The dates have been known since October, so I had to stifle a yawn at this.

Since these events are really more about the political race rather than any meaningful exploration of policy differences, I'll continue to take a pass.  I'd go so far as to steal Carville's line (which he used about the Perot campaign) about exercises in political masturbation, though I think that's better said of the fulmination before and after.

In short, if you thought the ads have been bad...

David

________________________________
 From: Bob in Jersey <bob.in.jer...@juno.com>
To: tvornottv@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 5:51 PM
Subject: [TV orNotTV] Prez debates set

Three 90min-long clashes are slated for Bam and Mitt, Oct 3rd in Denver, Oct 16th on Lawn Guyland, and Oct 22nd in Boca.

The veep debate is in Kentucky on Oct 11th.

TheWrap

I hear people say stuff like this all the time, and it always amazes me. I
think I have seen just about every Presidential Debate since 1976, and the
majority reveal substantial differences between the two candidates.
Certainly the Obama-McCain debates turned on very important and significant
differences on health care, tax policy, financial regulation, and Iraq, all
of which issues have indeed been important during the last 3.5 years. Both
candidates gave articulate and detailed (given the constraints of the
format) presentations of their policies. If Americans had voted for McCain
very different steps would have been taken on each of those fronts. Obama
has generally followed pretty closely what he said he would do, just as
both Presidents Bush and Clinton did in the debates preceding their first
terms (the main exception to that I can think of is that Clinton ran in
1992 on a platform of aggressive economic stimulus, which he never really
did, both because the recession was well on the way to ending by the time
he took the oath, and because the deficit was a hell of a lot worse than he
had been told).

Now, what is true is that both the media and the campaigns tend to focus on
the triviata of the debates, rather than the substance, both before and
after. But that seems to me to be all the more reason for voters to watch
them for themselves, since if you skip them you are likely to only hear
about the trivia. It may also be true that the substance of the debates
rarely have much effect on determining the outcome of the election, but
that is because voters who care about the substance probably have already
educated themselves about the candidates positions before October, while
those that don't care about substance are unlikely to suddenly focus on
candidate differences about how to pay for entitlements in the out years.
But that again has nothing to do with whether the debates contain
significant substantive information, just the extent to which voters need
or care to focus on it.

For me, at least, it seemed that by the time of the 1992 campaign (and perhaps by 1988), I knew enough about the respective campaigns to not get anything new out of the debates.  To my mind, that increase in available information has increased.

At the same time, this Debate Commission has managed to, well, manage the process in such a way that makes it less and less likely that new information will come out in the debates.  Personally, I'd like to see a frequency of debates somewhere between the three +1 VP we get now, and the excessive number in the nominating contests.  Start after the last convention, instead of waiting until October.  Study how the UK utilized online questions and responses (Example - http://www.youtube.com/ukelection) to improve on the lousy execution here in the U.S.  Just shy of three months out, I have no confidence that the Commission can manage a meaningful online component as they promise in the debate format announcement:

"In addition, the CPD is undertaking an innovative internet-based voter education program that will encourage citizens to become familiar with the issues to be discussed in the debates, and to share their input with the debate moderators in advance of the debates. The program, which will be announced later this month, will be led by a coalition of internet leaders."

The citizens will become familiar with the issues to be discussed in the debates?  I know it's tempting, but talk down much?

Given all the efforts - on both sides of the aisle - to utilize new technologies to engage their supporters (and the public), it is disappointing that the Debate Commission still seems captured by old media.

And no, I still won't watch.

David

________________________________
 From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>
To: tvornottv@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Prez debates set

The dates have been known since October, so I had to stifle a yawn at this.
I hear people say stuff like this all the time, and it always amazes me. I think I have seen just about every Presidential Debate since 1976, and the majority reveal substantial differences between the two candidates. Certainly the Obama-McCain debates turned on very important and significant differences on health care, tax policy, financial regulation, and Iraq, all of which issues have indeed been important during the last 3.5 years. Both candidates gave articulate and detailed (given the constraints of the format) presentations of their policies.  If Americans had voted for McCain very different steps would have been taken on each of those fronts. Obama has generally followed pretty closely what he said he would do, just as both Presidents Bush and Clinton did in the debates preceding their first terms (the main exception to that I can think of is that Clinton ran in 1992 on a platform of aggressive economic stimulus, which he never really did, both
 because the recession was well on the way to ending by the time he took the oath, and because the deficit was a hell of a lot worse than he had been told).

Now, what is true is that both the media and the campaigns tend to focus on the triviata of the debates, rather than the substance, both before and after. But that seems to me to be all the more reason for voters to watch them for themselves, since if you skip them you are likely to only hear about the trivia. It may also be true that the substance of the debates rarely have much effect on determining the outcome of the election, but that is because voters who care about the substance probably have already educated themselves about the candidates positions before October, while those that don't care about substance are unlikely to suddenly focus on candidate differences about how to pay for entitlements in the out years. But that again has nothing to do with whether the debates contain significant substantive information, just the extent to which voters need or care to focus on it.

--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

I'm going to have to take your word on that, because I didn't watch
the debates, but did Obama really say he'd continue to lead us into a
recession, capitulate on health care, cave on election reform, allow
GitMo to remain open, continue strip-mining civil liberties, keep the
military in countries despite claiming wars were over, and just
generally be a ball-less, d*ck-less, ineffective leader? Because if
that is what he said in the debates, I actually might tune in.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

I have been trained not to rise to redder bait than that over the last few
years, so I will let the substance pass. But again it is irrelevant to the
point. Regardless of your evaluation of President Obama's record, there is
no doubt that there were real differences between him and McCain, that a
President McCain would have made significantly different decisions than
President Obama did (for better or worse), and these differences were well
aired in the debates 4 years ago.

I am not trying to persuade anyone to watch. Like you, I rarely learn
anything new during the debates, since I follow the elections very closely,
listen to major and minor speeches throughout the long (long) campaign
season, and read many of the speeches online that I don't get to hear. It
certainly is unlikely that anything new of substance would be revealed in a
debate that was not already  available in more detail elsewhere. I don't
watch the debates to learn more information, but because I am also
interested in the their less substantive effects on the electorate, and how
they will be spun in the media later.

My only point is that it is not true (in my view) that nothing of substance
is said in the debates; on the contrary, the majority of what is said in
the debates is of substance. The majority of voters do not follow the
campaigns very closely. For them, the debates are an advanced seminar in
public policy, compared to the most frequent source of information about
the candidates, which are 30 second commercials. I don't know if Romney's
role at Bain in 1999, or Obama's "you didn't build that", statements will
still be in play in October. If they are, most voters will learn more of
substance about both of those by watching the debates than they will be
watching commercials from either side. Of course, they can learn even more
by reading a little on their own, but most will not do that.

I certainly do not disagree that the debates can and should be improved,
nor do I disagree that for several reasons they are unlikely to improve.
However let's not kid ourselves, if by some magic we were able to get a
format similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the only people who would
watch would be the ones who watched the reenactments of those 19th century
Senate debates on CSPAN a few years ago. Presidential debates are
simplistic and overly safe for the same reason that most of the content on
TV, whether it be news, entertainment or sports, is simplistic - they are
geared to the attention span and capacity for complex thought of the
average American. It is just for that reason that I am always surprised by
how much actual content these candidates are able to squeeze into their 90
second windows.

Fair enough. But in my humble opinion, the talk of any candidate
amounts to just that... talk. Do they say different things and even
have different ideas? Of course, but the change that was promised by
Obama throughout his campaign proved to be empty rhetoric... or change
for the worse. I have no stomach to hear the false promises and
outright lies contained within "debates" (if we were talking, those
would have been air quotes). Even if they cover important issues such
as privacy, gun control, health care, or economic recovery -- we'll
not see the much-needed substantive reform needed in those areas from
either candidate. Watching the queen in the clip of the opening
ceremonies, I couldn't help but think that she can affect just as
insignificant an amount of change in her government as the president
does in ours. Not quite a figurehead, but more or less toothless. So
while you might be able to see and hear differences in candidates
during the debates, it just doesn't matter in a world where
corporations are people and women aren't equal in the eyes of the
government.

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)