Do the debates matter?

[dgs49]

My thoughts:

This was not - and could not be - a "debate." At best it's an opportunity for each candidate to articulate his program and plans, and maybe to criticize the other one.

Criticism based on "lack of specifics" is dishonest. Both candidates have detailed programs on their web pages, and anyone with more than a mild bit of interest can look them up. There is no way that a "health care plan" or a "tax plan" can be articulated coherently in a two-minute period.

Both of them failed to take advantage of golden opportunities to nail the other one. I have to think this was more-or-less intentional, but I don't understand it.

I've had it up to here is the two of them citing unknown (and probably made-up) "studies" that prove one thing or another. Even if they weren't made up on the spot, anyone with an ounce of brains knows that partisan groups produce studies all the time that "prove" things that are patently ridiculous.

One can only hope that the "undecided's" were watching, but to remain undecided at this point...you gotta be an idiot. So what those mental lightweights would take away from this, who knows?

[Gob]

What was the point of the moderator in this alleged debate? He did fuck all. Timekeeper would be a better term for him, but he didn't even do that very well.

[dgs49]

To get personal for a moment, I have heard it said that one of Barry's traits is that he always seems to presume that he is the "smartest person in the room." No one can say, of course, whether this is actually the way he feels, but it is the impression he gives off.

His demeanor last night was of someone who is rather put out by having to go through the indignity of this particular exercise. One might say, he looked "off his game," but more accurately he looked like he didn't think he should have to participate, given his proven superiority and all.

I sometimes have the same feeling when going into job interviews. I'm so damned qualified that I'm resentful of having to "prove" it. I have to force myself to recognize that the person on the other side of the table has no way of knowing how wonderful I am, other than my performance in the interview.

[Lord Jim]

I completely disagree with the criticism of Jim Leher in this....(and the way some of the Obama supporters have tried to shift some of the blame for their guy's lousy performance to him)

There have been many different kinds of formats for these debates experimented with over the years, and this was frankly far and away one of the best.

This debate format was designed to have very minimal participation by the moderator, and to allow maximum participation and interchange between the participants. Each segment only involved a single question, (important questions by the way) with a structured two minute comment from each participant. the rest of each segment was supposed to be more or less a free discussion between the candidates.

This was well known to both sides in advance. Romney took huge advantage of his opportunities within this framework, and Obama frankly pissed his away.

BTW, the Obama people can't complain that Romney monopolized the discussion. In fact Obama as it turned out, actually had four minutes total more of speaking time then Romney. When this fact was announced during the post debate analysis I was watching, the folks on the round table left right and center on CNN were all surprised....as was I... but the fact is Obama actually got more speaking time then Romney; he just used it so poorly that it didn't seem that way.

I think this kind of format is a vast improvement over the moderator heavy, "you've got 2 minutes, you've got one minute for rebuttal, okay here's 30 seconds for you to respond" enforced with buzzers crap that has been used so much in the past. The American people get so little time to observe their Presidential contenders interacting in a prolonged, non-sound bite format, that it's appropriate that the time available be taken up primarily by the candidates. Nobody watches these debates to see the moderators....

And this format did not create a cross talking free-for-all; in fact this was probably one of the most civil and polite debates I've seen....

What happened last night puts a lot of pressure on Biden in next week's VP debate to really do his pit bull number and try to make all of the points that Obama neglected to make. I expect there won't be one piece of scenery on the stage left unchewed after Biden is done...

But he won't have anywhere near the audience that was tuned in last night. (about 60 million).

Two weeks from now, when Obama and Romney meet again, it's going to be very tough for Obama to make up for last night, because it's a Town Hall format. It's very difficult and awkward to come out swinging against your opponent when you have to be interacting with some average Joe and Jane Blows in the process...

And then the final debate is going to focus on foreign policy, and no matter how strong a performance Obama turns in with that one, it's value will be marginal, because this is a domestic issues election. (Unless Romney comes across as completely ignorant on the subject, and given the preparation he showed last night, if the Obama people are counting on that happening they're smoking the good stuff.)

Romney stopped the bleeding and got back in the race last night. He actually came across like somebody who could be President. My guess is we'll see most of Obama's gains over the past month wiped out and that we'll be back to the neck and neck situation we were at prior to that , as a lot of the undecided that weren't crazy about Obama but were shifting towards him give Romney another hearing...

The question is whether or not Romney can build on last night, or if he just goes back to stumbling around....

He'll get another assist tomorrow, when the September jobs numbers come out....

[Gob]

In fact Obama as it turned out, actually had four minutes total more of speaking time then Romney.

All those ...."ermmm...umm...ah...errrmmm".... took up a lot of time , obviously.

I'd love to see these guys interviewed by a real interviewer.



Paxman would make mince of them.

[Gob]

"If Romney keeps this up...Obama is going to vote for him!"

[Andrew D]

Lehrer did a demonstrably piss-poor job in at least three ways.

First, his management of the time was so bad that although the debate was supposed to have six segments, it never got to the sixth segment at all. Whatever else one might think of his performance, it is surely a core duty of a moderator to ensure that the debate at least reaches all of the topics which have been agreed to.

Second, he let Romney steamroll him. For examples:

MR. ROMNEY: Let's get back to Medicare.

MR. LEHRER: No, no, no, no --

MR. ROMNEY: The president said that the government can provide the service at lower --

MR. LEHRER: No.

MR. ROMNEY: -- cost and without a profit.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

"All right"? That was Lehrer's response when a candidate insisted on doing something which Lehrer had just said "no" to? Lehrer completely caved.

MR. LEHRER: All right, we're going to move to a --

MR. ROMNEY: No, I -- I have to respond to that --

MR. LEHRER: No, but --

MR. ROMNEY: -- which is -- which is my experience as a governor ....

And then Romney spoke for four paragraphs without the slightest interruption from Lehrer. Again, Lehrer completely caved.

Third, he did not require the candidates even to purport to answer the questions that he asked. For example, he asked Romney:

Governor Romney, do you have a question that you'd like to ask the president directly about something he just said?

What followed was a nine-paragraph soliloquy by Romney which did not contain anything even masquerading as a question for Obama. And Lehrer never interrupted. He never said "Excuse me, Governor Romney, but I asked you whether you have a question for President Obama about something he just said. Do you?" Yet again, Lehrer completely caved.

All in all, an even more dismal performance by Lehrer than by Obama. Which is pretty damn bad.

[Crackpot]

oldr I wasn't talking about the debate. I gave up after an hour because IO simply don't like yelling at the TV non-stop. the simple fact is Romney is long on promises short on substance.

[Crackpot]

Lehrer Did a Piss poor job managing the debate. You need to have some presence to put your foot down and control the debate. He didn't.

[Lord Jim]

And yet for all this "caving", Obama still wound up with four minutes more speaking time than Romney....

Why didn't he use it better?

Lehrer also "caved" to Obama on at least one occasion when after he interupted Obama, and Obama told him he had five seconds left, he went on for at least 30...Lehrer didn't say anything about that either...

As for the last two topics; one was "the role of government" and the other was "governing"; both of which were covered extensively...

What I believe Lehrer did, (who has more experience moderating Presidential debates than anyone else in American history) is to draw on his considerable journalistic experience to determine whether or not the discourse was a worthwhile and an engaging one for the viewers/voters, and decided that was more important than following the precise rules.

I believe he made the right call. As these debates go, it was one of the most policy-oriented and civil ones I've seen. It is certainly not Lehrer's fault that Obama didn't use the time he had available to him more effectively.

[Andrew D]

Adverting to the opening posting: "Do the debates matter?" Evidently (and, given Obama's poor performance, blessedly) not:

--> 1976: Pre-debate polling showed Carter ahead, and Carter won.

--> 1980: Pre-debate polling showed Reagan ahead, and Reagan won.

--> 1984: Pre-debate polling showed Reagan ahead, and Reagan won.

--> 1988: Pre-debate polling showed Bush ahead, and Bush won.

--> 1992: Pre-debate polling showed Clinton ahead, and Clinton won.

--> 1996: Pre-debate polling showed Clinto ahead, and Clinton won.

--> 2000: Pre-debate polling showed Gore ahead, and Gore won the popular vote.
(Shrub was, of course, appointed to the presidency, but that had nothing to do with the debates.)

--> 2004: Pre-debate polling showed Shrub ahead, and Shrub won.

--> 2008: Pre-debate polling showed Obama ahead, and Obama won.

At least since 1976, presidential debates have not changed the outcome of the elections. They may have changed the margins by which candidates won, but the candidate who was ahead in pre-debate polling always got more votes, regardless of the results of the debates.

[Andrew D]

Lehrer also "caved" to Obama on at least one occasion when after he interupted Obama, and Obama told him he had five seconds left, he went on for at least 30...Lehrer didn't say anything about that either...

True. So Lehrer caved on a bipartisan basis.

As for the last two topics; one was "the role of government" and the other was "governing"; both of which were covered extensively...

So why did the Commission on Presidential Debates make them two separate topics?

How was governing, as distinct from the role of government, "covered extensively"?

What I believe Lehrer did, (who has more experience moderating Presidential debates than anyone else in American history) is to draw on his considerable journalistic experience to determine whether or not the discourse was a worthwhile and an engaging one for the viewers/voters, and decided that was more important than following the precise rules.

Lehrer drew on his considerable journalistic experience and his considerable experience moderating presidential debates to tell Romney "No, no, no, no". Unfortunately for all of us, he did nothing to make "No, no, no, no" stick.

I am not blaming Lehrer for Obama's poor performance.

But the whole thing reminded me of the Serena Willams v. Karolina Sprem match at the 2004 Wimbledon championships. A core duty of the umpire is to keep score correctly. Whether or not the error affected Williams's performance -- and I recall her saying that the outcome of the match did not hinge on the error -- it was still an inexcusable screwup by the umpire.

Same here:

--> Allowing the debate to come to its conclusion without ever having got to one of the topics which the candidates had agreed upon was an inexcusable screwup.

--> Allowing a candidate to continue speaking on a subject after Lehrer had said "no" to the candidate's desire to continue speaking on that subject -- which happened at least twice -- was an inexcusable screwup.

--> Allowing a candidate to go on at leangth without even pretending to answer the question which Lehrer had just asked him was an inexcusable screwup.

Obama's performance in this debate was abysmal. And that is not Lehrer's fault.

But Lehrer's performance in this debate was also abysmal. And that is Lehrer's fault.

[Econoline]

Top 7 lies in the debate. There were more, but these are the top 7. http://www.care2.com/causes/top-7-lies- ... tml?page=1

27 myths in 38 minutes: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... 8-minutes/

Mitt Romney: “Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I will believe it.”

Gee, Mitt, ever wonder which member of the family they learned that from?

(No fair blaming Ann!)

[Econoline]

Also...this here clearly shows someone who believes that rules only apply to other people, not him.

The rule: "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things
may be brought into the debate by any candidate."
Mitt's response:

[dgs49]

Econoline, do you take that bullshit seriously?

Do you think for one moment that the same sort of balderdash could not be produced in connection with Barry's pronouncements?

Did it bother you when Barry and Progressives promised us that if their stimulus was passed it would "create or save" millions of jobs. This is the sort of lie that is told by someone who lacks the balls to say anything than can be quantified. Kinda like "hope & change."

Seriously, do you take the "criticisms" you linked seriously?

[Rick]

I heard Big Bird made a good showing.

Prolly where my vote will go...

[Long Run]

With respect to the "5 trillion dollar tax cut", Robert Samuelson's column this morning notes this has always been a contrived number by Obama?

It's a powerful argument, marred only by the fact that the $5 trillion tax cut is a fiction.

Let's see how this happened.

* * *

To justify its $5 trillion figure -- the estimated tax loss over a decade -- the Obama campaign had to cherry-pick Romney's proposal and the TPC analysis. It had to ignore any revenue raised by reducing tax breaks and assume that, faced with a conflict between the rich and the middle class, Romney would automatically side with the rich -- as opposed to shielding the middle class from any tax increase. On Wednesday, Romney promised to protect the middle class.

The TPC report was widely interpreted as saying Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class. It didn't, says the TPC's Howard Gleckman. It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new?

Politicians exaggerate and simplify. They make more promises than can be kept. They take inconsistent positions. Romney is guilty of this, but so is Obama. Obama says he favors tax reform but would also raise the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. That's the opposite of what most economists consider reform: cutting rates and broadening the tax base. Similarly, Obama has said he would maintain a strong military while rapidly reducing defense spending.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What debates?

[RayThom]

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/ ... he-debate/

It sure looks like someone had a unfair advantage. Oh, well, cheaters never win... especially on November 6th.

[Lord Jim]

Actually Ray, it was none other than the lefty TV host Rachel Maddow, who debunked this theory, on her show this evening....

It was a handkerchief...Maddow showed the video of Romney picking it up later in the debate to daub on his lip to prove it....