Are Debates Overrated?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

After all Kerry slapped Bush* around in all three debates and Bush* still won the election...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. First: These little sound-bite shows aren't debates.

Second: Bush didn't win the election.

If there were real debates, where the candidates had to defend their positions instead of spout talking points, they might mean something.

[rhett o rick]

15. Sorry, didn't read your post before i wrote same thing. nm

[LWolf]

2. Real debates are not overrated.

I've yet to see one in this primary season.

In a legitimate debate, all on the stage would get equal talk time, and all would answer the same questions.

What we've had so far are staged commercials pushing some forward and some back.

Kerry, btw, WON.

[janx]

3. I'll echo what others have already said...

These televised primary events are not debates. They're heavily scripted, controlled, and ridiculous.

Edited for spelling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Have Been In Debates And Watched Debates

No matter how scripted they are or were I have never seen someone get slapped around as bad as Bush*, especially in the first debate, never...

[janx]

5. Yes, and...

?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. But Obviously It Didn't Win Him The Election Or Give Him A Margin So Large They Couldn't Steal It..

Even if you discount Ohio, Kerry lost the pop vote by 3,000,000 votes...

We all hate the guy but do we think he stole 3,000,000 votes...

I haven't seen anybody suggest that...

[janx]

7. I agree with you.

It makes me wonder how many people watched those debates. :shrug:

[goodgd_yall]

8. Most voters vote on impressions and personality

Not substance or voting records. Bush won (although some say he didn't--nevertheless it was close)because voters were still buying his bullshit about being the only one who could keep them safe. They didn't care that he came across as an ignorant buffoon. Kerry didn't have a particularly "winning" personality either.

[Stop Cornyn]

9. Facts versus marketing-driven perception is generally overrated; the overrating of debates is just a

subset of this larger phenomenon.

[Clintonista2]

10. The debates certainly have an impact

Kerry was trailing bush by what, 20% before the debates? After the debates they were pretty much dead even, and Bush ended up winning the GE by less than a single percent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Bush Won By Three Percent And 3,000,000 Votes...

I don't think Kerry was ever 20% behind:



http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm#2way


But I am revisiting my opinion...The debates did help...They just weren't enough... After the spanking Kerry gave him he should have lost in a landslide...

[Uncle Joe]

12. I believe the debates are important, even vital, but only so far as the media treats them.

When a supposed sigh from one candidate, (which wasn't even remarked on until a day or two after the debate) becomes more important than the obvious lies, mistakes and or errors of another candidate, it all becomes a tragic joke on the American People.

[ileus]

13. What we now call debates are BS....bunch of canned scripted jibberish.

[rhett o rick]

14. We have "sound bite" exchanges, not debates. nm

[cobalt1999]

18. You beat me to it by 2 minutes.

I agree.

[cobalt1999]

16. The debates we see aren't really debates...

They are attempts to leave a lingering "soundbite" or impression on those watching. For example: Reagan's "There you go again" comment. Forget the topic or who won...it's the surviving soundbite that matters.

They are definitely not about making logical points on an issue, so "winning" is unimportant. The debates are important and not overrated as a chance to get a memorable soundbite out , however, who "wins" is almost meaningless.

[sampsonblk]

17. Yep. Obama's been doing great, but Hillary gets the bump

More than being overrated, I think they are used for the wrong purpose. As someone else said, these presidential debates are nothing more than a chance for the public to get acquainted with candidates and get a feel for them. Those who focus on plans and such are kicking themselves in the foot.

Plans are fine, and a candidate will get skewered for not having them, but beyond that they are useless. And most of us know not a single one of any of these candidate plans will ever be enacted. So its really about creating a relationship with the public, not about defeating your opponents on policy details and knowledge.