Hoping not to sound facile... (wish me luck!)

[OilemFirchen]

There is a presumption amongst Sanders supporters that he'll easily win in debates with Clinton. No doubt, he's a quick thinker with unique ideas, while Clinton is more measured and parochial. That said, it's naive to think that substance plays a significant role in the public's perception of Presidential debates.

After all, we have Kennedy and Nixon as empirical evidence that visceral reactions determined peoples' perceptions as to a winner: Nixon won, according to those who heard the debate on the radio, whereas Kennedy won to those who saw it on television.

Perceptually, Sanders will have to overcome (possibly unfair, but real) disadvantages debating Clinton. First, and obviously, he will have to belie his nature and be considerably passive. Rick Lazio can tell a tale about that. Secondly, he has an unfortunate habit of pointing. A lot. He also grimaces. A lot.

Clinton, on the other hand, is trained to be poised. Of course she'll lash out, as she did with Obama, but that's actually (and, again perhaps unfairly) to her advantage.

Can Sanders overcome the spectacle of a grumpy, pointing, aggressive guy picking on a woman? As I noted, I hate to sound facile, but there are simple realities associated with the art of politics and unique ones as concern debates.

Can he actually "win" a debate with Clinton? If so, how?

[leftofcool]

1. I think there will not be a clear winner.

I expect all 3 candidates and 4 if Webb stays in to come of pretty evenly.

[OilemFirchen]

5. Oh hell. I forgot about the others.

But c'mon. They don't really count, do they?

Feel the Bern.

[bluesbassman]

2. By speaking the truth. People want to hear it.

They're tired of platitudes and sound bites. I think if he sticks to his strength, the truth, he'll do just fine.

[OilemFirchen]

3. Historical empircal evidence about the public's shallow perceptions flies out the window?

Why? Because Sanders is a demigod or something?

[bluesbassman]

8. Quite the opposite. Because he is not a demigod.

Our problems in this country are real and people want honest proposals to address them, not focus group driven platitudes that have the PTB stamp of approval.

Sanders is in this race because he believes in what he says and committed to lifting all of up. This isn't a trophy for him. You can anticipate the public's reaction to the debates to be superficial and name brand recognition, I'm going to watch for real change.

[OilemFirchen]

10. All right, then.

I'll put you down as having not read the question.

[bluesbassman]

13. I told you how, you just don't like the answer.

Certainly doesn't fit your non-facile narrative.

[virtualobserver]

34. the carefully structured rhetoric of the average politician....

conveys no real information. The lack of depth is accurately perceived by the public.

They can also detect authenticity. Personally, the only time I've ever seen authenticity in Hillary was when she cried in New Hampshire.

I experienced something similar with Al Gore when he first ran in 1988

.At the press conference, as he conceded and dropped out of the race, he dropped the manner of presentation that he had used throughout the campaign, and spoke as an actual human might.

Bernie has decades of experience saying exactly what he believes. In authenticity terms....that does make him a kind of demigod.

[pnwmom]

11. Al Gore spoke the truth and he didn't do just fine.

He forgot to not roll his eyes once. That was the end of it for him.

[bluesbassman]

15. Yeah, the debates did old Al in. Supreme Court had nothing to do with it.

Ok.

[pnwmom]

17. The election might not have been a squeaker if the media hadn't attacked him

with regard to the debates.

Obama won by such a large margin that the election didn't get tossed to the Supremes.

[OilemFirchen]

27. There's no doubt that the media's portrayal of Gore was amplified during the debates.

Whether the debates, specifically, cost him votes is unknown. That they reinforced the media's (and thus the public's) portrayal of him is a given. That said image cost him votes is also a given.

Style over substance. Yet, the TRUTH will set Sanders free?

This is, obviously, a companion to his supporters' contention that the only thing holding him back in the polls is name recognition. That once everyone learns about him, all of the conventional wisdom disappears.

Color me befuddled.

[virtualobserver]

39. I love Al, but his speaking style did him in.

9-11 might not have happened if he was in office.

If it had happened under a President Gore.....the behavior of Repubs would have been the opposite of the behavior of Democrats.

They would have tried to destroy him.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Sanders has won 14 elections. That's a lotta debates. How many elections has Clinton won again?

[OilemFirchen]

6. One.

In how many national debates has Sanders participated? How many against a woman?

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Do debates come in varying degrees?

[OilemFirchen]

9. Hell yes.

I was on the debate team in high school.

Ya think I could beat either one of them? I'm pretty for my age, BTW.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Thanks for making me spit my wine out.

I was on the debate too and I was damn good at it. So good in fact that my teachers thought I'd wind up being a trial lawyer.

I'm butt ugly though.

[elleng]

12. YOU ARE LEAVING SOMEONE OUT.

and debating:

[OilemFirchen]

23. I apologized upthread.

For the record, I have no doubt that the other candidates will do quite well. This is specifically about Sanders, as the notion that he will "wipe the floor" has been promulgated mercilessly.

It does beg the question, though: How will he be scored against O'Malley, Webb and Chafee? Do you thik that, stylistcally, he will be measured in the same manner as with Clinton?

[pnwmom]

14. But people everywhere across the country just love that Brooklyn accent.

And they've told me right here that Hillary speaks weigh too slowly and deliberately.

(So I listened to her speech on Saturday, and it sounded normally paced to me. But what do I know.)

[sabrina 1]

16. Clearly you are not familiar with Bernie. There is a reason why Hillary and ALL the Republicans are

afraid to debate him

Eg, what on EARTH makes you think he will 'belie his nature'??

Now THAT is funny actually.

Just watch him in 2003 with Greenspan. In Congress where there is supposed to be 'comity' no?

Bernie tells the TRUTH no matter WHERE he is or who he is talking to.

And THAT is what will any debate, TRUTH.

Hillary cannot debate Bernie because she cannot defend her record, on War, on Torture, yes she even vacillated on torture, and she sure cannot defend her position on the TPP. How will she do that? She says she wants to be the 'people's champion', no? Then explain why she isn't jumping at the chance right NOW to do just that?

Every labor organization is against the TPP and over 2000 Liberal Orgs, all reprensting THE PEOPLE but the would-be people's champion remains silent.

Bernie will eviscerate her on that alone, not to mention her pro-war, pro-Wall St, pro- 'reaching across the aisle' policies where, she says, she can work with Republicans.

She will NOT debate Bernie as he has requested, I am willing to bet on that.

[pnwmom]

18. Hillary has said she is not supporting the TPP as is. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

21. His nature is aggressive. His nature is passionate.

I've already given him the necessary props in the OP. You and my other interlocutor have offered platitudes that fail to address the central question posed: How does he win a debate against a well-coached woman, given that the public's scoring will be based mostly on style?

The TRUTH is rarely relevant in Presidential debates. 2012 was a prime example - Romney's litany of lies was epic, yet the viewing public either disregarded, were indifferent to, or ignorant of what, under normal debate rules, would have been demerits. He was abetted by the media, of course, and they also fostered the notion that the moderator was biased. Those are simple realities. Do you think that, somehow, telling the TRUTH in 2016 will suddenly become the standard by which these debates will be scored?

By contrast, the only takeaway from one of Clinton's debates with Lazio was that he was bullying her by approaching her, demanding that she sign a pledge. Under any debate rules, that would have lost him points. Per the standards of political debate, however, that one moment cost him the entire debate and likely the Senatorship. Note: He deserved to lose, so please refrain from the presumption bubbling up in your head.

BTW, I don't understand what you mean by "She will NOT debate Bernie as he has requested, I am willing to bet on that". How, exactly, do you see that playing out?

[sabrina 1]

35. Lazio was an ineffective moron. I saw him once, by accident, at a local fair on LI. I have never met

a less interesting person, politician or otherwise. Repubs had all but conceded that election which is why they put forward someone like Lazio who was not going anywhere politically anyhow.

To even try to equate that election, (I was a Hillary supporter back then as were many who no longer can support her based on her stand on important issues) to this one makes no sense at all. For one thing, since then we have Hillary's record in the Senate AND Bernie's to compare.

Not to mention that we have seen the system play out since then and millions of Americans, in particular young people, have been so disillusioned that the Dem Party has lost nearly 10% of its registered voters, the Repub party also.

There is a huge voting bloc now, outside of the two parties, historically larger than it's been in the living memory of most voters. THIS is the Demographic Bernie is working to get. Independent registered voters are now at 42%. They will NOT vote for status quo politicians, that is the reason why they are registered as Independents.

THEY will be concerned as they watch debates about 'truth'.

And then there is the equally large demographic of non-voters, so disillusioned and untrusting of politicians in general, who are showing signs (I have already signed up a couple) of being interested in someone who has a LONG RECORD of consistency on the issues that are so important to the American people.

If you are assuming that any candidate can win a national election with even most of the base of the party, I completely disagree.

Times have changed, partisan politics isn't as popular as it was just a decade ago. The most important issue in this campaign is going to be getting the poisonous money out of politics.

Sanders is leading the way, showing how it can be done by his ACTIONS, not just WORDS.

While Hillary has said she opposes it, it will be noted that she is accepting huge amounts of money from the very people most Americans now view as part of the problem. Iow, words, not actions.

Hillary will not accept Bernie's offer of a real debate. She will have to participate in the scripted and media controlled farce we call 'debate' in this country today, of course.

She cannot, Bernie doesn't need to be aggressive, all he has to do is tell the public where HE stands on the issues that are important to them, and compare his positions AND VOTES to hers. And that is what he is doing and that is why he is gaining supporters everywhere he goes. Because TRUTH is such a rare thing in our politics today that when people see it, they are excited that it hasn't completely disappeared from the dialogue, as many had thought.

[CK_John]

20. Bernie problem is his message, voters think messing with the banking system

will affect their pension and investments that are just recovering from 2007.

[Betty Karlson]

22. That's not facile.

It's a valid point. Image matters.

I just hope that DU will abstain from acrimonious finger-pointing if Mr. Sanders gets into that unfortunate habit.

[OilemFirchen]

24. I think that particular Rubicon has already been crossed. (n/t)

[Exilednight]

25. Two points of interest.

1. Neither Hillary or Bernie are charismatic. Hillary reminds people of their grandmother lecturing them, and yes, Hillary points too.

2. Hillary's lashing out backfired while debating Obama. She came off as sounding entitled with little in the way of substance.

[Autumn]

26. Yes he can, the way he will win is by

debating against Hillary on the issues.

[OilemFirchen]

28. Unresponsive.

Obama vs. Romney, Debate 1

More than 67 million Americans watched the debate, making it the most widely viewed first presidential debate in 32 years. A CBS poll of uncommitted voters found that 46% thought that Romney had done better, 22% thought Obama had done better, and 32% thought that it was a tie. A CNN poll found a greater advantage for Romney among debate watchers overall, with 67% believing the former Massachusetts governor had done better, 25% believing that the president had done better, and 8% believing that it was a tie. A Gallup poll found that 72% of the debate watchers believed Romney was the clear winner, 20% believed that Obama had won, and 9% believed it was a tie or had no opinion; the widest margin of victory for any presidential debate in Gallup history. Time Magazine's Joe Klein stated, "It was, in fact, one of the most inept performances I’ve ever seen by a sitting President."

The primary critiques of Obama's performance were that he looked detached; seldom addressed his opponent directly; and was often looking down while Romney was speaking.

[Autumn]

31. Unresponsive? No, just the answer you don't like.

Bernie is not Obama and he will not be detached from the debate. Obama vs Romney is not relevant, Bernie will not be debating either of them.

[NanceGreggs]

61. You're missing the point ...

It is not a matter of "Bernie will not be detached", etc.

The point IS "the primary critiques of Obama's performance were that he looked detached; seldom addressed his opponent directly; and was often looking down while Romney was speaking."

People were commenting on how the candidates "looked", not about the issues they spoke to.

Do you think there's going to be a completely different audience watching the debates than historically so? Do you think people who are more interested in the candidates' body language, facial expressions, posture, etc., are suddenly going to hear Sanders speak an say, "OMG! He's a truth-teller, for sure!!! I can see it!!!"

The debates do little in educating the audience on actual issues - the takeaway is always the "perception' of the candidates, which, unfortunately, often comes down to who "looked" more truthful as opposed to who "told the truth".

There is an incredible amount of political naivete in thinking that anyone and everyone who "gets to know Bernie" or "hears what Bernie has to say" is going to be somehow mesmerized by by his straightforwardness - or that anyone and everyone is going to believe that he is any different than ever other politician they've ever encountered.

The Sanders supporters are always saying "but he's different, he's the REAL deal." Well, just because YOU see him that way doesn't mean that everyone else will. And yet, for some reason, so many of you seem to fervently believe that everyone is an easy convert.

There are certain realities that have to be faced. In politics, things like "perception" - no matter how skewed, how biased, how off-base - are still a driving force. And pretending that Bernie has changed all that by virtue of who is is, and what his message is, is simply ridiculous.

Bernie Sanders may be "different in all the right ways". But the political circus is still the same as it ever was, and the "rules of perception", if I may, haven't changed one iota.

[OilemFirchen]

65. Indeed.

Even here, the consensus was that Obama lost that debate. And, by Presidential debate standards, he did.

The flowery rhetoric as a proxy for a response to a reasonable question is unsurprising. More's the pity.

[NanceGreggs]

66. I guess I am still somewhat astoundigast ...

.... (sometimes only a John Lennonism will suffice), by people who think that because "Bernie is different" that means the entire political game is now different as a result.

Whether his supporters want to acknowledge it or not, the game is still the same as it always was. Sanders is going to have to compete in the world as it IS, not the world they envision has - by some strange miracle - suddenly become reality.

[OilemFirchen]

67. I was inspired earlier with a game-changing notion:

What if we could encourage Idris Elba to jump into the race? He's absolutely dreamy and no one dislikes him.

Granted, he's not a U.S. citizen, but he can overcome that, right?

Feel the ID!

[Autumn]

72. Then why don't you start an OP on the Obama vs Romney debate?

I addressed the future Hillary vs Bernie your OP was about. You still didn't like the answer and it was not flowery rhetoric. Bernie will win the debate by debating Hillary.The answers he will give will be clear and concise, Hillary's won't.

[Autumn]

71. No, I'm not missing the point at all nance. We all know YOU don't see him that way.

Any person who thinks that we Supporters are so stupid as to think that Bernie has changed anything by virtue of who he is, would be simply ridiculous, he's has worked hard to change things. As for his message well it sure as fuck is resonating with a a lot of people.

None of Bernies supporters here pretend that Bernie has changed any fucking thing by virtue of who he is and what his message is. We support him because of his record and his stand on issues and we know for a fact that a lot of people, not just democrats like what he has to say when they hear it and we think that his leadership will change the direction of the country, which is something that needs to be done. People are fed up with the fucking status quo that centrist democrats are so fond of. We also don't believe" that anyone and everyone is going to believe he is different than ever other politician we've ever encountered," but IMO he beats most democrats hands down. We just think he takes the right stand on the issues that are important to us. If you think that in terms of perception Hillary will come off better than Bernie all I can say is

You don't have a crystal ball but you pull out some shit from Romney vs Obama debates and decide that's the way it's going to be and I'm supposed to address the silliness of future debate "perception" "OMG! debates are not educating, they just have to look good! Hillary will show up, they will announce her name and she will win, without even opening her mouth !!!! Because her name! Her youth! Her honesty! Her straightforwardness OMG people will adore her! OMG political naivete!

Your whole post was a prime example of bull shit put downs of Bernie supporters and Bernie. Why don't you go find a candidate you like and build them up instead of writing BS screeds trashing Bernie supporters.

[NanceGreggs]

73. Thank you for confirming ...

... that you did indeed miss the point - by miles.

The point had absolutely nothing to do with the Romney/Obama debates.

The political realities ARE the political realities. And pointing out those realities is not "bashing" anyone.

[matt819]

29. Ho hum

Maybe, maybe not.

You make Sanders seem like an oaf with his thumb up his ass. He's a smart, politically savvy US senator. And I'm thinking - and this is admittedly an assumption - that he'll prepare for the debates with experience debate preparation professionals. Just sayin'.

[oldandhappy]

30. Interesting question. No answer!

Thinking about it as I scrolled thru the responses.

Bernie tells truth -- whether his truth or the truth -- but truth I certainly want to hear. So another question is whether or not other people want to hear truth. Reaction to the physical appearance things people mentioned will depend on a person's preconceived notion of feeling pro or con towards Bernie. I enjoy him, lots. Hillary speaks very carefully. Do we know what she means? Yet if she is the candidate I will gladly vote for her. Are the debates definitive? I do not know. I guess Bernie wins via a combination of truth, seriousness, holding back somewhat so he does not look as if he will blow his top at a foreign leader, and a smile now and then. The grimace thing probably is not good on the national stage. It seems to me the 'win' in a TV debate does depend a lot on appearance and demeanor. Thanks for the question. Will keep it in mind!

[djean111]

32. Not a facile question. But it would be facile to believe that Bernie's - or anyone's - supporters

would base support on perceived style over substance. We shall see who comes out well in the debates.

[spinbaby]

33. Hillary has her own issues

She's been coached to speak slowly and enunciate very clearly, which to my ears makes her sound like she's talking down to children. Martha Stewart does the same thing and I find it equally annoying. They're both smart accomplished women but I wince when I hear them speak.

[bigwillq]

36. Anyone can win a debate at any time.

Hillary can. Bernie can. O'Malley can. Rubio can. Cruz can.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Can he win? If they host it in Mississippi and Clinton deploys the appropriate accent, then yes.

Sanders has been very good at not personalizing the campaign. If he continues, he won't be seen as "picking on the woman" with a $2.5 billion campaign.

[OilemFirchen]

44. Killer strategy!

Let's continue to appropriate wingnut talking-points in defense of a man "very good at not personalizing the campaign".

People need to be "taught" about Sanders. What better way than channeling Karl Rove?

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. I take it you abandoned your quest to avoid being seen as facile at some point upthread. n/t

[OilemFirchen]

49. Not at all.

What would give you that impression?

[JEB]

38. How can he win? In a word, HONESTY. eom.

[Orsino]

40. "Winning" is in the eye of the beholder.

Debates will come down to messaging and the presentation thereof. I think that real progressives, at least, will be looking deeper than apprearances. A message that's good enough could have very broad appeal.

A platform that amounts in any respect to status-quo may not play so well in this election.

Sec. Clinton's advantages are obvious and substantial. The way to "win," if by winning we mean changing minds, is by showing a better way.

[GeorgeGist]

41. Gosh, if we can't have the superficial ...

why bother to vote?

[OilemFirchen]

42. I'm convinced.

I'm going to sit this one out because I don't like the way the world works.

You watch. That'll change everything.

[LWolf]

43. It's telling

that, according to your post, substance can't win.

I don't think there will be an honest debate, anyway. An honest debate would ask every candidate the same questions, and give every candidate equal talk time to address those questions.

The faux debates trotted out on the tv don't do that.

All of that said, I think that Sander's focus on what people need, and willing to address those needs head on without vague words short on substance, will resonate with any watching and listening, if he's given the chance.

[OilemFirchen]

45. Substance alone cannot win.

I wouldn't bank on a victory based on the way things oughtta be.

But that's just me.

[DCBob]

46. The visual contrast will be striking.

A grumpy old frail fart versus a bright strong upbeat woman.

[OilemFirchen]

47. That's not necessary.

Nor is it valid.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. Bernie Sanders

is a "grumpy old frail fart?" Not that you had much credibility before with your fluff hit pieces but what little you might have had is gone with that statement. "Grumpy old frail fart." Truly laughable.

[DCBob]

70. Yeah.. I guess the "f" word was inappropriate.

How about. . "grumpy old frail person".

[Kalidurga]

51. a grumpy, pointing, aggressive guy picking on a woman?

LOL LOL LOL are you suggesting Sanders go easy on Hilary cuz she is a woman? LOL LOL LOL yeah lets see how that works out for yah.

[merrily]

52. Yet another infrequent poster inspired to speak out firmly. That's so cool.

[OilemFirchen]

55. Who has been here almost a decade longer than you.

Again: Read more, write less. Many could benefit from my motto.

Say... did you notice that this OP is in the form of a question?

[merrily]

58. I said infrequent. Didn't say new. Read as much as you want, but comprehension counts.

Glad you're back. Lighten up and have fun.

[OilemFirchen]

60. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Even Manny gave me an attaboy. Maybe.

It's a special night, for sure.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. No worries whatsoever

You definitely don't sound even the least bit facile.

[OilemFirchen]

56. Thanks, pal!

This post intentionally left blank.

[JI7]

54. isn't O'Malley, Chafee and probably WEbb going to be up there also ?

[OilemFirchen]

57. Addressed upthread.

I'll add that they aren't relevant to this conversation. But I did, nonetheless, err by omitting them.

[madfloridian]

59. This video you "dedicated" to the "Bernouts" is really quite surprising. More racist implications.

It's so obvious. It is really annoying when folks keep implying he's racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/118716044

You said:

"this video is dedicated to the Bernouts. (Note: For specific individuals on DU only. Not intended to besmirch Sanders supporters in general, nor the Senator. May cause predictable side effects.) "

[OilemFirchen]

62. I said nothing about Sanders being racist. I implied nothing of the sort.

I have no reason to believe that he is. I've never criticized him for anything.

What's your actual problem with that post?

[madfloridian]

63. That is baloney.

It's really obvious.

[OilemFirchen]

64. What's obvious? (n/t)

[sabrina 1]

68. Of course you don't have a reason. But you understand that this vile 'talking point' has been 'going

around' shall we say. And of course it has failed, because his record on Civil Rights is simply unassailable. I always think of Rove when I see these talking points aimed at a person's strength, because Civil Rights IS one of Bernie's many strengths. 'Attack them on what they are GOOD at'. Rove is an evil man.

What's great about having a candidate with such a fantastic record on almost EVERY important issue, and so much PROOF going back decades, is that you can watch these feeble attempts and just smile because you know they will be destroyed. And if you're a kind person, you hope that not much money was spent on the 'opposition research' because no one likes to see anyone waste the kind of money these smear campaigns cost.

[madfloridian]

69. .....