For me, at least, it seemed that by the time of the 1992 campaign (and perhaps by 1988), I knew enough about the respective campaigns to not get anything new out of the debates. To my mind, that increase in available information has increased.
At the same time, this Debate Commission has managed to, well, manage the process in such a way that makes it less and less likely that new information will come out in the debates. Personally, I'd like to see a frequency of debates somewhere between the three +1 VP we get now, and the excessive number in the nominating contests. Start after the last convention, instead of waiting until October. Study how the UK utilized online questions and responses (Example - http://www.youtube.com/ukelection) to improve on the lousy execution here in the U.S. Just shy of three months out, I have no confidence that the Commission can manage a meaningful online component as they promise in the debate format announcement: "In addition, the CPD is undertaking an innovative internet-based voter education program that will encourage citizens to become familiar with the issues to be discussed in the debates, and to share their input with the debate moderators in advance of the debates. The program, which will be announced later this month, will be led by a coalition of internet leaders." The citizens will become familiar with the issues to be discussed in the debates? I know it's tempting, but talk down much? Given all the efforts - on both sides of the aisle - to utilize new technologies to engage their supporters (and the public), it is disappointing that the Debate Commission still seems captured by old media. And no, I still won't watch. David ________________________________ From: PGage <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Prez debates set On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM, David Bruggeman <[email protected]> wrote: The dates have been known since October, so I had to stifle a yawn at this. > > >Since these events are really more about the political race rather than any >meaningful exploration of policy differences, I'll continue to take a pass. >I'd go so far as to steal Carville's line (which he used about the Perot >campaign) about exercises in political masturbation, though I think that's >better said of the fulmination before and after. > > >In short, if you thought the ads have been bad... > I hear people say stuff like this all the time, and it always amazes me. I think I have seen just about every Presidential Debate since 1976, and the majority reveal substantial differences between the two candidates. Certainly the Obama-McCain debates turned on very important and significant differences on health care, tax policy, financial regulation, and Iraq, all of which issues have indeed been important during the last 3.5 years. Both candidates gave articulate and detailed (given the constraints of the format) presentations of their policies. If Americans had voted for McCain very different steps would have been taken on each of those fronts. Obama has generally followed pretty closely what he said he would do, just as both Presidents Bush and Clinton did in the debates preceding their first terms (the main exception to that I can think of is that Clinton ran in 1992 on a platform of aggressive economic stimulus, which he never really did, both because the recession was well on the way to ending by the time he took the oath, and because the deficit was a hell of a lot worse than he had been told). Now, what is true is that both the media and the campaigns tend to focus on the triviata of the debates, rather than the substance, both before and after. But that seems to me to be all the more reason for voters to watch them for themselves, since if you skip them you are likely to only hear about the trivia. It may also be true that the substance of the debates rarely have much effect on determining the outcome of the election, but that is because voters who care about the substance probably have already educated themselves about the candidates positions before October, while those that don't care about substance are unlikely to suddenly focus on candidate differences about how to pay for entitlements in the out years. But that again has nothing to do with whether the debates contain significant substantive information, just the extent to which voters need or care to focus on it. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
