Debate analysis

[KeithK]

[quote RichH][quote KeithK]You actually listen to Matt Damon's political opinions and analysis?  Seriously? Why?[/quote]

Probably because Killer agrees with him.[/quote]
Ya think?  The "Why?" was a rhetorical question.  But then, my opinion of Matt Damon is pretty well summarized by his prtrayal in Team America.

[quote RichH]
Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter?  Why is it OK to ignore his question and not Lurlene from Arkansas?[/quote]
But Lehrer isn't just a voter.  He's a professional journalists.  People expect a different kind of response to "ordinary people" than they do to professional journalists.

[quote RichH]Yet you still want to know most desperately how old she thinks the Earth is?  Of anything you could ask her, THAT'S the one you choose??

And the candidates themselves...they're talking about the past friends each candidate has?  Enough of that petty political bullshit.  This isn't the time for it.  There are crises all around us, and we still continue to be blind to it in our overall political discourse.[/quote]
As I said, these things are used as proxies.  Young earth says "she's a dumb religious nut".  Bill Ayers says "he's a radical leftist who hates America".  If a candidate uses code I understand it because they don't want to offend large swaths of the electorate.  When someone unaffiliated with a campaign does it it's really frustrating to me.

Why do we talk about this bullshit instead of "the issues"?  Because most of the people who care about the issues pretty much made up their minds who to vote for six months ago.  Those who haven't yet are not going to be swayed by the issues. Besides, if there is a government solution to the financial crisis it's not going to be one that a campaign can explain to the average, rationally ignorant voter.

[RichH]

[quote ftyuv]Okay, someone has to point out the irony of rewarding a post that argues against the "I could have a beer with this guy" argument by buying the guy who wrote it fifteen beers.[/quote]

Well, without getting too into the typical Alannis Morrisette referencing lesson about what is/isn't ironic, I don't think it's a big irony per se.  It would've been moreso if I were asking for Banshee's vote.

In short:  Dude!  Shut up!  You're gonna ruin my shot at getting fifteen beers!

[quote Bender]The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that...is...irony![/quote]

[RichH]

[quote KeithK]But Lehrer isn't just a voter.  He's a professional journalists.  People expect a different kind of response to "ordinary people" than they do to professional journalists.[/quote]

Well, I don't.  OK, it's one thing to having a print journalist take an interview and form their words into an essay making a political portrait or statement about a politician's historical failings, hypocrisies, or positive attributes.  But in a live debate, the moderator is acting as the voters' proxy.  The candidates ARE talking to "ordinary people" not the "media elite" to use a buzzword I can't stand.  The role of a moderator of a debate is to be a stand-in for us.

Why have we just accepted that it's OK to be talked to like 2 year-olds?  Simply because that's how George has done it for 9 years?  I'm tired of listening to candidate statements that are essentially right out of 4th grade civics class.  "Freedom, liberty, democracy, maverick."  Why don't candidates talk to us all the time like we, the voters, are adults?

Why do we talk about this bullshit instead of "the issues"?  Because most of the people who care about the issues pretty much made up their minds who to vote for six months ago.

This is a very good point, and I cede that to you.  But six months ago, we weren't in an economic free-fall.  The climate is different now than it was in August, even.  This is an ideal opportunity to find out each candidate's vision and plans for this altogether new stage of a big crisis.  Even decided voters want to know that.  Even undecided voters are pretty freaked out about "what happens next??" and  "Whatchu gonna do to help us?"

IMO, the primary season was the time to find out "just who IS Barack Obama??"  Because if we don't know that by now, what the hell have I been watching the past 18 months?

Tonight's debate should be all set-up for the candidates to discuss differing plans for this looming economic tumble.  Instead, I'm sure we'll hear more about Bill Ayers and Charles Keating.  Because the 24-hour news people love following shiny objects and saying "ohhh, SNAP!" about shit that is slung.

[Josh '99]

[quote jtwcornell91]There's also the irony that the last guy to win the presidency on the "guy I could have a beer with" demographic swore off alcohol decades ago.[/quote]Dude, get with the program.  Irony is for the Eastern media elites.

[djk26]

Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter?

You probably know this already, RichH, but, actually, Jim Lehrer DOESN'T vote.

Here's a transcript of an interview with Larry King where Lehrer talks about not voting.

Personally, I encourage everyone to vote, especially someone who has seen the candidates up close.  Even if you want to vote for someone other than the two of them, or "none of the above."

[ugarte]

[quote djk26]

Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter?

You probably know this already, RichH, but, actually, Jim Lehrer DOESN'T vote. [/quote]
In that case, I'm surprised that they answered his questions at all. The nerve of that fucking guy, wasting our time like that.

[KeithK]

[quote RichH][quote KeithK]Why do we talk about this bullshit instead of "the issues"?  Because most of the people who care about the issues pretty much made up their minds who to vote for six months ago.[/quote]

This is a very good point, and I cede that to you.  But six months ago, we weren't in an economic free-fall.  The climate is different now than it was in August, even.  This is an ideal opportunity to find out each candidate's vision and plans for this altogether new stage of a big crisis.  Even decided voters want to know that.  Even undecided voters are pretty freaked out about "what happens next??" and  "Whatchu gonna do to help us?"[/quote]
In theory I agree with you.  But in reality of a political campaign such substantive responses don't meet the risk/reward standard.  Decided voters may want to know how the candidates will react to the crisis but the candidates aren't speaking to them because (aside from fundraising) there isn't any need to convince them. The undecided are likely to be swayed more by character and leadership qualities than by the details of how you would regulate this or bailout that.  It kind of sucks but that's what the current election "market" seems to want.  It's possible that a candidate could get elected by being a policy wonk and explaining to the American people what he would do but it hasn't happened yet so politicians , who are conservative (risk-averse) by nature, generally dont' try it.

IMO, the primary season was the time to find out "just who IS Barack Obama??"  Because if we don't know that by now, what the hell have I been watching the past 18 months?

The majority of people in this country are not either 1) democrat primary voters or 2) political junkies.  Those people probably did not learn who Barrack Obama is because they weren't paying attention six months ago.  The majority of the electorate starts paying attention after Labor Day.

[KeithK]

[quote djk26]Personally, I encourage everyone to vote, especially someone who has seen the candidates up close.  Even if you want to vote for someone other than the two of them, or "none of the above."[/quote]
I disagree.  I fully encourage people to exercise their right not to vote if they aren't informed.  Every extra voter dilutes my opinion.  I don't believe in forcing someone not to vote or preventing them from voting but that's different.

[ugarte]

[quote KeithK]It's possible that a candidate could get elected by being a policy wonk and explaining to the American people what he would do but it hasn't happened yet so politicians , who are conservative (risk-averse) by nature, generally dont' try it.[/quote]
The last time someone tried to get elected by being straightforward about policy, he promised to raise everyone's taxes. Anyone heard from VP Mondale recently?

I'd appreciate it if the candidates would agree to give substantive answers to questions on the condition that (a) the answers would be published in a smart person's magazine like The Economist* or Foreign Affairs and (b) other, more mainstream outlets were not allowed to discuss the answers in front of the stupids - especially to translate it for them. This ban would extend to the candidates.

I know all of the reasons that this is condescending, unconstitutional and impractical and I don't even really wish that it were true, but I do so hate soundbite campaigning. The person who wins this election will be able to declare war and the job is sold like "New, Improved Tide with 75% more CHANGE AND/OR ICONOCLASM!"

*Sarah Palin's fave! (Sorry.)

[RichH]

[quote KeithK]The majority of people in this country are not either 1) democrat primary voters or 2) political junkies. [/quote]

Well, I'm neither (1) nor (2).  I only pay attention because I'm a comedy junkie, and I'd like to know what The Daily Show, Colbert Report, The Onion, and SNL are talking about when they make their scathing political discourse.

Yay, fake news!

[ugarte]

So, my friends, what did you think? I think that one won the evening. The format, supposedly McCain's strength - and, in person it might be - didn't seem like his strength. He looked frail, crabby, awkward and old.

I'd talk about substance but other than McCain promising both huge spending cuts and to buy all of the bad mortgages in the country, there wasn't really any new substance to speak of. What we are left with is intangibles and I think what came across from McCain was "get off of my lawn" while Obama seemed empathetic.

[RichH]

[quote ugarte]So, my friends, what did you think? I think that one won the evening. [/quote]

I'm still hungover from the "My friends" drinking game I played.  Luckily my opponent had "fundamental."  And please, show some respect.  You should really capitalize That One's name.

http://www.thatone08.com/

[Jordan 04]

[quote RichH][quote ugarte]So, my friends, what did you think? I think that one won the evening. [/quote]

I'm still hungover from the "My friends" drinking game I played.  Luckily my opponent had "fundamental."  And please, show some respect.  You should really capitalize That One's name.

http://www.thatone08.com/[/quote]

Did you come up with rules on the fly for "overhead projector"?

[Rita]

I thought Tom Brokaw had the two best questions in the "follow-up" part of the debate.
Paraphrasing...

1) Do you think that health care is a right, responsibility or privelege?

2) If elected, who would you consider for the position of Treasury Secretary.

I was surprised that neither candidate had a solid short list of candidates. Warren Buffet was mentioned by both McCain and Obama. I just thought with the economy tanking like it is, they would have a more concrete idea of who to put in that position and why.

[Beeeej]

[quote Rita]I thought Tom Brokaw had the two best questions in the "follow-up" part of the debate.
Paraphrasing...

1) Do you think that health care is a right, responsibility or privelege?

2) If elected, who would you consider for the position of Treasury Secretary.

I was surprised that neither candidate had a solid short list of candidates. Warren Buffet was mentioned by both McCain and Obama. I just thought with the economy tanking like it is, they would have a more concrete idea of who to put in that position and why.[/quote]

My impression is that Phil Gramm was on McCain's shortlist, but he'd never admit that in front of fifty million viewers right now.

I also thought it was interesting that he mentioned Meg Whitman as a potential candidate because of her entrepreneurial success about 24 hours after eBay cut 10% of its workforce.