they'll have him prepared. And the bar for Mitt is pretty low - all he has to do is not come off like a complete idiot, so in that respect, he'll "win".

The President, otoh, simply has to "not lose" to win. He's playing defense and if the other guy can't score, the other guy can't win. And a tie? Goes to the President. "Hey, I'd say it was a draw, so I'll vote for the new guy because he's an unknown." I don't think so.

A lot depends on the spin doctors and the networks, of course. It isn't who does well in the debate according to the viewers. Almost all viewers are dedicated politicos and have their choices made already. The point is who's quip or error gets played up in the four or five nights following the debate.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If I were to make a prediction here I think Romney isn't going to be nearly as bad as he looks over the last few weeks. He is better on a scripted process than he is freestyle'n (but I have not seen him debate before so who knows).

I'm pretty sure he trounced Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, and maybe a few others.

ETA: I'm not suggesting he'd do well against an empty chair.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I'd like to see an evening gown competition introduced. Why not? It can't be less important than the talking.

Though I can't wait for Romney's "US Americans....for the children!" moment.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

My prediction: Romney will try and focus on the economy, Obama will give canned responses. Obama will try to elaborate on what he is gong to magically give everyone for free, as in the Life of Julia advertisement. Obama will bring up the 47% comment, and Romney will give canned answers. Romney will get flustered when talking about the gays, his taxes, and Bain Capital. He'll bring up the Olympics. Obama (the rich black guy) will keep bringing up the poor and how much he cares about them. Romney will forget to say much about the Orwellian Drones that Obama has made a reality and, of course, Obama will not go there. In the end, Obama will "win" the debate by promising the most free stuff to the largest group of voters.

THe next day, the media and most of the posters here will go on about how great Obama is, how eloquent and intelligent he is, how he should get a few more Nobel Peace prizes, and how Romney got flustered. Lots of them will say that something or other Romney said was racist. And they'll continue to mention that he is rich and white. The end.

 

[BrotherDesmond]

My prediction: Romney will try and focus on the economy, Obama will give canned responses. Obama will try to elaborate on what he is gong to magically give everyone for free, as in the Life of Julia advertisement. Obama will bring up the 47% comment, and Romney will give canned answers. Romney will get flustered when talking about the gays, his taxes, and Bain Capital. He'll bring up the Olympics. Obama (the rich black guy) will keep bringing up the poor and how much he cares about them. Romney will forget to say much about the Orwellian Drones that Obama has made a reality and, of course, Obama will not go there. In the end, Obama will "win" the debate by promising the most free stuff to the largest group of voters.

THe next day, the media and most of the posters here will go on about how great Obama is, how eloquent and intelligent he is, how he should get a few more Nobel Peace prizes, and how Romney got flustered. Lots of them will say that something or other Romney said was racist. And they'll continue to mention that he is rich and white. The end.

 

[Foolmewunz]

My prediction: Romney will try and focus on the economy, Obama will give canned responses. Obama will try to elaborate on what he is gong to magically give everyone for free, as in the Life of Julia advertisement. Obama will bring up the 47% comment, and Romney will give canned answers. Romney will get flustered when talking about the gays, his taxes, and Bain Capital. He'll bring up the Olympics. Obama (the rich black guy) will keep bringing up the poor and how much he cares about them. Romney will forget to say much about the Orwellian Drones that Obama has made a reality and, of course, Obama will not go there. In the end, Obama will "win" the debate by promising the most free stuff to the largest group of voters.

THe next day, the media and most of the posters here will go on about how great Obama is, how eloquent and intelligent he is, how he should get a few more Nobel Peace prizes, and how Romney got flustered. Lots of them will say that something or other Romney said was racist. And they'll continue to mention that he is rich and white. The end.

Actually, Barack announcing new free stuff might be a great idea. Or not. But something "new". They ought to make a major announcement from the Oval Office (not Obama but a spokesperson) of some harmless new policy that sounds like it should scare the troglodytes. "The President had to leave for the Debate, but asked us to announce that he is recommiting the EPA to the standards set during the Roosevelt administration and to continue monitoring the quality of Dihydrogen Monoxide, even in the face of adversity and complaints, especially dihydrogen monoxide provided by local and state authorities and the transportation of same across state lines."

That one might be too blatant, but I'm sure the creative minds around here could come up with harmless yet fearful-sounding regulations for them to announce.

Or any curve ball. They've been prepping him to defend every wart, wrinkle and waffle. Create one they haven't heard of and watch the Mittster ad lib for major comedy value.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Doesn't the US have some sort of ridiculous system for presidential debates?
Where they only address the moderator?

Not too exciting.

I agree with Ravdin, research has shown that people see debates (and even sports games) though their own ideological glasses. (being a referee is a tough job!)

However, there have been game changing debates: Nixon, Kennedy springs to mind.

And:

Romney has actively avoiding specifying any major policy, knowing that his party is split on many issues.
This puts Obama in a position to absolutely destroy him by simply pressing him to get specific.
He can then either twist and turn, causing him to look really dodgy. Or he can take position on major issues, alienating part of the GOP.

Maybe this doesn't work in the American context, but in the no-holds-barred environment of the UK house of commons, where debating is bloodsport, Romney wouldn't last a millisecond.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Historically, everyone remembers Nixon/Kennedy, where the election really may have swung on the debates, but other than that there's been no historical knockout punch in the debates. Reagan clearly out-maneuvered Carter and won his debate (on style points) but that election was beginning to trend that way, anyway - so I wouldn't count that as a "knockout".

I'm not so sure Kennedy so much won as suddenly being broadcasted on a medium that favoured him.

Kennedy:
-Looked good
-Dressed well
-Great public speaker

Nixon:
-Looked like Mr Grumpy
-Totally lost his cool (panic attack?)
-started sweating like a pig.

 

[The Don]

I'm not so sure Kennedy so much won as suddenly being broadcasted on a medium that favoured him.

I think it was at the Kennedy museum that I heard that people who listened to the debates on the radio thought that Nixon had won, those who saw them on the TV thought Kennedy had won.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not so sure Kennedy so much won as suddenly being broadcasted on a medium that favoured him.

Kennedy:
-Looked good
-Dressed well
-Great public speaker

Nixon:
-Looked like Mr Grumpy
-Totally lost his cool (panic attack?)
-started sweating like a pig.

I do concur with you, actually. I refer to it as a "knockout punch", but should've clarified that it was self-inflicted for anyone not up on the history of that campaign.

 

[fitzgibbon]

My prediction: Romney will try and focus on the economy, Obama will give canned responses. Obama will try to elaborate on what he is gong to magically give everyone for free, as in the Life of Julia advertisement. Obama will bring up the 47% comment, and Romney will give canned answers. Romney will get flustered when talking about the gays, his taxes, and Bain Capital. He'll bring up the Olympics. Obama (the rich black guy) will keep bringing up the poor and how much he cares about them. Romney will forget to say much about the Orwellian Drones that Obama has made a reality and, of course, Obama will not go there. In the end, Obama will "win" the debate by promising the most free stuff to the largest group of voters.

THe next day, the media and most of the posters here will go on about how great Obama is, how eloquent and intelligent he is, how he should get a few more Nobel Peace prizes, and how Romney got flustered. Lots of them will say that something or other Romney said was racist. And they'll continue to mention that he is rich and white. The end.

Wow!

You channeling Jack Starrett's performance from "Blazing Saddles"?

Fitz

 

[remirol]

Okay, well I guess it is time to start talking about the debates right? If I have the schedule right I think they are coming up next week.

ASSOCIATED PRESS, Oct 4, 2012

The first Presidential debate at the University of Denver lived up to expectations, and it was clear that the audience, while heavily partisan, was well versed on the issues and fired up for their candidates. Moderator Jim Lehrer displayed his consummate experience keeping things on track for most of the evening, though both candidates did test the boundaries of the given time limits.

Overall, Mr. Romney looked slightly stiff in comparison to Mr. Obama, and occasionally showed fleeting signs of anger or annoyance when challenged on key points. Mr. Obama, an accomplished orator himself, showed us more of what we've come to expect from him and even wrung a few wry chuckles out of the crowd during the economic segments.

The tone of this debate was advertised as likely to be heavily focused on attack from both sides, and it certainly lived up to expectations; Mr. Romney continued hammering away at the Republicans' "It's not good enough" talking points, while Mr. Obama held up his record on the stimulus, GM recovery, and other successful incentives as a counter. Mr. Romney provided few to no details as to his own plans, however, other than "extend the Bush tax cuts" and "repeal Obamacare". For his part, Obama did seize the moment to take a side shot at the Republican House, aptly nicknamed "the Do-Nothing Congress" for its dedicated efforts in blocking his proposed jobs bills.

In the health care segment, however, Mr. Romney was forced onto the defensive quickly with his conflicting needs to simultaneously disavow Massachusetts' own health care plan (that he oversaw and implemented) while attacking the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Obama pressed his advantage here sharply, pointing to the number of Americans who now have coverage where they had none before and noting that when polled, Americans come down heavily in favor of the actual individual provisions of the ACA, and only poll negative when the Act as a whole (with no details) is the subject. This was Mr. Romney's weakest performance over the whole night, to be sure.

The final two segments on the role of government and governing provided no real surprises, as each candidate stuck primarily to their party's central theme with little actual back-and-forth taking place. Just as clearly, sensing the end of the evening was near, they were both more inclined to edge away from the topic in order to sneak in a small amount of ad hoc campaigning, occasionally inserting completely unrelated commentary until Mr. Lehrer could get them back on track.

The next debate is the Vice-Presidential Debate, October 11.


(i may or may not be a smidge cynical about debates in general)

 

[remirol]

Oh, that reminds me, has anyone found this year's drinking game yet? (I'm also too lazy to Google)

ETA: I lied. Here's one: http://www.debatedrinking.com/

 

[jerrywayne]

Obama is a good orator. This does not mean he is a good debater. When he was running against Hillary during the primaries he was not noteworthy in the debates.

Similarly, Al Gore was considered a good debater for no reason other than he beat up on Ross Perot in an informal debate on Larry King. Gore is his debates with W. Bush was no better than W. In fact, he seemed peevish on occasion and that didn't help him. (Although he still won the election by popular vote).

Both Obama and Gore are intelligent guys and maybe this is why they are perceived, unjustly, as good debaters.

In the first debate that set up the tradition, Ford vs. Carter, Ford muffed a reference relating to communism and Eastern Europe that was the talk of the debate afterwards.

The worst debate performance of all was in the first Reagan-Mondale debate. Reagan seemed lost on occasion, and his closing was rambling and almost incoherent. In the second debate, Reagan seemed like his old self and even made a joke about age that relieved those who thought aging had overtaken him because of the first debate performance.

Kerry won his debates with Bush, especially the first. Some folks suggested W. may have worn a transmitter under his jacket that allowed him through an ear piece to get answers from a staffer. It certainly looked that way at least once when he hesitated when asked a question, spoke something to himself, hesitated, waited some more, and then answered.

All and all, the debates today are too controlled and amount to nothing more than modulated stump speeches. But who knows, even a mis-speak or an awkward statement may come back to haunt a candidate. Heavens forbid a real debate break out.

 

[Robrob]

Just my opinion but I feel the concept of debates to be less than a convincing argument (for me) in my choice of whom to elect. I realize there is some necessity for the President to be articulate and congenial but I think overall I'm more concerned with their policies and procedures than anything.

 

[balrog666]

For 95% of the population, nothing either of these candidates could say would change the way they intend to vote right now.

Which is why most of the people that have the opportunity (state rules differ) are voting early and tuning out the whole POS that is modern politics.

 

[not_so_new]

I agree with others above, most of the replies from the candidates themselves and from their supports are going to be pretty much canned.

I do have to think that there are people still on the fence out there who will make up their minds after the first debate.

 

[Puppycow]

Apparently Chris Christie didn't get the memo:

Christie: Debate will turn presidential race 'upside down'

“This whole race is going to be turned upside down come Thursday morning,” the Republican governor from New Jersey told CBS "Face The Nation" host Bob Schieffer Sunday. Christie pointed to the Republican presidential nominee's performance in the primary debates, saying the debates will be an opportunity to speak with out being "filtered" or "spun" by Romney's critics.

Christie acknowledged Romney had had a "rough couple of weeks," but that Wednesday's debate would turn the race into a "barn burner".

 

[zeggman]

Rick Perry was at least smart enough to know that he'd be demolished in any sort of "thinking on your feet" competition.

I often don't do well at "thinking on your feet" myself. I claim it's because my "supreme intellectual" mind is simultaneously considering and discarding dozens of hypotheticals, while my simple-minded opponent is barely generating a single thought, but who knows. I much prefer the format of a forum like this, where there is time to pause for thought, and even research, while composing a response.

 

[MG1962]

Just my opinion but I feel the concept of debates to be less than a convincing argument (for me) in my choice of whom to elect. I realize there is some necessity for the President to be articulate and congenial but I think overall I'm more concerned with their policies and procedures than anything.

I agree, but I see these debates as more an artifact of a previous era. Often these televised debates were the only way for people to run the tape measure over the candidates

A lot of which is now irrelevant in a world of 24 hour news services and high speed internet connections