Is there a reason to have the debates?

know1

I'm asking the question seriously.

Is there any real, valid point to them? Do we learn anything about the candidates position from them, or do they just stand to lose supporters by mis-speaking in a high pressure environment?

In this day and age of technology and communication everywhere, who really needs to watch a debate to see where a candidate stands on the issues?

I think they're essentially pointless.

fife

I do think they can actually be useful as it allows a direct response to a question. Also, if the moderator is any good they will be able to pressure the people to answer the question.

Jason P

I might watch it but there is a new South Park on tonight (which, sadly, I may learn more from watching)

cincybearcat

While I get your point, I do think it allows the candidates to address the stupid talking points face to face. But really, it will all depend on the moderator how good the debates are.

mydogmookieblaylock

people watch tv - what better way for someone on the fence who isn't going to put a ton of effort into decision than to watch the 2 candidates answer questions face to face.

FattyFatCat

It helps women decide who to vote for.

See Kennedy v Nixon, and every televised debate since...

Jason P

:fp:

:corn:

FattyFatCat

Jason P wrote:

:fp:

:corn:

I know, I know...

Que the flaming anger rockets...

But if you look at the stats, how the candidate appears on TV can have a huge impact. If it didn't, then these guys wouldn't spend millions of dollars on body language experts who tell them how to hold their hands, wear their ties, etc...

I think women pay more attention to that stuff- maybe if there were female candidates, men would have that reaction- I tried w/ Hillary, but I mean, come on... one can only look at that for so long.

whygohome

FattyFatCat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

:fp:

:corn:

I know, I know...

Que the flaming anger rockets...

But if you look at the stats, how the candidate appears on TV can have a huge impact. If it didn't, then these guys wouldn't spend millions of dollars on body language experts who tell them how to hold their hands, wear their ties, etc...

I think women pay more attention to that stuff- maybe if there were female candidates, men would have that reaction- I tried w/ Hillary, but I mean, come on... one can only look at that for so long.

For someone who mocks the "War on Women," you're not helping your case........

riotgrl

FattyFatCat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

:fp:

:corn:

I know, I know...

Que the flaming anger rockets...

But if you look at the stats, how the candidate appears on TV can have a huge impact. If it didn't, then these guys wouldn't spend millions of dollars on body language experts who tell them how to hold their hands, wear their ties, etc...

I think women pay more attention to that stuff- maybe if there were female candidates, men would have that reaction- I tried w/ Hillary, but I mean, come on... one can only look at that for so long.

Are you fucking kidding me? I think if you're going to make the assertion that a candidate's appearance plays a role in how they are perceived by the public then you might want to do a better job of including men in that discussion. While a man might not find another man "attractive" another persons' appearance might be just as important to a man watching the debates. For instance, the Kennedy/Nixon debate, there is evidence that states that many men had admiration for Kennedy based on his physical appearance (read: being able to attract the ladies) and wanted, to a certain degree, to be like him. That's a pretty shallow remark to make in regards to women being the primary culprits in caring about physical appearance.

As as far as men paying attention to that, do you remember Sarah Palin? Seems like quite a few men found her attractive and gave her political credence based on her looks, or at least we could make it seem that way.

FattyFatCat

riotgrl wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

:fp:

:corn:

I know, I know...

Que the flaming anger rockets...

But if you look at the stats, how the candidate appears on TV can have a huge impact. If it didn't, then these guys wouldn't spend millions of dollars on body language experts who tell them how to hold their hands, wear their ties, etc...

I think women pay more attention to that stuff- maybe if there were female candidates, men would have that reaction- I tried w/ Hillary, but I mean, come on... one can only look at that for so long.

Are you fucking kidding me? I think if you're going to make the assertion that a candidate's appearance plays a role in how they are perceived by the public then you might want to do a better job of including men in that discussion. While a man might not find another man "attractive" another persons' appearance might be just as important to a man watching the debates. For instance, the Kennedy/Nixon debate, there is evidence that states that many men had admiration for Kennedy based on his physical appearance (read: being able to attract the ladies) and wanted, to a certain degree, to be like him. That's a pretty shallow remark to make in regards to women being the primary culprits in caring about physical appearance.

As as far as men paying attention to that, do you remember Sarah Palin? Seems like quite a few men found her attractive and gave her political credence based on her looks, or at least we could make it seem that way.

No need to get angry... its a casual observation. Look at all the body language experts that these guys employ. Obama and Romney literally hold meetings on "How to appeal to women, men, different races, etc".


And thank you for provig my point with your Sarah Palin example.

Guys do it too.

So cool your jets...

riotgrl

FattyFatCat wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

:corn:

I know, I know...

Que the flaming anger rockets...

But if you look at the stats, how the candidate appears on TV can have a huge impact. If it didn't, then these guys wouldn't spend millions of dollars on body language experts who tell them how to hold their hands, wear their ties, etc...

I think women pay more attention to that stuff- maybe if there were female candidates, men would have that reaction- I tried w/ Hillary, but I mean, come on... one can only look at that for so long.

Are you fucking kidding me? I think if you're going to make the assertion that a candidate's appearance plays a role in how they are perceived by the public then you might want to do a better job of including men in that discussion. While a man might not find another man "attractive" another persons' appearance might be just as important to a man watching the debates. For instance, the Kennedy/Nixon debate, there is evidence that states that many men had admiration for Kennedy based on his physical appearance (read: being able to attract the ladies) and wanted, to a certain degree, to be like him. That's a pretty shallow remark to make in regards to women being the primary culprits in caring about physical appearance.

As as far as men paying attention to that, do you remember Sarah Palin? Seems like quite a few men found her attractive and gave her political credence based on her looks, or at least we could make it seem that way.

No need to get angry... its a casual observation. Look at all the body language experts that these guys employ. Obama and Romney literally hold meetings on "How to appeal to women, men, different races, etc".


And thank you for provig my point with your Sarah Palin example.

Guys do it too.

So cool your jets...[/quote]


And I didn't disagree with your point about candidates looks. I disagreed with your point that it was women who were taken in by looks.

cincybearcat

riotgrl wrote:

And I didn't disagree with your point about candidates looks. I disagreed with your point that it was women who were taken in by looks.

I submit exhibit A on behalf of the defense...all 667 pages of it.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5950&hilit=hot

Zoso

in my opinion it's like the last chance time for the candidates to tell the American people their stances on important matters. Sometimes it works sometimes they are irrelevant.

riotgrl

cincybearcat wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

And I didn't disagree with your point about candidates looks. I disagreed with your point that it was women who were taken in by looks.

I submit exhibit A on behalf of the defense...all 667 pages of it.

http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.ph ... &hilit=hot

EDIT: I disagreed with his point that it was ONLY women who were taken in by looks. That could have been an interesting discussion about the continual decline of our political candidates relative merits based on substance rather than style. Care to submit exhibit B, on either side, to discuss that point?

Exhibit B http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/10/25/ncbi-rofl-surprise-men-vote-for-the-hotter-female-candidate/

And I disqualify your exhibit because it was related to music and not politics per the OP

Who Princess

I read an article yesterday that historically the debates have had no impact on elections. The candidates who won, going all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon, were already leading in the polls at the time of the debates.

g under p

Who Princess wrote:

I read an article yesterday that historically the debates have had no impact on elections. The candidates who won, going all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon, were already leading in the polls at the time of the debates.

Just as long as Romney doesn't have a baffling Perry moment the election will be *same as it ever was*

Peace

unsung

I'm not watching because I refuse to vote for either of these two puppets.

RFTC

unsung wrote:

I'm not watching because I refuse to vote for either of these two puppets.

i am watching and its over the top wonky right now. "he said", "no i did not", out comes 2 mins of factoids.

aerial

Mitt is by far winning this debate. He is not stumbling over his words (as Obama is) he has facts and he has the numbers to back up what he says. Obama has no true facts and seems to be losing the only thing he had going for him, his silver tongue smooth talking ways . Just look at the frown on his face...he knows he is no match to Mitts intelligence .

igotid88

aerial wrote:

Mitt is by far winning this debate. He is not stumbling over his words (as Obama is) he has facts and he has the numbers to back up what he says. Obama has no true facts and seems to be losing the only thing he had going for him, his silver tongue smooth talking ways . Just look at the frown on his face...he knows he is no match to Mitts intelligence .

That's how Obama speaks

igotid88

Jim Lehrer is not moderating this very well. He keeps letting Romney get the last word even when he had his turn

RFTC

romney won this debate hands down

hedonist

Hey, idman :wave:

Yeah, Jim didn't seem necessarily overwhelmed, but not presiding over this as it seemed he wanted to be, as he has in the past.

For me, some good insight into both men.

Can't wait to see the analyses of the body language hoopla that I'm sure shall ensue.

inmytree

A) I can't wait for fact check....

It's hard to debate a liar.....

C) I don't want a voucher system for Medicaid....

aerial

inmytree wrote:

A) I can't wait for fact check....

It's hard to debate a liar.....

C) I don't want a voucher system for Medicaid....

Do you really need fact check?

hedonist

inmytree wrote:

A) I can't wait for fact check....

That's one of the comments my guy and I bet would be made here.

I won :P

igotid88

hedonist wrote:

Hey, idman :wave:

Yeah, Jim didn't seem necessarily overwhelmed, but not presiding over this as it seemed he wanted to be, as he has in the past.

For me, some good insight into both men.

Can't wait to see the analyses of the body language hoopla that I'm sure shall ensue.

me? IH

igotid88

This.

inmytree wrote:

It's hard to debate a liar.....

whygohome

inmytree wrote:

A) I can't wait for fact check....

It's hard to debate a liar.....

This can't be bumped enough. BUT, Obama should have pounced on him. He left far too many openings pass him by.

Romney took the Chris Christie approach: be a blowhard and forget about substance and facts.

inmytree

aerial wrote:

inmytree wrote:

A) I can't wait for fact check....

It's hard to debate a liar.....

C) I don't want a voucher system for Medicaid....

Do you really need fact check?

I don't, but you do....

I know Mittens fibbed about his tax plan...do you...?