The presidential "debates" are a waste of time...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The discussion of presidential debates on this forum echoes the Y2K debate. Both liberals and conservatives begin (and end) their analysis with the conviction they are right. In the middle, they spin the debate (or any other information) to fit the idea that their particular candidate is the best person for the job.

I hear this same dynamic on CSPAN and talk radio. It seems very few people are interested in an honest debate of the issues. Instead, most have made up their mind about social security, public education, etc., and simply want others to agree with them.

The current presidential debates are nothing more than campaign speeches from the mainstream candidates. The alternative (and more interesting) voices are excluded. The candidates take softball questions and give amorphous answers. After the dog-and-pony show, one can stayed tuned for partisan commentators to spin the outcome.

The presidential debates have all the legitimacy of professional wrestling... and less entertainment value.

Of course, the debates are nonevents for a reason. The American people reward the candidate who is the least offensive and does the best job of shoveling platitudes. The average voter doesn't want to hear about hard choices, about limited resources, about sacrifice.

The debates simply reflect the polity we have created. Does anyone really think Bush or Gore represent our best and brightest? I suppose we'll have real debates when people are willing to elect real leaders. Could be awhile.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 18, 2000

Answers

Agreed, Ken.

He with the most charisma and bullshit wins...

There needs to be major reform of the electoral procedure. The electoral college needs to go away, other party candidates besides the republican/democrat offerings need to be invited to debates, yadda, yadda, yadda...

snarlin' at the idiot at the front door...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.


I also agree with what you said, Ken. Question...

Do you feel this was a direct result of the formats and "rules" used for the 3 debates? In other words, had they gone head-to-head by questioning and responding to each other without the "filter" of a moderator or 3rd party questions, would you then feel the debates would have been more "legitimate"?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.


I agree. Especially when Mad TV or Drew Carey are on. =p

-- cin (cin@=0.)), October 18, 2000.

Up to and including the 1980 debates, the League of Women Voters ran the show. They had an interest in getting the candidates to talk about their positions. In 1980, the LWV invited John Anderson to the debates. Both Reagan and Carter disliked this idea, as both believed that Anderson was "stealing" their votes and making the race unmanagable.

By 1984, the two major parties had agreed to hijaak the debates away from the LWV, by creating the Commision for Presidential Debates (or whatever the official high-sounding name is). This commision is fiercely bipartisan, in the sense that they run the show expressly to exclude all third party voices to extent they possibly can. Neither major party candidate will accept an invitation to debate from any other institution. And the commission won't invite a third candidate unless he or she polls over 15% in opinion polls. This is very deliberate.

For example, Perot was a very unsettling influence in 1992, so when Perot ran in 1996, they simply refused to invite him, no matter what. When the Republicans and the Democrats join forces to play hardball, even a billionaire gets elbowed out.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 18, 2000.


That aside..can someone provide a link for last nites debate transcript...its for my sons homework assignment...thanking in advance

-- justa wondering (if links are us is still @rou.nd), October 18, 2000.


I wonder if it was out of the question that the 3rd party candidates hold their own debate(s)? And if done would the networks have been disposed to show them? Surely positive ratings would jostle the Dems and Repubs.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 18, 2000.

Final Debate Transcript

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 18, 2000.

Thanks very much..hope you can forgive my laziness

-- justa ponderin (thanking hmmm for tr@nscript.link), October 18, 2000.

I disagree, Ken, and I'll tell ya why. [I stole that line from Al Gore.]

I'm a political junkie. I've read everything there is to read about ALL the candidates since they decided to run, and have watched all three debates. I CONTINUE to read everything there is to read about the candidates. I don't think I'm representative of America in this regard. For ME, most of the debate material was simply repetition of scripted stump speeches. You'd be amazed, however, at how many people never heard those speeches. You may be even MORE amazed at how many Americans want to SEE candidates meet together to compare their styles, hairdos, voices, mannerisms, size, etc.

Regarding the third-party candidates being included, Brian has already covered that. Do I think Bush or Gore represent our best and brightest? No. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one, either.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.


Dog, agreed.

CD, no. The format and rules are really just the icing on the proverbial cake. The two major political parties have worked to exclude any substantive discussion. This has been rather easy because the vast majority of Americans don't mind. Why? This is the best entertained, worst informed country on the planet. Most Americans just don't care about politics. People are far more interested in Brittany Spears than the dull details of Chinese military ambitions in Southeast Asia.

The level of political rhetoric is horrific. A bright sixth-grader could dissect the political "thoughts" of the two major candidates. The third party candidates would have a field day.

With all due respect, Anita, a two-candidate fashion show falls well short of a presidential "debate." Here's a thought... let the "E" channel carry the next series.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 18, 2000.



Ken:

I agree with most of what you say but not this:

let the "E" channel carry the next series.

I propose that it be called "Who wants to be President" and be hosted by Regis.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 18, 2000.


I watched the first debate with much anticipation, the last two for entertainment and sport only. I was not disappointed, I got to see:

Debate 1: Jim Leher loose total control of the program to Al "I'm in charge here" Gore.

Debate 2: A decent discussion around a table with Jim Leher, GW Bush, and Robot Al Gore with a different, more friendly operating system.

Debate 3: GW Bush 1 (silence, stumble, bumble) and his twin, GW Bush 2 (actually listened to questions and answered them). Was also amusing to see how Al would get to interrogate GW directly in this format- amazingly, he managed to do it. Leher needs a gun if he moderates future debates....is it politically incorrect to say that;)

-- FactFinder (David@bzn.com), October 18, 2000.


I watched the first debate with much anticipation, the last two for entertainment and sport only. I was not disappointed, I got to see:

Debate 1: Jim Leher loose total control of the program to Al "I'm in charge here" Gore.

Debate 2: A decent discussion around a table with Jim Leher, GW Bush, and Robot Al Gore with a different, more friendly operating system.

Debate 3: GW Bush 1 (silence, stumble, bumble) and his twin, GW Bush 2 (actually listened to questions and answered them). Was also amusing to see how Al would get to interrogate GW directly in this format- amazingly, he managed to do it. Leher needs a gun if he moderates future debates....woops- its politically incorrect to say that;) Entertaining.

-- FactFinder (David@bzn.com), October 18, 2000.


I disagree with you Ken. You're like CPR, everything in life seems somehow related to Y2K.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Shrub pout and frown after Gore used him to mop up the floor.

-- (never.did@like.crybabies), October 18, 2000.


I guess I'm missing your point, Ken. Which "alternative" voices would YOU include in the debates, if YOU had your dithers?

Here's a list of the "major" parties running candidates this year. There are others, but they're not major.

Democratic

Republican

Natural Law

Libertarian

Reform

Green

Constitution

DFL??? [Minnesota - Mark Dayton]

Independence [Minnesota again - James Gibson]

Minority

Notice that the Socialist Party and Communist Party aren't included in the above list, because they're not MAJOR parties.

Which one(s) would YOU include, and which ones would YOU exclude, and on what criteria?

These parties all have someone running for the senate

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 18, 2000.



I think Ken supports the DFL Party. It stands for Dumb Fucking Luck. Because of supporters like Ken, the odds of this party winning the presidency are about as good as the odds that Adolph Hitler's corpse will be cloned and elected president. In fact they are so desperate for a candidate, that they have already attempted to do just that.

-- lol (ken@has.better.ideas), October 19, 2000.

I counted 12 parties that Anita mentioned,that's all???!!! To hear everybody tell it I thought there must have been 40 or 50! You mean to tell me a system can't be devised for the American public to be able to make an informed decision on 12 measley candidates,there are more difficult decisions made every day and night by people who are deciding what movie to watch,and those are the easy ones.

We have the most elaborate communication systems in the world,regular TV,cable TV,satelite TV,radio and the internet and virtually all there is room for are TWO candidates!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!

YEA! two self important,arrogant,blue blooded,ivy league elitest that are too chickenshit to face competition that they dismiss as out of the normal fray.COWARDS!!!!!

You mean to tell me,that over the course of a year we could not pick the best 3 out of 12 or more? Of course we can't,if everybody else is tied and gagged in the back room.A truly informed decision CANNOT be made without ALL the facts.

The truth is,the power brokers in this country want to keep us all as much in the dark as possible while they spend our money and pervert the laws into their and their big shot friends favors,lining their pockets with our sweat and toil.The hell of it is we give them a friggin' blessing and a pay raise to do it.

They can't handle the truth and neither can the majority of the American public,justa bunch of suckers who must love hearing the same line of shit election after election.We as a country have begun to feed on ourselves,for as long as we can survive by begging from the federal dole and accept our meager portions we MUST be happy.If they are taking/taxing someone else THAT must be allright,it's for the good of the country......until it's your turn to ante up.

Rant off.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 19, 2000.


"Never," Y2K was an example of how poorly many people think. As you aptly prove, the presidential debates are another example.

Anita,

It should not be terribly difficult to establish a "bar" for debate participation. And, no, I don't think it makes any sense to include "everyone." Unk Deedah could form a political party with three friends and demand a place on the national stage. This is silly. We could use one percent of the popular vote during the last election, a party having presidential candidates on the ballot in x number of states, etc. Hey, let's just have someone other than the two major parties establish the criteria.

"lol," I have no idea what "this party" means or who "they" are. Humor works better when people can understand what you are trying to say.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 19, 2000.


That is silly, I agree. I would need at least five friends before I demanded time at the podium.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 19, 2000.

There IS a bar, Ken.. Commission on Presidential Debates

Capn: It seems as though I missed a LOT of potential candidates.

"In the last two elections, there were over one hundred declared candidates for the Presidency, excluding those seeking the nomination of one of the major parties."

While some of the candidates HAVE been able to capture a small percentage of the national vote in polls, those same candidates haven't been able to capture ANY of the electoral college votes [at least not since I've been following the electoral college projections.] Orvetti Projections

There IS at least one group that's petitioning the commission to open up the debates, but even here it is stated "to allow all parties that are mathematically eligible to win the Electoral College in to the Debates." Petition to Open Up the Debates

Remember the debates with Perot in 1992? He met the criteria established that election year, but fell short of the criteria the next election year and wasn't allowed in the debates. He got pretty angry at that. In fact, he sued the CPD. The Natural Law party and the Green Party ALSO sued in 1996.

David Bergland [of the Libertarian Party] has suggested 5% be used instead of the 15% currently set, but even then, the polls I've seen haven't had any third party candidate exceed 4% after September. David Bergland

I'd like to see the League of Women Voters establish the criteria again, but even with that, SOMEONE is going to complain because THEIR candidate fell under the bar.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.


Anita,

Yes, I know there is a bar. It's how the bar is set that I dislike. If you'll notice, I suggested one percent of the popular vote as a possible measure. As for your last point, there will always be a disgruntled minority who feels excluded... no matter where the bar is set. This is a red herring. The real issue is that legitimate alternative political parties are actively denied meaningful participation on several levels including campaign finance. This process is spearheaded by the two major political parties... the republicans and democrats.

The two major parties encourage the dumbing down of American politics. They do not want their candidates or their tissue-thin public policies to be exposed. The real shame is that the American people seem content to allow this to happen.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 19, 2000.


If this kind of exclusion happened in any other segment of society someone would be screaming bloody discrimination or the like and some vote minded politician would be there to champion their cause.

To think the two major parties have anything besides their own continued existence at heart is foolish,wasn't it them that set up the Commission of Presidential Debates? They have NO intention of undermining their powerbase as they are passionate about nothing except the perpetuation of their own status.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 19, 2000.


Capn:

This subject HAS BEEN, and still continues to be discussed by politicians. In fact, a bill was proposed that any candidate who accepted federal funding for a campaign was REQUIRED to engage in debates. Then, the debate began on how it was unconstitutional to FORCE a candidate to engage, etc. Candidates can't even agree on dates and formats.

Anyway, I thought you might be interested to know that the Judicial Watch debate is tomorrow [during prime time] at the Reagan Building in D.C. I would assume SOME channel would pick it up, but I don't have a T.V. guide. Bush never agreed to attend this one, and here's the latest news on it: "Gore, Nader, and Buchanan have all pulled out of Friday's Judicial Watch debate, leaving just Browne, Hagelin, and Phillips slated to appear."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.


Anita,

Thanks for the update,I had not heard that 3 of them had pulled out.It seems like they would want all the airtime they could get,guess not.Well,it's still a chance for people to see and hear the other voices in the election process.I'll be there to listen to Harry and Phillips comes out with some pretty good ones himself.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 19, 2000.


Kind of funny, a debate on debates. I agree with you Ken, Of course, the debates are nonevents for a reason. The American people reward the candidate who is the least offensive and does the best job of shoveling platitudes. The average voter doesn't want to hear about hard choices, about limited resources, about sacrifice.

But actually this describes the total election process not just the debates. I think you alluded to a point I'd like to bring up, finance. We can discuss the rules surrounding debates (personally I think Unk should be able to debate when his party is only three strong) but who gets to run depends on who has the money.

Fact is, if a person (any person smart, incompetent, or all-round good guy) has the bucks, time and energy, that person can influence the outcome of the election. Perot didn't have a snowball's chance of winning, yet he spent time and money in running and changed the outcome considerably. IMO, he didn't want to expend his personal funds during his next bid for the presidency and he couldn't raise enough from the supporters. I guess this is similar to "it takes money to make money". A candidate needs money to campaign to raise money from supporters to continue to campaign.

Who's entitled to the campaign dollars of a party? It seems Hillary thinks she entitled to the Dems dollars. Actually I don't know the rules on who gets what. But from my seat it doesn't look very fair. Until that changes, we won't see much change in the election process and these subsequent debates.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 19, 2000.


You know, there ARE advantages to a two-party system that shouldn't be discarded lightly. How stable are those countries where a presidential winner gets only 20-some-odd percent of the popular vote? Besides, just think how long the damned debates would run with seven or eight participants...

The real (to me) questions are: How did the current political process cough up THESE two hairballs? Is it just an unhappy coincidence, or can we look forward to more of these lowest common denominator candidates in the future? And do we, as a whole, deserve any better?

Cynically yours,

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 19, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ