The Presidential 'Debate'

[Snowhog]

My opinion on the Presidential Debate tonight:

[GreyGeek]

+1

[woodsmoke]

I watched reruns of Supernatural and then the "instant poling" by Frank Luntz afterward.

woodpragmaticsmoke

[claydoh]

I have avoided almost all references to the 'debates'. Oddly, my google+ circles, which seem to be a bastion of pro-Obama insta-memes (or rather actually anti-Romney insta-memes) have been very quiet altogether.

[woodsmoke]

If.....notice that I say IF...... Romney wins the election, it is quite probable that the talking heads, and campaign coaches, will possibly attribute a lot more significance to the debates than they have up to now, and that because of the huge bounce that Romney got after the first one and then that all those people who said that they voted for Pres. Obama that said that they were going for Romney after this last(third) debate.

Again I am not coming out for or against either candidate, I'm just commenting on what might happen to "campaign strategy" in the future if Romney wins.

Or....conversely, if Pres. Obama is re-elected, then the same talking heads and campaign coaches would probably think, even more, that the debates do not really matter.

As a note:

The Five had a "lightening round" on the effect of the MODERATORS on the debates.

And, as is to be expected, several advocated that the debates should be moderated by an "academic" that would try to just enforce the "time rules".

Bob Beckel, an avowed left winger, who has been involved intimately in politics going back to the Carter days said that when the debates were in their "formative" stages, that the use of "neutral academics" or some such was posited and that neither party wanted to do so because they looked at the debates as "theatre".

A second note:

And I am NOT getting into "politcs" here, but it turns out that even though Pres. Obama was complaining that he got LESS time to speak in the third debate, he actually got about "four minutes" more talking time than Romney

And....CNN....in an INTERNAL memo about Candy Crowley is trying to defend that she allowed the President to have more time, they said....

CNN's Managing Editor sent an email around the office today, On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that

Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly.

We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

So, it could be that what Beckel mentioned is correct....

that time limits don't count, ....lol...it is all theatre! lol

The "takeaway" for that is that in the next debate Romney should speak even MORE slowly.....

"Mr...........Pres.....i.....de...nnt....... did.................or.................did ....you noooo......ooooooo.........t...... "...

lol,

And what I find even more hilarious is that CNN is now going to "count words" to make sure that each person had the same number of words! lol

Talk about being obsessive compulsive! lol

woodsmoke



woodsmoke

[claydoh]

How can the debates matter when they are not independently controlled anymore, but are run by the 2 parties?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/debate1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates

[benny_fletch]

How can the debates matter when they are not independently controlled anymore, but are run by the 2 parties?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/debate1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...ential_Debates

I couldn't agree with you more, although this is coming from someone who believes we need to have at least four to six major parties (all with equal funding).

[woodsmoke]

LOL
I quite agree Claydoh!

One wonderful example of how debates "used to be done" was the debates between Huxley and the anti-evolution crowd.

In the final debate, which gave us the famous mis-information that "man came from apes"...

Huxley was winning, because people back then kept track of who said what and who rebutted what, and the person who went "after personality" or started calling names lost points:

His(Wilberforce's) famous jibe at Huxley (as to whether Huxley was descended from an ape on his mother's side or his father's side) was probably unplanned, and certainly unwise. Huxley's reply to the effect that he would rather be descended from an ape than a man who misused his great talents to suppress debate—the exact wording is not certain—was widely recounted in pamphlets and a spoof play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Ox...olution_debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

There is another tradition that Huxley said something to the effect that he would have rather been descended from apes than to have fallen from angels! lol

But, the point being that people actually paid attention to what the people said, and that the debaters prepared ahead of time and replied point for point to the other person.

as opposed to:

a) deflecting
b) saying "A" and saying that by saying "A" he is saying "B".
c) shouting the other person down or just talking over the other person
d) just using up camera time so as to not say anything.

And, because the heated feelings during the whole thing and supposedly because of the last two "jibes" the aftermath of the Huxly/Wilberforce debate was a small RIOT in the debate hall! lol

[woodsmoke]

Of note in the history of debates is this from Jimmy Kimmel who polled people on who won the very first First Lady debate: (there is an advert)

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

I couldn't agree with you more, although this is coming from someone who believes we need to have at least four to six major parties (all with equal funding).

Exactly. And, stop the nonsense of having "primaries" funded by public monies. Let the parties determine for themselves who the will put up for office at their OWN expense. But, the problem is certifying those "4 to 6" parties. What should it take to get on the ballot? A petition funded by the party seeking recognition which is signed by at least 10% of the registered voters?

Also, stop the never ending "campaigning" and "fund raising". Our elected reps spend more time stuffing their pockets than they spend debating and voting on bills they never read.

We mustn't forget the need to outlaw lobbying. It is a frontal attack of representative government. Pres Obama received a voter mandate for his proposals but even his own party sold him out for "campaign donations", and then he sold himself out by begging for money from corporate donors. It is the lobbyists who have made our elections so expensive by upping the money required to counter attack ads by opponents who spent lobbyist money to fund them.

The lobbying problem also points out another weakness in our system. Running TV and media ads for more than a year before an election. Campaigning should be limited to a three month period before the election. If a candidate can't make their case in three months, or counter negative ads during the same time, they aren't smart enough to be a candidate.


BTW, I'll make a prediction: I predict that Obama will win re-election.

Why? I've observed that for nearly the last forty years elections have been almost indistinguishable from a 100 million coin toss. IOW, random chance determined who was elected, regardless of the issues or rhetoric at the time. Romney was right, even if the Dems blasted him for what he said ..."47% will vote for Obama no matter what...". What is equally true is that about the same percentage will vote for Romney no matter what. That leaves only 6 - 10% of the voters who will decide the election. The "undecided". They'll split 50-50 too. So, where will the winning margin come from? The other segment of the voting pool ... residents of cemeteries, those who vote early and vote often, paid voters, imaginary voters, votes by illegal aliens, etc... That's another 5-10% who will vote for Obama but are not in the tally of registered voters, and they'll vote in areas where voter authenticity will not be enforced.

[woodsmoke]

GG

EDIT PREVIOUS TEXT DELETED BECAUSE IT DID NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE OP.

I agree, GG, that Pres. Obama will probably be re-elected, for reasons which are outside the purview of this OP.

However, what happened on the last debate might actually reduce his re-election chance, and that would be evidence that the debate does serve a purpose.

It is regularly posted in this forum, in a variety of ways, that the real problem in the world is the very existence of the U.S. That the U.S. is the original sin of the whole world and that "we", the U.S. people, should just accept that the U.S. should be destroyed for the greater good of the rest of the world.

And that was the absolute balking of Pres. Obama and the administration at saying that the Ambassador being killed in Libya was a "terrorist attack".

Candy Crowley very obviously took the Pres. side, then tried to "walk it back" when she realized what she did.

The viewers saw all of that, now whether they "understood" it is another matter, but if they did "understand" it then it could affect the election.

But, I agree that the Pres. will probably be re-elected.

woodsmoke


woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Na, you aren't a racist, woodsmoke, but the folks in that video have been sold a bill of goods by someone, probably the organization sponsoring the protest, the SEIU.

Here is the info about "free phones" from the snopes website http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
and the gov webpage which describes the facts about subsidized phone service: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-a...ible-consumers
That program has been ongoing since 1934: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/universal-service-fund

The phones are not free and the average discount is $9.25/mo, or more, depending on how much the states kick in. I read somewhere that the time is limited to 250 minutes per month.

My wife and I have two cell phones. We pay Verizon $76/mo for 1,000 minutes. (We were grandfathered in from Alltel at 1,000 minutes EACH, but Verizon dropped that down to 1,000 min and never notified us) I typically use 100 - 200 minutes per month. My wife uses around 800-1000. That's how we found out about the reduction in time, she went 40 minutes over the limit last month for the first time ever, and we got nicked an addition $40 on our phone bill.

Phones have LONG been an essential necessity in modern life, and so has an Internet connection. The current rape and plunder of consumers by outrageous fees and data restrictions by the ISPs is becoming intolerable. Around 1995 my city planted a fiber optic cable in my yard. I still have the outlet, but it is dark. Why? After years of trying to convince TimeWarner, our local cable company, to install fiber optic so more people could have higher bandwidths and there would be enough to have fast connections at libraries, schools, government agencies and police departments, my city began planting fiber optic. I have a cable running through my yard. The telcos and ISPs began whining about "unfair competition" and petitioned congress to stop the cities from "competing". Congress agreed, but gave the telcos $200 BILLION to finish the nationwide fiber optic deployment. The only problem was that they "forgot" to include penalty clauses for non-performance. The telcos, revealing their greedy, unethical mindset, took the money and ran. They stayed with the Copper wire. Now we are 16th in the world in bandwidht capacity, and the telcos are raising the "data" charges from $80/10GB to $100/12GB, above and beyond your other smarphone charges. Oh, tethering is extra.

Here in Lincoln the electric utility is owned by the people. Our average residential electric charge is less than 7 cents/kwh. Where utility companies are owned by corporations that have to generate profits and pay managers high wages and return dividends the kwh is four times higher and not any more reliable. IMO, it is about time that the Internet infrastructure were publicly owned (we paid for it to begin with, so it is still ours) and run at a cost + maintenance basis, and that the cities become the sole "ISP" and Copper wire be dumped for fiber optic. I guess that makes me a Socialist?

[SteveRiley]

Here in Lincoln the electric utility is owned by the people. Our average residential electric charge is less than 7 cents/kwh. Where utility companies are owned by corporations that have to generate profits and pay managers high wages and return dividends the kwh is four times higher and not any more reliable. IMO, it is about time that the Internet infrastructure were publicly owned (we paid for it to begin with, so it is still ours) and run at a cost + maintenance basis, and that the cities become the sole "ISP" and Copper wire be dumped for fiber optic. I guess that makes me a Socialist?

For certain services, natural monopolies make more sense. Roads immediately come to mind; in the United States, the road and highway system is almost entirely "socalized." I'd say the same notion extends to utilities, including telecommunications and Internet service. The breakup of AT&T and telecom privatization was supposed to shower America with the most advanced and nimble telecom possible. Well, that didn't happen.

[GreyGeek]

Didn't happen for sure. We went from "Ma Bell" to 50 independents and a really competitive low priced market. Over the years that 50 have been reduced to about 5, and the prices have skyrocketed out of proportion to the services rendered. And we are still on Copper wire at most locations.

[67GTA]

BTW, I'll make a prediction: I predict that Obama will win re-election.

Why? I've observed that for nearly the last forty years elections have been almost indistinguishable from a 100 million coin toss. IOW, random chance determined who was elected, regardless of the issues or rhetoric at the time. Romney was right, even if the Dems blasted him for what he said ..."47% will vote for Obama no matter what...". What is equally true is that about the same percentage will vote for Romney no matter what. That leaves only 6 - 10% of the voters who will decide the election. The "undecided". They'll split 50-50 too. So, where will the winning margin come from? The other segment of the voting pool ... residents of cemeteries, those who vote early and vote often, paid voters, imaginary voters, votes by illegal aliens, etc... That's another 5-10% who will vote for Obama but are not in the tally of registered voters, and they'll vote in areas where voter authenticity will not be enforced.

I am hoping the enigma of the 2010 mid term elections will show up again. The polls were the same then. It was a landslide victory for conservatives even though the polls showed everything to be extremely tight(even in blue states). I also believe there are large numbers of people who don't want to admit to a mistake for voting for Obama in 2008. There are also large numbers that don't want their peers to know they are going to vote against him in 2012 for fear of being rediculed/called a racist(Bradley/Wilder effect). This data can't be factored into the polls. When an "encumbent" pres is below 50% in many polls at this late stage, it historically has spelled trouble. Obama only has a decisive lead in 11 states. The rest are within the margin of error, or in Romney's favor.