How should we judge the "winner" of the debates (or have you predetermined the outcome already) ? What are the criteria? Let's see if we can define it ahead of time.

*knowledge of facts
*ability to articulate positions
*appropriate humor
*coolness under fire
*explanations for past conduct or positions
*general appearance

What else, and how to weight the criteria?

How should we judge the "winner" of the debates (or have you predetermined the outcome already) ? What are the criteria? Let's see if we can define it ahead of time.

*knowledge of facts
*ability to articulate positions
*appropriate humor
*coolness under fire
*explanations for past conduct or positions
*general appearance

What else, and how to weight the criteria?

The problem with all of these factors is they are strictly based on our own opinions of performance. I can predict the winner right now based on these factors. Or at least I can predict who on this board will say W is the winner and who will say JK is the winner.

Then again I'm not really sure how to debate the debates with out it being completely based on opinion.

The problem with all of these factors is they are strictly based on our own opinions of performance. I can predict the winner right now based on these factors. Or at least I can predict who on this board will say W is the winner and who will say JK is the winner.

Then again I'm not really sure how to debate the debates with out it being completely based on opinion.

Agreed. Remember Kissinger complimented Ford on how well he did in his infamous debate. It wasn't until days passed when they realized they had a real problem on their hands.

Here is a link to one scoring system for ranking speakers:

http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/debate/scoring.html


However, in this case the winner of the debate will be the one who gets off the sound bite that is replayed the most in the media. The instant reaction of those that watch is not as important as what the media says in the days following the debate. A single 10 second clip will determine it... such as "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" (Reagan 1980), or "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy." (Benson, 1988 vp).

Agreed. Remember Kissinger complimented Ford on how well he did in his infamous debate. It wasn't until days passed when they realized they had a real problem on their hands.

it's the 30 seconds that get replayed on the news later. That means it's usually a 'big moment,' for better or worse. It's like a stage race -- you ride 2200 miles, and the race is decided by a few seconds.

Give me a race and I bet I can tell you the 30 seconds you remember from the debates.

It sucks. It's just a crapshoot, whether you're on the right end of the right 30 seconds.

Just as a general matter though, most people could care less about positions on the issues. They're really just sizing the candidates up -- checking out how well they stand up under pressure. You can say any goddamn thing, just about, as long as you look like not much could ever rattle you.

How should we judge the "winner" of the debates (or have you predetermined the outcome already) ?

Why would you think (old ed) that any (old ed) of us would be so (old ed) partisan to have our (old ed) minds made up already (old ed) based on preconcieved notions? ;-)

Alcohol tolerance. That's how I plan to choose the winner! I bet Ed drinks ya under the table! ;-)

Here is a link to one scoring system for ranking speakers:

http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/debate/scoring.html


However, in this case the winner of the debate will be the one who gets off the sound bite that is replayed the most in the media. The instant reaction of those that watch is not as important as what the media says in the days following the debate. A single 10 second clip will determine it... such as "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" (Reagan 1980), or "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy." (Benson, 1988 vp).

Good point, but then these days it depends upon which channel you are watching. I guarantee CNN will not be running the same quotes as Fox.

What were some other memorable presidential debate quotes?

We're not going to hear "W is for 'wrong'," are we?

Yes, it's very subjective, but sometimes there is a clear winner.

Why would you think (old ed) that any (old ed) of us would be so (old ed) partisan to have our (old ed) minds made up already (old ed) based on preconcieved notions? ;-)

Alcohol tolerance. That's how I plan to choose the winner! I bet Ed drinks ya under the table! ;-)

haven't been paying close attention to my posts about Kerry for the past year. You'll probably find me NOT posting anything about who won the debates. My despairing stupor will forbid it.

How should we judge the "winner" of the debates (or have you predetermined the outcome already) ? What are the criteria? Let's see if we can define it ahead of time.

*knowledge of facts
*ability to articulate positions
*appropriate humor
*coolness under fire
*explanations for past conduct or positions
*general appearance

What else, and how to weight the criteria?

Kerry has to be near perfect and Bush has to stumble.

It's Bush's to lose. Anything less than a clear undeniable victory by Kerry is a victory for Bush. Remember Kerry has to steal support if he gets a draw then that means GWB has protected his lead. Bush is very well coached and knows how to stubbornly stay on message and not get sucked into an extemporaneous battle of wits. Frankly Kerry would have to find some magical way to get Bush out of his comfort zone and mess up somehow; make some sort of gaff that would show him to be incompetent, out of touch, etc.... Ain't going to happen. The rules have been negotiated to prevent any sort of uncontrolled situation and Bush will be prepared.

So that's what I think would be needed. Bush has to be demonstrably rattled and Kerry has to appear like he has an incredible grasp of the facts and shows a heretofore rarely seen charismatic zeal that people will look up to. I don't think Kerry is going to flush out Bush's weak side and I doubt he'll suddenly discover an ability to really turn people on.

One other thing, I believe there are 3 debates so Kerry has to maintain consistency over the next 5 weeks. He can't change tactics each time like Gore did. The Republicans have been hammering home the flip-flop characterization over and over (mostly irrational btw), Kerry has to stay out of this giant bear trap to succeed.

it's the 30 seconds that get replayed on the news later. That means it's usually a 'big moment,' for better or worse. It's like a stage race -- you ride 2200 miles, and the race is decided by a few seconds.

Give me a race and I bet I can tell you the 30 seconds you remember from the debates.

It sucks. It's just a crapshoot, whether you're on the right end of the right 30 seconds.

Just as a general matter though, most people could care less about positions on the issues. They're really just sizing the candidates up -- checking out how well they stand up under pressure. You can say any goddamn thing, just about, as long as you look like not much could ever rattle you.

Sorry to bring up Clinton again, but this time I'll concede he was about as good as it gets. He was untouchable in a debate, as he could wiggle around any problem, co-opt any position, and say anything with a totally honest and sincere face. No matter what his opponent said, he'd say "I agree," then go on to differentiate his position as being slightly better. He was full of crap, but it came off well.

Don't think either Kerry or Bush can do that, though.

Sorry to bring up Clinton again, but this time I'll concede he was about as good as it gets. He was untouchable in a debate, as he could wiggle around any problem, co-opt any position, and say anything with a totally honest and sincere face. No matter what his opponent said, he'd say "I agree," then go on to differentiate his position as being slightly better. He was full of crap, but it came off well.

Don't think either Kerry or Bush can do that, though.

Game over. Brilliant.

haven't been paying close attention to my posts about Kerry for the past year. You'll probably find me NOT posting anything about who won the debates. My despairing stupor will forbid it.

Oh jeez, I haven't been paying attention at all. I thought Doug was talking about your forum debate- I hadn't considered he was talking about the Presidential debates.

man I gotta pull my head out and get some fresh air...

Kerry has to be near perfect and Bush has to stumble.

It's Bush's to lose. Anything less than a clear undeniable victory by Kerry is a victory for Bush. Remember Kerry has to steal support if he gets a draw then that means GWB has protected his lead. Bush is very well coached and knows how to stubbornly stay on message and not get sucked into an extemporaneous battle of wits. Frankly Kerry would have to find some magical way to get Bush out of his comfort zone and mess up somehow; make some sort of gaff that would show him to be incompetent, out of touch, etc.... Ain't going to happen. The rules have been negotiated to prevent any sort of uncontrolled situation and Bush will be prepared.

So that's what I think would be needed. Bush has to be demonstrably rattled and Kerry has to appear like he has an incredible grasp of the facts and shows a heretofore rarely seen charismatic zeal that people will look up to. I don't think Kerry is going to flush out Bush's weak side and I doubt he'll suddenly discover an ability to really turn people on.

One other thing, I believe there are 3 debates so Kerry has to maintain consistency over the next 5 weeks. He can't change tactics each time like Gore did. The Republicans have been hammering home the flip-flop characterization over and over (mostly irrational btw), Kerry has to stay out of this giant bear trap to succeed.


Sean Hannity, who I sometimes listen to if I'm in the car (ABC Talk channel on XM Radio), said that all Bush needs to do is say "well, I agree with Mr. Kerry's position back on [fill in date] when he said [fill in position on war, etc.]. He won't use phrase "flip flip," be there will be a clear message of it.

What were some other memorable presidential debate quotes?

.


Reagan: “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience.”

Game over. Brilliant.

I think the game is more substantive now than in 92 or 96, or even 00 (everything changed on 9/11). "I feel your pain" won't cut it. Those were relatively pleasant times in America, and this is war time. Clinton definitely was a "feel good" president, and maybe fit the times. The prevailing emotion now, I think, is security, not sympathy.

Sean Hannity, who I sometimes listen to if I'm in the car (ABC Talk channel on XM Radio), said that all Bush needs to do is say "well, I agree with Mr. Kerry's position back on [fill in date] when he said [fill in position on war, etc.]. He won't use phrase "flip flip," be there will be a clear message of it.

If I were Kerry I would equate Bush's disbelief with the realities of Iraq with Ford's famous misstep that Poland was not under Soviet domination.

Slamdunk!

I think the game is more substantive now than in 92 or 96, or even 00 (everything changed on 9/11). "I feel your pain" won't cut it. Those were relatively pleasant times in America, and this is war time. Clinton definitely was a "feel good" president, and maybe fit the times. The prevailing emotion now, I think, is security, not sympathy.


Things are FAR LESS substantive now than they ever were. How many months did we talk about national guard vs swift boats purple hearts vs dental records etc. Has anyone come on a commercial saying, "my plan for .... yada yada yada... is as follows." Issues are a red herring. They say they want to talk about them... but they just don't seem to come up.

Reagan: “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience.”

Yes, at that very moment, Mondale was done.

Here is a link to one scoring system for ranking speakers:

http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/debate/scoring.html


However, in this case the winner of the debate will be the one who gets off the sound bite that is replayed the most in the media. The instant reaction of those that watch is not as important as what the media says in the days following the debate. A single 10 second clip will determine it... such as "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" (Reagan 1980), or "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy." (Benson, 1988 vp).
I agree...the media will decide the winner and the majority of the public who never watched the debates at all will make or reinforce their decision based on whatever soundbyte resonates most with them. Sad but true.

Things are FAR LESS substantive now than they ever were. How many months did we talk about national guard vs swift boats purple hearts vs dental records etc. Has anyone come on a commercial saying, "my plan for .... yada yada yada... is as follows." Issues are a red herring. They say they want to talk about them... but they just don't seem to come up.

I don't think the candidates will be discussing any of that crap. I think they will be discussing substantive issues like "how do we keep terrorists from nuking New York City and killing 10 million people?" etc., rather than the capital gains tax-type issues of the 90's.

How should we judge the "winner" of the debates (or have you predetermined the outcome already) ? What are the criteria? Let's see if we can define it ahead of time.

*knowledge of facts
*ability to articulate positions
*appropriate humor
*coolness under fire
*explanations for past conduct or positions
*general appearance

What else, and how to weight the criteria?


You cannot judge presidential debates by a definite criteria or a points system. For example, President Ford lost one of the debates on a fact issue (i.e., the status of Poland in the Soviet system) and Al Gore lost the 2000 debates on general appearance. I don't think that anyone can "win" a presidential debate; usually someone loses it. Here are the weak points that I could see losing the debate for one candidate or the other:

1. Kerry: Bush clearly was a winner in 2000 because he exceeded the low expectations people had for him. Given Bush's performance in 2000, the bar is higher for Bush this time. My expectations for Kerry are a mixed bag. I think that he is "smarter" than Bush, but his demeanor leaves much to be desired. If Kerry comes across well in terms of the "common touch," doesn't use too many SAT Verbal vocabulary words or use phrases that sound like something that should come out of the mouth of a BBC announcer, he will come out ahead. But, if Kerry does not break out of his stiff, upper class persona, Bush will win the debate.

2. Bush. There is a gap between the Bush administration's rhetoric about current conditions in Iraq and the apparent reality. If Bush refuses to acknowledge reality, he will come out a loser.



2.

Sorry to bring up Clinton again, but this time I'll concede he was about as good as it gets. He was untouchable in a debate, as he could wiggle around any problem, co-opt any position, and say anything with a totally honest and sincere face. No matter what his opponent said, he'd say "I agree," then go on to differentiate his position as being slightly better. He was full of crap, but it came off well.

Don't think either Kerry or Bush can do that, though.
I think Reagan was the same way. Full of crap, but came off well. Too bad that is a positive trait in a politician.

Sean Hannity, who I sometimes listen to if I'm in the car (ABC Talk channel on XM Radio), said that all Bush needs to do is say "well, I agree with Mr. Kerry's position back on [fill in date] when he said [fill in position on war, etc.]. He won't use phrase "flip flip," be there will be a clear message of it.

He can try this, but he needs to be careful. Bush has been in front of ONLY friendly audiences for a long time, and what works there is riskier to a larger audience. If he mischaracterizes his quote, or takes it out of context, and then Kerry slams him, THAT could be the debate moment.

Oh jeez, I haven't been paying attention at all. I thought Doug was talking about your forum debate- I hadn't considered he was talking about the Presidential debates.

man I gotta pull my head out and get some fresh air...

Luckily, no board consensus ever jelled around a format and the idea seemed to just sink of its own weight.

From my end, one problem is I'd have to put my biggest spin-doctor wetsuit on just to argue Kerry's side convincingly. Basically, I come down as one of those pathetic 'anyone but Bush' types who absolutely cannot envision the disaster that another four years of this nuttiness would bring down on our collective American head, but have little good to say about 'our' candidate. It's a terrible position to be in.

Obviously, Kerry needs to be well coached and certain in his explanations of flip-flopping. I think all of America will be waiting for this. It's like waiting to see if Ulrich can hang on the final climb -- everyone knows it's coming, and there is no escaping the reality.

Yes, at that very moment, Mondale was done.

This brilliant line from Reagan just blackened the carcass. I think he did it just because he could. He was good.

Obviously, Kerry needs to be well coached and certain in his explanations of flip-flopping. I think all of America will be waiting for this. It's like waiting to see if Ulrich can hang on the final climb -- everyone knows it's coming, and there is no escaping the reality.
flip flop, flop flip, flop flop....is anyone else totally sick of this phrase?

If I were Kerry I would equate Bush's disbelief with the realities of Iraq with Ford's famous misstep that Poland was not under Soviet domination.

Slamdunk!


Slamdunk with a bunch of political nerds and hacks who know what in the hell you're talking about. Of course you'd have to explain to everyone else either who Ford is or how what he said back in 1975 is somehow relevant today. You might also have to explain where Poland is and give them a brief history lesson about the Iron Curtain. Oh! then you'd have to preface that with a definition the term "iron curtain".

flip flop, flop flip, flop flop....is anyone else totally sick of this phrase?

Definitely sick of it, and I'm certain Bush won't say it. However, Bush can say something like "Mr. Kerry voted in favor of authority for the war." "Mr. Kerry said on .... that he'd vote the same way again, knowing what we know now." etc.

How should we judge the "winner" of the debates (or have you predetermined the outcome already)

I would like to see something like an olympic panel that votes after each answer to state whether the candidate actually answered the question. I'm so weary of seeing candidates dodge the questions. I come from a background of competitive speech and debate where you get hung out to dry if you evade the issue at hand or try to placate the questioner. In my make believe world, the "winner" of the debate is the person who has the guts to answer the questions. After I get that token, I'll set my sights on evaluating the worth of the answer.

Why would you think (old ed) that any (old ed) of us would be so (old ed) partisan to have our (old ed) minds made up already (old ed) based on preconcieved notions? ;-)

Alcohol tolerance. That's how I plan to choose the winner! I bet Ed drinks ya under the table! ;-)

I'm an alcohol lightweight, always have been. Three beers and I'm out, unless of course there's p***y involved (sorry, really have to use that word to convey the message -- besides, we've run off all the women from here).

Until a few weeks ago I would have challenged him to a bike duel, but I've been pretty miserable on a bike lately. Plus, I'd have to concede far too much time to his superior age and experience ;-)

I would like to see something like an olympic panel that votes after each answer to state whether the candidate actually answered the question. I'm so weary of seeing candidates dodge the questions. I come from a background of competitive speech and debate where you get hung out to dry if you evade the issue at hand or try to placate the questioner. In my make believe world, the "winner" of the debate is the person who has the guts to answer the questions. After I get that token, I'll set my sights on evaluating the worth of the answer.
Isn't evading the real answer part of Politician Training 101? It would be great if the moderator could stop the debater and say "you still haven't addressed the question...you have one minute to do so."

Slamdunk with a bunch of political nerds and hacks who know what in the hell you're talking about. Of course you'd have to explain to everyone else either who Ford is or how what he said back in 1975 is somehow relevant today. You might also have to explain where Poland is and give them a brief history lesson about the Iron Curtain. Oh! then you'd have to preface that with a definition the term "iron curtain".

But I am a political nerd. At least I didn't say it in Klingon from my parents basement.

Isn't evading the real answer part of Politician Training 101? It would be great if the moderator could stop the debater and say "you still haven't addressed the question...you have one minute to do so."

That's what is so much fun about being a trial lawyer sometimes. When an adverse witness is being evasive, sometimes lawyers will request the judge to intervene and direct the witness to answer the question. I never do that. I simply ask the exact same question over and over, usually drawing an objection from the opposing counsel that the question had been "asked and answered," usually followed by the judge saying "well, it's been asked, but NOT answered." The jury gets the message very clearly, and the witness looks really bad.

Yes, debates are too often not a time to get real answers, but rather mini scripts, canned responses that are on standby for any opportunity to throw them in, assuming the question is even remotely applicable.

Isn't evading the real answer part of Politician Training 101? It would be great if the moderator could stop the debater and say "you still haven't addressed the question...you have one minute to do so."

This is why I can never seem to keep from turning off the TV in the middle of the debates. I get so frustrated when none of them answer the damn question.

I think the public at large would be so relieved if one of these political wankers would just answer the damn question. It's a risky move ... it could either win the election or sink the ship on the spot I'm guessing. Sure would be refreshing though.

But I am a political nerd. At least I didn't say it in Klingon from my parents basement.


Sigh, me too.

I would like to see something like an olympic panel that votes after each answer to state whether the candidate actually answered the question. I'm so weary of seeing candidates dodge the questions. I come from a background of competitive speech and debate where you get hung out to dry if you evade the issue at hand or try to placate the questioner. In my make believe world, the "winner" of the debate is the person who has the guts to answer the questions. After I get that token, I'll set my sights on evaluating the worth of the answer.

My equivalent of being on the spot is arguing appeals before 3 (or more) judge panels. They will ask many questions, and absolutely want a direct answer. They will kill you (legally) or follow up quickly if you evade. So, I try to always make it a point to answer "Yes." (period, full stop), then follow with "However, this case if different because...." They really appreciate that.

So, I try to always make it a point to answer "Yes." (period, full stop)

This also works when crossing back into the US. Homeland Security (formerly Customs & Immigration) seem to like direct answers.

Isn't evading the real answer part of Politician Training 101? It would be great if the moderator could stop the debater and say "you still haven't addressed the question...you have one minute to do so."

Robert McNamara once said the best political advice he ever got was: " Don't answer the question you were asked. Answer the question you wish you were asked"


There's some politics 101.

This also works when crossing back into the US. Homeland Security (formerly Customs & Immigration) seem to like direct answers.

Questions like "Are you a United States citizen?" or "What countries have you visited?" typically call for direct answers. I would state the answer clearly, quickly, and then shut up. Less said the better.

Questions like "Are you a United States citizen?" or "What countries have you visited?" typically call for direct answers. I would state the answer clearly, quickly, and then shut up. Less said the better.
...especially if your name is Mohammed something or other...

Questions like "Are you a United States citizen?" or "What countries have you visited?" typically call for direct answers. I would state the answer clearly, quickly, and then shut up. Less said the better.

Among the standard questions asked when you re-enter the United States is: "Have you been on a farm?" How do you answer when you have been standing on the side of roads in the Alps or Pyrenees watching the Tour de France? Roads that cut through all kinds of farms with both crops and livestock?

You haven't heard? These aren't really debates. There will be no debating going on. According to the candidates agreement, I do not believe that either can question the other, no rebuttals, etc. These "debates" are merely scripted sound bites. We've been seeing this for three months already at the conventions, on commercials and in speeches. Wouldn't you love to see the candidates tee-off on each other? Then we can see, who can think on their feet, who knows the issues better, who is more intelligent, etc.

You haven't heard? These aren't really debates. There will be no debating going on. According to the candidates agreement, I do not believe that either can question the other, no rebuttals, etc. These "debates" are merely scripted sound bites. We've been seeing this for three months already at the conventions, on commercials and in speeches. Wouldn't you love to see the candidates tee-off on each other? Then we can see, who can think on their feet, who knows the issues better, who is more intelligent, etc.

How about we just get them to come duke it out here on this forum?

Isn't evading the real answer part of Politician Training 101? It would be great if the moderator could stop the debater and say "you still haven't addressed the question...you have one minute to do so."

Unfortunately, evading the question is the formula for success. This is unfortunate, because they always ask really soft ball questions.

It might make things interesting to have people in the audience, internet or via phone submit questions. The only problem is that you need a modicum of moderation, and this calls into motives & such. I would like to think with months of campaigning there would be some circumstance that takes the candidates out of the scripted and safe zone.

Isn't evading the real answer part of Politician Training 101? It would be great if the moderator could stop the debater and say "you still haven't addressed the question...you have one minute to do so."

Or how about timeouts in which factcheckers check the veracity of each candidate's comments?

I hope that both candidates work on their talking styles... Kerry sounds like he trying to project his voice from his diaphragm, and Bush? What I really hate, , about Bush, , is the way that he inserts, , dramatic pauses, , in his sentences... Just talk normally! And give me some real answers! The question to both candidates is this: What makes you think that you deserve my vote? No sound bites, answer the frickin' question...

How about we just get them to come duke it out here on this forum?

That would mean Bush would have to learn what those "symbally thingies on that key thingie meant." HAR HAR HAR

That would mean Bush would have to learn what those "symbally thingies on that key thingie meant." HAR HAR HAR


Situation not helped by the Clinton people removing the keys on the way out, either.

My equivalent of being on the spot is arguing appeals before 3 (or more) judge panels. They will ask many questions, and absolutely want a direct answer. They will kill you (legally) or follow up quickly if you evade. So, I try to always make it a point to answer "Yes." (period, full stop), then follow with "However, this case if different because...." They really appreciate that.

One of the most fascinating civics experiences I've ever had was watching arguments before a state Supreme Court, absolutely riveting. Out of sheer luck the last time I was there I got to see a case involving the company I worked for at the time so it was extremely interesting. Both times I've been, the judges just tore the attorneys apart and the nervousness of the attorneys was clearly apparent. I've got a lot of respect for people that do that for a living, they clearly have unique talents and are required to perform under extreme pressure.

What I really hate, , about Bush, , is the way that he inserts, , dramatic pauses, , in his sentences... Just talk normally! He's wracking his brain for two or three more words.