tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3371356228556136231..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: The Return of Debate-A-RamaJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5376827351425157462011-12-10T06:50:03.640-06:002011-12-10T06:50:03.640-06:00"If there were no debates, Perry would still ..."If there were no debates, Perry would still be an imbecile pandering to the extremes,"<br /><br />While a true statement, i think it misses the point: most voters wouldn't have a soundbite friendly demonstration of that. With this many debates in 2000 would GWB have not been exposed?<br /><br />I think this post has demonstrated how significant the debates have been in winnowing out candidates. <br /><br />The interesting question is why so many more debates this time. Is it that the cable networks weren't around in 2008, or is it that like generals always preparing for the last war, republican strategists were so impressed by Obama's 2008 debate performance against McCain that they were saying, if not, never again, at least debate performance is a very important factor?Johnny Canucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79215346148932731562011-12-09T14:31:42.700-06:002011-12-09T14:31:42.700-06:00@Anon 1:40, I gotta disagree with you on the strat...@Anon 1:40, I gotta disagree with you on the strategy for Mitt. He already tried the thing with individual mandates. You didn't hear about it because it didn't work so well. Here's <a href="http://moderatepoli.blogspot.com/2011/12/advice-to-mitt.html" rel="nofollow">my advice</a>.ModeratePolihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01721945380057992971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-88148673483325941412011-12-09T13:54:39.509-06:002011-12-09T13:54:39.509-06:00It's the same thing is with every other outwar...It's the same thing is with every other outward, seemingly important, seemingly redundant aspect of political communications - from big speeches, to convention bounces, to running mate selections, to ad buys, to swing state polls, etc., etc. On further analysis, they always seem to tell us what we should already have known, or what was happening anyway... so "reveal" or "determine" nothing or very little, sound and fury at best, etc.<br /><br />If there were no debates, Perry would still be an imbecile pandering to the extremes, Romney would still be a wooden puppet trying to approximate sentience, and Newt would still be a cross between Alcibiades and the Pillsbury Dough-Boy, and we would still be in the xth year of a worldwide crisis of finance capital with the parties arguing over modes of adjustment toward a very uncertain future.CK MacLeodhttp://ckmacleod.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-43688800099603043662011-12-09T13:40:16.089-06:002011-12-09T13:40:16.089-06:00The only real interest I have in the next debate a...The only real interest I have in the next debate are seeing the strategies and games that Romney will play. We are now approaching a sort of bizarro world re-run of the '88 Republican primary, with Romney as Bush, Sr., the 'wimpy', unconvincing, born of privilege into political family establishment candidate who's shown a strong prediliction for campaigning dirty and a lawmaker with a long record and a reputation for having a bit of a temper/mean streak.<br /><br />Romney went Rovian on Perry during those crucial debates before 'oops' by attacking him on illegal immigration despite his own record and touching Perry on the shoulder to demonstrate who's alpha dog, despite Romney's obviously inferior masculinity. My expectation is for Romney to hit Newt on individual mandates and downplay or misrepresent his legislative or intellectual accomplishments try precipitate a Dolesque angry, "stop lying about my record" moment or just even any display of temper.<br /><br />That reminds me, I need to buy some popcorn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-2319910479853481412011-12-09T12:51:12.689-06:002011-12-09T12:51:12.689-06:00Speaking of ads...
Last night on "Nightline&...Speaking of ads...<br /><br />Last night on "Nightline" there was a segment on the recent Perry ad and on how many of them are subliminally attacks on their opponents. I saw it in real-time, but here is the<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/watch/nightline/SH5584743/VD55157090/nightline-1208-shopping-wars-surviving-buying-blitz" rel="nofollow"> video </a>. I think it was towards the end.One American's Ranthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12802555692307127547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-34437077761015384482011-12-09T12:28:36.301-06:002011-12-09T12:28:36.301-06:00True, with the early states just weeks away, there...True, with the early states just weeks away, there's lots more campaign activities for voters to pay attention to than just TV debates. <br /><br />But why do campaigns spend most of their time and money close to Election Day, rather than a few months or a year before? The answer is obvious: most people don't worry about who they're going to vote for until the election nears, and rightfully so. <br /><br />I think that's what Sheer's getting at: the <i>timing</i> of these debates is what makes them important. The fact that people are paying more and more attention to the candidates far outweighs whatever distracting effect the increased amount of TV ads and candidate appearances might have.<br /><br />In other words: Because we are so close to IA and NH, whatever happens at these debates could strongly effect the outcome of those contests -and, in turn, effect who the nominee will be. The significance of that dwarfs the combined significance of all the debates that came before.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15913245096162048743noreply@blogger.com