On the utility of debates

[Travis]

Last night it was a tough choice for me. On the one hand there was a Presidential debate on TV. On the other my San Francisco Giants were one win away from the World Series.

I went with baseball. Besides, I rationalized, if the game got out of hand I could turn it or maybe dvr it. But in the end I was watching Monday Night Football.

Now, granted, I'm as locked in an Obama vote as there is but this got me wondering just how much value there is in these debates. I know on the morning radio shows a couple of people said they finally decided to vote Obama too after his strong showing last night (at least to them) but really what do we learn from these debates? Maybe some other venue were we bring together the candidates to just lay out their platforms side by side without the theatrics of the debate?

I mean if you really want to see grown men on a stage hating on each other there is always professional wrestling. At least there you finally get to find out who the father of Kim's baby really is.

 

[Meadmaker]

I always wonder what it would be like to be an undecided voter. If I were one, would the debates look different?

As absurd and as staged as they are, I think they are important. Sure, everyone talks about good zingers and great laugh lines and all the rest, but in the end, for people who havent' followed these candidates for months or years, it's the best way to make a direct comparison. Also, the "fact checks" and "truth squads" that inevitably follow serve a real purpose. If the greatest flaw in someone's debate performance is that they put a spin on some facts, that's one thing. If they just made stuff up, that says more about them.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I greatly dislike them because they are so contrived. How is debate performance (emphasis on performance) a relevant metric for judging a Presidential candidate? Are we going to have two minute timed responses with North Korea or China? Will the Presidential veto be more effective if the President connects with single moms?

Theoretically they can help flesh out an candidate's views. But I am of the opinion that two minute sound-bites and random gaffes are not all that clarifying.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I always wonder what it would be like to be an undecided voter.

I have a tough time imagining that.

In particular, I have a tough time getting inside the head of an undecided voter at this point that isn't simply uninformed and/or apathetic.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The debates are the chance for the candidates to wow us with their personal fashion pizazz! So far they've all failed to take that chance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, the "fact checks" and "truth squads" that inevitably follow serve a real purpose. If the greatest flaw in someone's debate performance is that they put a spin on some facts, that's one thing. If they just made stuff up, that says more about them.

I agree, but I wonder if it offsets what these undecided voters are more swayed by? (That is, style, personality traits, etc. rather than content.) As far as I can tell nothing new of substance has come out over the last two weeks. The platform positions have been there. The credentials and records the two candidates offer haven't changed in months really.

 

[Denver]

Now, granted, I'm as locked in an Obama vote as there is but this got me wondering just how much value there is in these debates. I know on the morning radio shows a couple of people said they finally decided to vote Obama too after his strong showing last night (at least to them) but really what do we learn from these debates? Maybe some other venue were we bring together the candidates to just lay out their platforms side by side without the theatrics of the debate?

I try to ignore all the political ads, since those are the height of spin. I think a format where they just lay out their platform basically becomes a political ad. And at least half the ads don't even come from the candidates, but from some other PAC or whatever.

I think the debates are a good way to hear the candidate's pros and cons from their own mouths, to hear how they defend themselves and their criticisms (or if they choose to ignore them), and to judge them in an environment which they do not completely control. As a form of information gathering for me, I think it is fairly efficient (at least compared to aforementioned ads) to hear all their main pros and cons, condensed into an hour or two, from the candidates themselves, and then fact checked, all within 24-48 hrs.

I live in a swing state, and could have voted either way, given the issues that are most important to me personally, the past performance and background of each candidate, and the biggest needs of the country now and over the next few years. The debates did help me make a choice.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I try to ignore all the political ads, since those are the height of spin. I think a format where they just lay out their platform basically becomes a political ad. And at least half the ads don't even come from the candidates, but from some other PAC or whatever.

What do you think about the candidate's campaign websites (particularly published platforms) and 3rd party analyses of those platforms and proposals?

Frankly, with Romney, the first debate would give you a completely distorted idea of many of his positions. I think in that sense, the debates are less helpful than the campaign ads.

 

[Denver]

What do you think about the candidate's campaign websites (particularly published platforms) and 3rd party analyses of those platforms and proposals?

The websites are one more source, but it seems to me their goal is not to present the truth (whether it does or not), but to present their candidate in the best (unchallenged) light available. 3rd party analysis may be an additional good source, assuming they don't have an agenda, which can take time to determine. There are a lot of sources, good and not so good, and I value the debates as one more of the good ones.

Frankly, with Romney, the first debate would give you a completely distorted idea of many of his positions. I think in that sense, the debates are less helpful than the campaign ads.

If a candidate, standing before the nation, explaining and defending his positions, is unable to give an accurate view of those, that may say something important about the candidate too.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I greatly dislike them because they are so contrived. How is debate performance (emphasis on performance) a relevant metric for judging a Presidential candidate? Are we going to have two minute timed responses with North Korea or China? Will the Presidential veto be more effective if the President connects with single moms?

Theoretically they can help flesh out an candidate's views. But I am of the opinion that two minute sound-bites and random gaffes are not all that clarifying.

It's pretty dumb. As if one's posture and eye contact and tone of voice is a vital gauge or deciding factor. As if we pick leaders based on seeming like leaders for an hour of exchanging talking points.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I think that the debates are very educational. For example, before the last debate I didn't realize that Syria was Iran's route to the sea.

 

[elgarak]

"No wonder your president has to be an actor. He's gotta look good on television."
-- Dr. Emmett Brown, admiring a video camera from the future, Back to the Future

 

[StankApe]

I personally think debates are silly for a number of reasons:

A) having the ability to recite your talking points better than another guy is hardly a great qualification for being a leader

B) being a good arguer isn't really as good a trait of a leader as is hiring the right advisors and being open to a counter-proposal

C) debates had a much greater purpose back when we had only the newspaper, the radio and later 2 or 3 TV channels to choose from as people rarely even saw the presidential candidates unless they rode/drove several hours when the whistelstop tour made it through their state, much less understand their positions. Now, we can go to their website's, watch pundits discuss their issues to friggin death... in fact it's harder to escape it than it is to learn more about it.

IMO, the best way to have a debate that actually showed who would be a better leader would be to allow each side 4 advisors on hand, then drop a crisis scenario on them that they hadn't planned for, give them an hr, and then have them come in and discuss how they'd handle the situation.

I know my idea is pretty much undoable, but listening to two sides babble their rhetoric isn't a whole lot better. Most people who watch them, just watch it like a football game anyway.

 

[Almo]

IMO, the best way to have a debate that actually showed who would be a better leader would be to allow each side 4 advisors on hand, then drop a crisis scenario on them that they hadn't planned for, give them an hr, and then have them come in and discuss how they'd handle the situation.

That's actually an interesting idea. You're right, it would never happen, but I think it would be more illuminating than what we have.

 

[angrysoba]

That's actually an interesting idea. You're right, it would never happen, but I think it would be more illuminating than what we have.

Or they could do a Crystal Maze-type activity:



As for debates, I think there is no reason why they shouldn't if they are well-moderated and ask useful questions.

The problem is that much of the time the debates are completely canned. The candidates essentially know which soundbites to give to softball questions from obsequieous moderators who know that asking anything that really troubles the candidates too much will get their network axed from hosting it next election cycle.

Part of the problem in the US, and I think it is happening in the UK too, is that politicians are generally insulated from the public and any major scrutiny from the press. They appear at kitsch and corny coventions and do hokey speeches at campaign spots wearing fake smiles and have glitter in their hair and the Republicans particularly will try to look as choked up as possible when they say how much they love America and God and the wives who they cheated on when they had cancer (Democrats do that too, of course). So expecting the debates to be actual fiercely contested battles of ideas is probably asking too much.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh wait, I actually remembered one time that I think qualified as useful. The Lorraine Mann question (though a bit of a town hall thing as well... and in Scotland) makes for a picture perfect case.

Seems fairly rare, though .