10 Reasons Political Debates are Bunk

[Jac Coyne]

I've thought about this a lot. Why does it matter who's asking the question? What if the same exact question was asked by a citizen Joe off the street? What if they placed his name and affiliation at the bottom of the screen when asking the question? Could you imagine the questions if the candidates were continually allowed to ask each other questions?

It's a Republican debate, and as such one would think if the questions were from "undecided Republican voters" they would actually ask questions that would help differentiate the candidates about pertinent issues.

I don't even care that Hillary tried to sabotage the debate. I expect this kind of desperation. I'm more annoyed that when her braintrust was given the opportunity by CNN they couldn't come up with something I can use. Gays in the military? The punishment if abortion was made illegal? Seriously? Did they mistakenly grab the 1996 Clinton talking points sheet?

Not a question on terrorism? Education? Healthcare? Perhaps another pointed question on immigration, deficit reduction or the China Question?

Honestly, if you really wonder why it matters who asks the question, perhaps you can clarify why the Democrats (except for Statesman Kucinich) refuse to participate in a FoxNews debate. And, please, don't say that FN is partisan because, as Fred Thompson would say, that dog won't hunt.

[Rob Graff]

Concerning Rob's variables:
First, who do the Dems nominate?
-- I think it's a two-horse race (Edwards is a pretender). Although I think all of them are fatally flawed in a general election.
I don't - I think that it's a legitimate 3 horse race in Iowa, and that Edwards can win the nomination if he wins in Iowa and generates the resultant momentum. If Edwards doesn't win in Iowa, I'll agree that he's not a legitimate threat.


Second, is there a noticible change in the standard of living for the average american. Spoke with a retailer yesterday - Macy's internal marketing survery notes that the 2007 holiday consumer is using CASH, and that once that's gone - it's gone. They've interpreted it as meaning that people are NOT confident about future growth in income and do not have any more Home equity to tap.
-- Eh, I'm not sure if those dots connect.
I was brief - let me be clearer - I think that many average Americans are really limiting what they spend on Holidays. And the reason why is because they are very concerned about the "new economy" and their long term financial health. Thus the reference to the Macy's information as an indicator of long term finanical confidence - if i'm using cash, I'm using a budget, and like it or not, when post-depression Americans use budgets, they are concerned about their future finances. I don't see the future economic viability of the middle class as a Republican value- and if that is accurate and can be made a legitimate campaign issue, Dems will benefit.

Third, Energy Price Spike- this is a required fixed cost - who will be blamed if prices continue to escalate?
-- This type of issue will always be blamed on the party in office, but I'm not sure how many people will base their vote on this.
I'm not either - but there are some who view the relationship between energy interests and the VP as troubling. And yearly profit statements from the Oil companies will be astonishingly large is my guess...But again, while an issue, I'm doubtful it's a major issue.

Fourth, Illegal Alien debate - noone is quite sure what side will get them the most votes.....
This is the big one and will ultimately determine the Rep. nominee.
Interesting - I didn't see it that way. Why will this determine the nominee? GWB has courted the hispanic vote for years - a reversal on this issue could drive en-masse that demographic to the Democrats. But will that mean anything in this election as opposed to future elections?

Fifth, The Iraq War - stabilized? Not? Can the Republican candidate turn this to his advantage? Can the Democrat use it to his/her advantage given prior statements/votes?
-- Yup, the next six months are key. If Al Qaeda/insurgents implement a comprehensive Tet-style offensive in Iraq illustrating instability, it would be a huge blow to the Reps. If improvements continue, I think it would be a push.

I think we agree - and honestly, I would not be surprised if there was a lessening of violence, because from what I read, the Shia and Sunni communities have effectively segregated themselves and that's played a large part in the lessening of violence.

Sixth, the unexpected event - Terror attack? Scandal?
-- Romney appears to be airtight in regards to scandal while Guiliani has holes. Romney's LDS affiliation will scare some people.
Agreed on all points. HC will always polarize some, and BO is an admitted drug user. All the Candidates have some non-policy related negatives. I think that the interesting thought experiment is what happens if a significant terrorist attack (either domestic or foreign generated) takes place in the next 12 months. Does it invalidate the "fight them over their so we don't fight them here" rhetoric? Does it eliminate BO due to his non-war position deeming him weak on Terror? This is a true wild card.


Seventh, Iran - if the current administration does take an aggressive step (bombing etc), I cannot see a Republican candidate winning.
-- If Iran is attacked, it will be by Israel, not the U.S. How it proliferates from there (reaction by Russia, Syria, etc.) will likely make the '08 election the least of our worries.
I don't think Israel attacks given the current Peace negotiations. They've too much to lose - such an attack during GWB sponsored Peace Talks would be a massive slap in the face to a President that has supported Israel. If there is an attack - [color=red]which I do not think will happen[/color] - I think it's the current administration who initiates it. And I'm really hopeful it doesn't happen for the reason you note.

Eighth - if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate - from whom will he take the most votes?
-- I've thought about this, along with the possible Bloomberg run as an independent. Any Rep who would vote for Paul will vote Dem if he's not on any ticket, so I'm not sure if it will make a difference. I think Bloomberg would hurt the Dems, but not to the Nader/Perot level.
Bloomberg doesn't run, he's not done the nationwide campaign infrastructure to make a run. And he's many things, but not stupid. I do think he thought about it. though [/b]

[Jac Coyne]

Rob,

Good stuff. Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I enjoy the line-item debate. Makes for a more succinct discourse. I'm nearing deadline and this is a nice distraction.

For those coming in mid-debate, I'm leaving Rob's responses in bold. Backtrack for full text.

I don't - I think that it's a legitimate 3 horse race in Iowa, and that Edwards can win the nomination if he wins in Iowa and generates the resultant momentum. If Edwards doesn't win in Iowa, I'll agree that he's not a legitimate threat.

Interesting. Even B. Clinton trended toward the middle (a philosophy that Hillary is seemingly trying to adopt) and Edwards is way out to the left to be a serious threat. Gore and Kerry were centrist candidates and I would be surprised if the DNC veered from that.

I was brief - let me be clearer - I think that many average Americans are really limiting what they spend on Holidays. And the reason why is because they are very concerned about the "new economy" and their long term financial health. Thus the reference to the Macy's information as an indicator of long term finanical confidence - if i'm using cash, I'm using a budget, and like it or not, when post-depression Americans use budgets, they are concerned about their future finances. I don't see the future economic viability of the middle class as a Republican value- and if that is accurate and can be made a legitimate campaign issue, Dems will benefit.

I'm not current on the "new economy" theory, but if Americans stop extending themselves past their means I think it would benefit all. You sound like you're using the term "budget" like a four-letter word. I would argue most middle-class Americans are ticked that the twits who were "tricked" by mortgage companies are just trying to work the system.

I'm not either - but there are some who view the relationship between energy interests and the VP as troubling. And yearly profit statements from the Oil companies will be astonishingly large is my guess...But again, while an issue, I'm doubtful it's a major issue.

I realize Dick Cheney is a lightning rod (which is odd, considering the VP hasn't been a power player for the last 200 years, but is now a co-face of the current administration). Despite Democratic hopes, this is a non-issue.

Interesting - I didn't see it that way. Why will this determine the nominee? GWB has courted the hispanic vote for years - a reversal on this issue could drive en-masse that demographic to the Democrats. But will that mean anything in this election as opposed to future elections?

I'm somewhat stunned you didn't see it this way. This issue has created the biggest chasm between Bush and traditional Reps. I voted for Bush twice and he blew this one. He will be vindicated in Iraq, but this could tarnish his legacy. If the next president is a Rep, it will be based on this issue. Immigration directly impacts education and health care, and is the primary issue that will sweep Middle America for the Reps. (Again.)

I think we agree - and honestly, I would not be surprised if there was a lessening of violence, because from what I read, the Shia and Sunni communities have effectively segregated themselves and that's played a large part in the lessening of violence.

They've segregated themselves? C'mon. Give credit where credit is due.

Agreed on all points. HC will always polarize some, and BO is an admitted drug user. All the Candidates have some non-policy related negatives. I think that the interesting thought experiment is what happens if a significant terrorist attack (either domestic or foreign generated) takes place in the next 12 months. Does it invalidate the "fight them over their so we don't fight them here" rhetoric? Does it eliminate BO due to his non-war position deeming him weak on Terror? This is a true wild card.

Obama is the only Dem who has a chance. The drug thing is an non-issue. Most Americans appreciate candor. Also, terrorism overseas doesn't resonate. We've seen that since the '80s. Terrorist attack in America seals it for the Reps. And anyone who thinks we "caused" a terrorist attack with our foreign policy is out of touch with the critical demographic.

I don't think Israel attacks given the current Peace negotiations. They've too much to lose - such an attack during GWB sponsored Peace Talks would be a massive slap in the face to a President that has supported Israel. If there is an attack - which I do not think will happen - I think it's the current administration who initiates it. And I'm really hopeful it doesn't happen for the reason you note.

I think the Israelis believe this recent round of talks is as fruitless as the previous ones and, historically speaking, why wouldn't they? If they have intelligence the Iranians are nuclear capable, the planes will be in the air. They view the Palestinian issue connected with Iran. The Six Day war demonstrates the Israelis are not reactionary. They take the initiative, and honestly they can't afford not to. And that's the peril.

Bloomberg doesn't run, he's not done the nationwide campaign infrastructure to make a run. And he's many things, but not stupid. I do think he thought about it. though

Never underestimate the hubris of wealth.

Unfortunately, I can't speak from the first person...

[sohotrightnow]

And, please, don't say that FN is partisan because, as Fred Thompson would say, that dog won't hunt.

Fox News is partisan. CNN is just the lesser of two evils.

[Zeuslax]

I don't even care that Hillary tried to sabotage the debate. I expect this kind of desperation.

Are you suggesting that she had the video submitted and then had CNN select the question for her? Come on.

Questions not answers dominate the debate? I for one am not looking forward to another Youtube debate. They spent way too much time asking questions (to both sides) that didn't get at the heart of American concerns and were demeaning to all of the candidates.

It's a Republican debate, and as such one would think if the questions were from "undecided Republican voters" they would actually ask questions that would help differentiate the candidates about pertinent issues.

I think I see your point. During a primary only Reps can ask questions of Reps? What about independants? Reb issues only affect other Rebs and Dem issues only affect other Dems.........got it.

[Beta]

The YouTube questioning process was very cool, YouTube did a fantastic job with the accessibility.

Although on a nerdery-level...(at least on my browser) you couldn't have another browser maximized while playing the YouTube debates. Meaning I couldn't listen and work...I had to listen/watch while working.

[Zeuslax]

Let me clarify my comment about the use of Youtube in the debates. I thought it was great idea initially and think it still could be. I just thought that the opinion of "cheesy" had trickled in. There’s this air of insight with the sophistication of "Youtubers" that had to be supposedly dumbed down or jazzed up to show the creativity of the arrangement.

[StrykerFSU]

I think I see your point. During a primary only Reps can ask questions of Reps? What about independants? Reb issues only affect other Rebs and Dem issues only affect other Dems.........got it.

It's the misrepresentation of the questioners that's the issue. Sure, a Dem can ask a question at a GOP debate, just don't call them an undecided voter. These people were not independents, they aren't even undecided Democrat voters for crying out loud. They are all affiliated/declared with some candidate or cause. To name a few:

Reports flew on the Internet that at least nine of the 34 questions posed via YouTube videos — on topics ranging from corn subsidies to Social Security reform — came from voters who have ties to Democrats or a vested interest in asking the Republicans to go on record.

On the personal Web page of David McMillan of Los Angeles, who asked the candidates why many black voters choose Democrats over Republicans, are many political videos, including one with a Politico.com video blogger asking which presidential candidate was most "gangsta." In the video, he called Sen. John McCain of Arizona "Insane McCain." There are also photos of him attending a fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and laudatory videos of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, both Democrats.

Adam Florzak, who asked about Social Security, has an entire Web site devoted to the subject (www.pactamerica.com) and a 2005 article describes him as "hell-bent on reforming Social Security and the pension system" and working with someone from Democratic Whip Sen. Richard J. Durbin's staff.

David Cercone asked why "Log Cabin Republicans [should] support" the candidates, leaving the impression that he is a member of the group. But bloggers uncovered an online profile in which he endorses Mr. Obama and praises him as "a leader who inspires me with his sincerity."

Ted Faturos of Manhattan Beach, Calif., asked the candidates about their support for farm subsidies, taking a bite from an ear of corn to punctuate his point. Bloggers pretty quickly determined he once worked for Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat.

Questioner LeeAnn Anderson asked the candidates about lead paint in toys while holding her children. It was widely noted yesterday that Mrs. Anderson is an assistant to Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America. The union has endorsed former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Another questioner who asked about abortion reacted on her YouTube page while wearing an Edwards T-shirt.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/111300093/1001&template=nextpage

I'm all for actually debating the issues but let's be honest here, CNN dropped the ball and has admitted as much.

[Dan Wishengrad]

A couple responses to my new friend Jac Coyne's responses to Rob's analysis, on not all but some of the issues raised:

1) Presidential candidates usually veer right or far left during the primary campaigns, trying to capture single-issue voters on the flanks of their respective parties. This has been a time-honored tradition for both Democrats and Republicans alike for over a hundred years. After the convention you will see the nominees from both parties veer back towards the center in the hopes of capturing moderates and independents. Edwards does indeed sound much more liberal in 2007 than he did in the summer of 2004 -- good point Jac. But Romney has veered even farther right than JE has gone left. Mitt wants everyone to believe he is Pat Buchanan right now, and he bears almost no resemblance to that other guy who once served as Governor of Massachusetts. Of course after Iowa has conducted its caucuses ME will veer instantly left towards the middle to play to his neighbors from New Hampshire, and then make another sharp right turn again before South Carolina votes. He's the 5-disc CD changer of a candidate.

2) Of course you may hope that Cheney is a non-issue in this Presidential campaign. I would too if I was on your side. Quick question, though -- if a Democratic Prez or VP had intentionally leaked the identity of a covert CIA intelligence officer and blown that spy's cover, wouldn't you be calling this act what it was -- TREASON? Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has just admitted that his public pronouncements that nobody in the White House was involved was not simply true, that he himself was lied to and that the Vice President (and possibly W. himself) was definitely involved. This will be a HUGE issue in the general election.

3) Immigration may be a hot topic and issue now, as the other GOP "wedge issues" like flag burning and gay marriage have been in the past. But it's an issue that isn't going to be paramount in the General election, it will be far less significant than the war and the economy. It's also a tough issue for both sides, and neither the Dems or the GOP can completely capture the high ground here.

4) The temporary success of the surge at lessening violence is real but is also unsustainable, even for only twelve more months. Iraq is no great success for the GOP and and for GWB -- it remains a tragic, multi-trillion dollar mistake. We can agree to disagree on this Jac, but this is the issue (more than any other) that will drive the election, and for once the GOP is on the wrong side from the vast majority of the American electorate. The core base of Republicans may be rallying right now behind all the pro-war GOP candidates, but the eventual nominee will have a hard time selling our "success" come next November.

5) You are certainly entitled to your opinion of Senator Clinton, and running against a Democratic nominee who has such high unfavorables may seem now like manna from heaven to you guys. But Hillary is definitely being underrated and her chances of winning are being completely dismissed by those on the right. If she wins the nomination - and I agree there is certainly some doubt now -- we will have our wager (if Mitt or Rudy is her opponent), and one of us will be proven wrong and one of us will be proven right.

I spent over a decade as an elections committee staffer for the ruling Democrats in California, and managed the Senate Office of Demographics for two years. I do have professional experience in this matter and do understand a little about how elections are won and lost in this country. The really fascinating aspect of this presidential election is the absolute fluidity of it without an incumbent P or VP on either ticket. Who knows at this point what the two major party tickets will look like? But I still like the Democratic party's chances given the political landscape, and believe your side is (in the words of Poppy Bush) "in deep doo doo".

[Zeuslax]

It's the misrepresentation of the questioners that's the issue. Sure, a Dem can ask a question at a GOP debate, just don't call them an undecided voter. These people were not independents, they aren't even undecided Democrat voters for crying out loud. They are all affiliated/declared with some candidate or cause. To name a few:

I agree that CNN had sloppy preparation, a lack of transparency and the theatrics demeaned the platform and the level of importance. The intelligence of the American people is constantly underminded and called into question. I liked when Jim Lehr handled the debates personally.

On the other hand, the talk of collusion with certain camps is crap.

[Zeuslax]

4) The temporary success of the surge at lessening violence is real but is also unsustainable, even for only twelve more months. Iraq is no great success for the GOP and and for GWB -- it remains a tragic, multi-trillion dollar mistake. We can agree to disagree on this Jac, but this is the issue (more than any other) that will drive the election, and for once the GOP is on the wrong side from the vast majority of the American electorate. The core base of Republicans may be rallying right now behind all the pro-war GOP candidates, but the eventual nominee will have a hard time selling our "success" come next November.

Is it mostly the surge or is it the Sunnis organizing for their interests, the dissection of Shia and Sunnis, and Sadr standing down his troops for six months so he can reorganize? Al Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly marginalized in areas that were deemed lost, but the surge is not attributed to this. The revenge killings haven't slowed. I just hope they hit a critical mass soon, because revenge killing can be exponential. This is at the heart of the violence right now. The Iraqi gov't still refuses to pass the 3 most important laws in it's face. The dissection of oil money has been on the table for two years. Positioning for this money is key. The US alignment at the local level (with the minority) may even cause larger problems down the line. The real issue here is the struggle with the militias and competing factions.

Of course everyone is happy violence is down and that the option of things getting better is possible. I tell you what, they couldn't get much worse a few months ago. We knew we needed more boots on the ground from day one. Let's not lose sight of the reasoning for the surge. It was to allow breathing room for the Iraqis to get something done at a national levle. Now it seems we are in a "drift" pattern, with the clock running out, so Iraq can be handed over the next guy or gal in office.

I need to get back to work so I can get something done today.

[Jac Coyne]

Dan,

A little busy today, so I won't have the ability to respond in a way worthy of a man of your prestigious political acumen, but a couple of quick thoughts.

Cheney: If he committed treason, wouldn't Pelosi and Reid be marching down Pa. Ave with torches and a crucifix?

Immigration: It will define the election on the Rep side, probably the GE.

Iraq: Why didn't this sink Bush in the last election? Things were going far worse back then.

Romney: There's no doubt he's a political animal, but Hillary will have a hard time using this since she is unwilling to take a stand on anything besides health care.

The Democratic party doesn't "get it." They could walk away with this election, but they are going to make the same mistake they've consistently made for the past 40 years.

Zueslax wrote:
"Reb issues only affect other Rebs and Dem issues only affect other Dems.........got it."

Dems don't vote in Rep primaries. Got it?

[Dan Wishengrad]

Cheney: If he committed treason, wouldn't Pelosi and Reid be marching down Pa. Ave with torches and a crucifix?

I'm getting ready to leave for work here myself, but a quick response on this one --

Maybe because the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, only indicted Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby for lying under oath. Either Mr. Fitzgerald didn't think he had enough evidence to convict Cheney and Rove, or perhaps because he didn't look hard enough or have the stomach to indict the sitting VP of his own party? Either way, the absence of an indictment doesn't absolve Cheney and Rove of guilt, only makes a conviction more problematic and difficult to acheive.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots here, to reach the logical conclusion that if Libby knew all about this act of treason (which it most certainly was!), then his boss knew full well what he was up to. Also new evidence has come out just this week -- the release of the excerpt from Scott McClellan's forthcoming book. If Mr. McClellan says that Cheney knew about and had a hand in directing this treasonous act, isn't that good enough for you? McClellan is hardly a partisan Democrat hurling accusations, after all. He was a White House insider and loyalist, and he says now he unkowingly lied to the American people.

To answer your specifc question, Jac, I sure wish that Speaker Pelosi and the other Dems in the House listened to Rep. Kucinich and had the guts to start immediate impeachment proceedings, we Amercians deserve no less and can't afford to leave the Vice President in power another year. And my question, which you never answered, still stands -- what would you and other Republicans say if it was a Democratic VP who had done this exact thing, intentionally outing an American secret operative and damaging our national interests in the process?

[sohotrightnow]

Also new evidence has come out just this week -- the release of the excerpt from Scott McClellan's forthcoming book. If Mr. McClellan says that Cheney knew about and had a hand in directing this treasonous act, isn't that good enough for you? McClellan is hardly a partisan Democrat hurling accusations, after all. He was a White House insider and loyalist, and he says now he unkowingly lied to the American people.

Bill O'Reilly said he was lying. He said all the "left-wing" news networks broke this story and accepted it as the truth. Fox News, however, took the high ground, and personally went to McClellan's house to get the scoop. O'Reilly said McClellan has a moral(????) obligation to let the people know if Cheney or Bush are liars. Well, if he admits they are liars, the right-wing won't believe him, so he can't win.

I just wish people such as McClellan would come out and say, "yes, they are liars...they told me to lie as well...I had an option of lying to the press or not, but I decided to save my job, so I went along with what they said." I can't believe it's so hard to accept that the POTUS (fire up Hail to the Chief) would lie. He is a great patriot and patriots don't lie! Despite his mandate from God, he is still a human, and like all of us, tells lies, albeit his are a bit more egregious

Show a little backbone at least McClellan! Perhaps he wants to wait for his book to come out, so is probably reluctant to reveal anything about it.

[Jac Coyne]

I think the Dems should absolutely go for impeachment. They've got nothing to lose. The congressional approval rankings are almost in single-digits as is. They can't stop the war (even Murtha thinks we're winning now) and they haven't pushed through any meaningful legislation in a year. And I'd love to see Hillary and Obama's face when they find out they have to vote on it.

The fact of the matter McClellan has already backtracked and it's a non-story. The only ones still spouting about it are the nutter, left-wing bloggers. But I do hope it is resurrected. It would be good to see Karl again. I miss him.

But I still like the Democratic party's chances given the political landscape, and believe your side is (in the words of Poppy Bush) "in deep doo doo".

Speaking of nutter blogs, c'mon, Dan, those aren't Bush's words. They came straight from your friends on the fringe.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/30/123951/49