10 Reasons Political Debates are Bunk

[Rob Graff]

[quote="Zeuslax"]
The Republican Party has been quantified as two or three fold typically. I think this is what Mr. Graff was referring to? [quote]

Yep.

I look at it as a three-footed stool. One - Defense Conservatives, One Economic conservatives and the third is the Social conservatives. When the Social conservatives joined in force, the Republicans representation in the Congress expanded dramatically. Taking one of these 'feet' away, and the stool will teeter.

McCain is a Defense Conservative, and I think passes muster by the economic group. Not the Social Group. McCain has recently said (in a contested situation where he was clearly using a bit of Hyperbole) that US troops in IRaq could be there for "100 years" so long as they weren't getting killed, and analogized to Korea and Japan.

Huckabee is the Social Group favorite, but is abhorred by the Economic and Defense conservatives. Huckabee's anti-administration stance on Iraq has been criticized by the Bush Administration.

I just don't see how those polar opposite positions on a crucial issue can be melded to form a unified ticket.

Jac, I note that you do not believe that a McCain Huckabee ticket is likely - do you mean that the two won't partner, or that Huckabee won't be a VP at all, or that McCain won't get the nomination? Or someting else?

[Zeuslax]

Anyone see Edwards' second place speech? This close to getting another Dean-like meltdown. Bubba looked medicated during Hillary's speech.

I don't want to take away from the conversation, but I had to address this comment. I watched his as I watch all of them. It was no where even close to a "melt down" or in the realm. To compare it to Dean’s speech is questionable. Why was Dean’s speech a melt-down, because of the yeti yell at the end? Watching something on TV and being there are two different things and plays two different ways. The media (the so called Liberal media) decided that they were going to make a big deal out of what? For showing 1 second of emotion at the end of a passionate speech?

I look at it as a three-footed stool. One - Defense Conservatives, One Economic conservatives and the third is the Social conservatives. When the Social conservatives joined in force, the Republicans representation in the Congress expanded dramatically. Taking one of these 'feet' away, and the stool will teeter.

Be careful you might get accused of being a crazy right winger for reading Rich Viguerie ( sp) or a crazy liberal for reading the Kos!!

I've enjoyed the conversation fella's. Have a great weekend!!

[Jac Coyne]

Jac, I note that you do not believe that a McCain Huckabee ticket is likely - do you mean that the two won't partner, or that Huckabee won't be a VP at all, or that McCain won't get the nomination? Or someting else?

Rob, Huckabee is a boob. He's successfully pandered to the religious right in Iowa, but he is hopelessly inept on foreign policy, immigration, and budgetary matters (i.e., he's a Democrat). Did you hear his theory after Bhutto was killed -- Pakistanis were the second largest illegal immigration population entering the U.S. and action needs to be taken? And he doesn't have time for the National Intelligence Estimates (right from Hillary's playbook)? In a couple of weeks Huckabee will be as toxic as Howard Dean was in '04.

I must say, it is somewhat heartening as a conservative to read the posts of cocksure Democrats who feel this one's in the bag ("Any of the top three, in any year, could beat the Republican nominee from this group.") Just remember, Bush was a lot more unpopular (by mainstream media estimates) than any of this year's Republican candidates and cruised against a Democrat who had a lot more universal appeal than any of the probable candidates this time around.

It's good to have the Dems back as a worthy foe (after 50 years), but don't get too far ahead of yourselves.

[Rob Graff]

Jac:

I don't disagree with your impression of Huckabee. But he won. I'm interested to see how that plays out... If he becomes as toxic as you indicate, then you'll be right. But if McCain/Mitt/Rudy continue to split the same Economic/Defense conservative vote, and Huckabeen continues to get most/all (?) of the SocCon vote, the Republican convention will be fascinating. And do the issues you note Huck has a problem with matter to the SocCon voter? Note = I mean no disrespect by that question - the basis one choses upon which to cast a vote is a personal choice and while I may disagree with an indivicuals choice, I'll defend their right to base their vote on any issue they deem important.


And Jac - I'm not ahead of myself. I think at this point it is conventional wisdom that most democratic challengers are running ahead of most republican potential nominees in inital polling. But that's all the information we have.

To use a Rumsfeldian device - Can thie results of these polls change? - ABSOLUTELY. Should that surprise anyone? NO. But should anyone be criticized for observing those polls and saying - at this point - things look better for the D's than the R's? CERTAINLY NOT!

I'm certainly not suggesting it's "in the bag", nor will I at any point.

Rob

[Adam Gamradt]

"hopelessly inept on foreign policy, immigration, and budgetary matters" Jac, would you agree that your criticism could be aimed at the current occupant?

"It's good to have the Dems back as a worthy foe (after 50 years), but don't get too far ahead of yourselves." If that is the case, then you must admit that the Republicans are responsible for our current situation with respect to our ineffectual government. Isn't it funny to think that every single Republican platform includes change as a primary plank when they've been, in your own words, at the helm for 50 years?

The Republicans have leveraged all their energy and resources in to permanently reshape our country to match their world view. Now that they've clearly failed to manage foreign policy, failed to manage immigration, and failed to efficiently govern our finances, is it any surprise they're having a tough time finding a good candidate?

I don't think the statement "Any of the top three, in any year, could beat the Republican nominee from this group" is any less reasonable than what you're saying. But I understand why, and it comes across in your writing, that as a conservative, it bothers you to hear such seemingly overconfident rhetoric.

"Mission Accomplished", "We now have a mandate", "Bring it on", we've heard our share of bombastic statements over the past 7 years, all of which fell on a bevy of deaf Republican ears. It's nice to see even our right wing friends finally realizing that not only is our emperor not wearing clothes, he's having a hard time even finding a hat that fits, much less a crown.

[Sonny]

And what about the huge impact the illegal immigration issue was supposed to have had this year? Huckabee's big win among Republicans seem to run counter to the notion that this is the "biggie" for '08.

I have no real opinions about either party's nomination race at the moment. Suffice to say the "real" campaign won't begin until the parties settle on one person. Immigration will be a very large issue (for both parties) once that is settled.

I did watch ABC News last night and they did a report on how the Democrat party caucused in Iowa. I had zero idea that's how the Dems picked their party's nominee. It did remind of a preschool playground amongst 7 year old kids. ("Red Rover, red rover -- Send Johnnie on over...). Is that how eithe party does things in New Hampshire?

[Adam Gamradt]

Sonny, pass me the crayons. I had a lot going on last night, so I checked out CSPAN for a while, and was astonished at the differences between how the two parties caucus.

First I started with the Republicans. It appeared to be a standard election process, long lines, people filling out their forms in an orderly fashion. The speakers were reading from their speeches, and everyone pretty much looked like they wore their best blue shirt. The camera got a shot of one woman who's turn it was to sign in. She snatched up the pen and started writing her name down on one of those little yellow notebooks. The old guy working the line said to her, "ma'am, that's the registry for the congressional caucus." To which she replied "Oh for Gods sake!" in a tone of annoyance.

I switched over to the Democrats. There was a group of all sorts of people, men, women, kids, all talking and passing around a tin of cookies. Two guys were debating the wisdom of the viability process, and one of them stated, "there's no way the Democratic party should keep someone from voting for their first candidate". I can't say I have an opinion either way. Regardless, it was an interesting discussion, as were the others I observed. To see the debate between voters who'd just had their candidate written off and the viable candidates was interesting as well.

There were caucuses all over Iowa, in schools, and churches, and people's homes. Heaven forbid people get together and passionately debate their choices. If that's how seven year olds act, I'll take it over the angry lady who had to wait in line for fifteen minutes.

[Zeuslax]

Is that how eithe party does things in New Hampshire?

No...it's a regular process. However, 44% of NH'ins are registered independents.

[laxfan25]

A friend of mine was asking if and why he should throw his support behind Obama, and I gave him this reply...

Why? Well the Iowa results are a start - the size of his win was impressive, but more so, the enthusiasm of his supporters is awesome. For the first time in a long, long time (RFK?) I see the youth in the country being galvanized to action in a very positive mode. But his appeal stretches across so many diverse groups - he really is a unifier.
I was looking for an old New Yorker profile from when he was running for the Senate, and it's where I first came to learn of him,and I thought at that time that he would be president someday - I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. The country is desperate for a change of direction, and a change in the national discourse. I really think people are tired of being pissed at each other - there is a thirst for a common purpose for the good, and I think Barak can deliver that message - he is unique in style.
He will bring out a strong black vote. He appeals greatly to independents.
The other big kicker is that the Republicans are about to put a stake in their electability for at least a generation with the largest demographic group in the country. If they do as some have suggested and make a major issue out of immigration - every mention will just piss off the Hispanic vote even more, and the Democrats should be the beneficiaries in places like Texas, CA, Fla, Az, etc. Barak just needs to take a commone-sense position - yes, we need strong borders and a reasonable immigration policy, possibly with a guest worker program (since we do need the cheap labor!) - but there is a need to recognize reality and enact some kind of amnesty for the folks already here. Some may have broken the law getting here, but that's what amnesty is about. Make them legal, above-board taxpaying citizens - ones that have contributed more to our country than they have taken away. So that makes a pretty powerful coalition - blacks, hispanics, white liberals and just a lot of white support in general in suburban and rural areas (as shown in IL), a lot of women, a huge slice of the third of the country that is independent - one that could possibly garner close to 60% of the vote!
I thought Hilary had it locked, and I was OK with her as Prez, although there are some things about her that rubbed me the wrong way. She is extremely capable, but also very calculating, and it would be more of the same hostility in the country if she won. Also, if McCain was running against her - it would be very close and he might take it. I think if McCain runs against Obama that the contrast between youthful energy and a real sense of possible change vs. the oldest presidential candidate ever would carry the day. If McCain ran against HC, the independents would break differently than with BO.
New Hampshire will be interesting. I feel a groundswell starting, and I think Barak will end up winning there as well. If he does, I think he'll go all the way. It's funny, but my thinking has really changed just in the last 36 hours.
So I think a chord has been struck in a lot of the population - people like myself that were intrigued by Barak but not really thinking he would have much of a chance - and now they see that there are many others of the same mind, and they will start to raise their voices in support. It's gonna be spectacular. Yeah, it's starry-eyed optimism, but that can be a powerful thing. Yeah, we've got huge issues, but with an overwhelming mandate, maybe we can actually address some of them. Deliver a tough message, lay out a reasonable solution and use your political capital to get things done.
It won't be perfect, but God, won't it be such a refreshing change from what we've been forced to endure for the past eight years?? Let me be the first to show Dick Cheney and David Addington to the door.

Well, those are my reasons why, and I think you were just looking for the same affirmation I was - that this callow young punk can actually pull this off, and our support will just make it easier. I think when he wins the election it would set off a national group hug almost like V-J day. So don't feel like you're pissing away your money, support and efforts - just get others to join in!

[Zeuslax]

I must say, it is somewhat heartening as a conservative to read the posts of cocksure Democrats who feel this one's in the bag ("Any of the top three, in any year, could beat the Republican nominee from this group.") Just remember, Bush was a lot more unpopular (by mainstream media estimates) than any of this year's Republican candidates and cruised against a Democrat who had a lot more universal appeal than any of the probable candidates this time around.

I'm sure many people would be very flattered and stimulated with the Cocksure Dem label. You would probably have to be a Dem for that to be the case. A conversation regarding the 04 dynamics would be great. I would disagree with the 04 Bush analogy and the Dean-Kerry analogy. I can't think of it right now, but there's a very good documentary that covers this topic. I'll try to dig it up. The media was correct and I think most would agree that Kerry ran an absolutely terrible campaign. 08 is a whole different animal though. The (perception of it being needed) national platform ambivalence will not be employed in this election. Unfortunately for some, the Republican's are creating many if the same errors by creating weak candidates. Most of this is due to the available pool. This is why people were wetting their pants when Thompson jumped in.

I think that LaxFan is correct. The only Republican that can win is McCain! McCain about 2 months into his campaign made some very critical mistakes and is climbing out of that hole......here's a big surprise. He’s doing it by being himself. His wings were clipped though. His physical and verbal defense of the president with the war and his immigration stance (shame because he's looked at the issue very closely and can speak to it with great authority) have nailed him. He was duped by Bush with his Iraq support and happens to be a border rep.

I didn't want to do this in a paragraph form. It just would have been too long and a disservice to the complexity of the topic. If something crazy happens after the primaries the Rep’s may be able to get back in it, but even then it will probably be too late. Even a domestic terrorist attack probably thrusts the Dem’s. Here are just a few of the reasons why I think the current Republican pool can not win in 08:

 The primary selection process is the real issue for the Republicans. The two viable candidates are most likely insufficiently Rep.
 Previous geographic representation
 Their records
 Primary positions vs career makers
 Health Care
 The way the strength of the Republican party wants to handle immigration
 A vast majority wants change and most want big change
 The current big topic landscape favors Ind and Dem's 6.5 to 3.5
 Support for middle class entitlements (Thought I'd use some Reb talk)
 Income inequality with a slowing economy
 Dem’s have stopped ignoring Southern voters
 Over 50% of Reps want a different Iraq policy. A larger number want a different war on terror policy
 Key trends associated with "values" and "religon" are trending way down . The big 7 issues are overwhelmingly ahead.
 Evangelical disenfranchisement with the past 7 years. This is the mobilizing factor in swing states.
 Over 54% of the public aligns (with a huge growing trend with new voters and registered ones. Multiply this with Edwards and Obama) with the Dem's. 6 out of 10 of the Indy's are aligned with the Dem’s and trending in a big way to the Dem’s. That leaves the Rep's at this time with 37-39% of the populace.
 The need and the desire for change and unification.
 The Bush factor

As for the African American vote, most actually support Clinton at this time and by a fairly large margin. African Americans usually go with elect ability. Tough to get your head around with Obama in the race, but the Clintons have done a much better job in urban centers. We also have to remember that the Clintons have been friends of the African American community. Bubba was the “1st black president”. Obama has been making quick visits with city leaders, but it’s been fairly quiet. We’ll see a quick swing if Obama beats HRC in NH and by a good margin. Bush and the Republican Party actually made some inroads with the African American vote during the last election, especially in OH, where it really mattered. It was marginal, but we’ll see those gains reversed and in a big way. Now that Obama is being seen as more of an option. I believe we’ll see this trend move quickly as well.

Now off to the bar.......go Stiller's!

[Dan Wishengrad]

And what about the huge impact the illegal immigration issue was supposed to have had this year? Huckabee's big win among Republicans seem to run counter to the notion that this is the "biggie" for '08.

I have no real opinions about either party's nomination race at the moment. Suffice to say the "real" campaign won't begin until the parties settle on one person. Immigration will be a very large issue (for both parties) once that is settled.

I realize that many Republicans -- and even some Democrats and Independents -- care passionately about this issue, Sonny. But all the polling says it just isn't that important and as we have discussed previously it is not one where even those in the GOP agree on amongst themselves. Here is the latest NH poll analysis:


MANCHESTER, NH -- McCain has doubled his support from a month ago in New Hampshire, and now has an eight-point lead over Romney (32%-24%), according to the latest MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon poll. Those two are followed by Huckabee at 12%, Giuliani at 10%, and Paul at 8%. A month ago, the same poll had it Romney 25%, Giuliani 17%, McCain 16%, and Huckabee 11%. The McCain rise is thanks mostly to a recovery in his favorable rating, which jumped nearly 20 points from a month ago. Huckabee, by the way, had no bounce from Iowa. Half of the poll was conducted pre-Iowa, half post-Iowa, and Huckabee didn't budge. Also, Huckabee's favorable rating in New Hampshire is not great; he basically has a net-neutral fav/unfav (36%/35%). As for Giuliani, the poll seems to be more evidence of a missed opportunity for him. The three top issues for GOPers are issues Giuliani was supposed to do well on: terrorism, the economy and taxes; immigration is a distant fourth. If Giuliani fails to get the GOP nod with his late-state strategy, many will look at his failure to catch on New Hampshire as the big missed opportunity.

Unless Romney somehow comes back from the dead and makes immigration one of his platform issues, it looks highly doubtful that this will play much of a role. If the contest becomes Obama vs Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain, immigration may not get "much play" at all. All four of these men favor some sort of compassion for illegals already here, all favor strengthening our borders, and all four men are simply too smart to give much lip service to an issue that can't help them win the general election.

Illegal immigration is indeed a big problem in the U.S., but it just doesn't seem to me that it will be very important as a defining issue in the upcoming general election. The next President will have to deal with it, of course, just like he or she will have to deal with a myriad of other real problems facing us in this complicated modern world.