Why The Debates Don't Matter
I admit I watched the first debate between Obama and Romney, and I will watch the others as well. I also watched the Ryan-Biden debate last week. I did and will watch not because I believe there is any validity to the forum, but simply because I want to stay current with contemporary culture. Besides, nothing else will be on TV.
While I won’t say it was a complete waste of time as there is some entertainment value in the aftermath, watching each side claim victory, they are an utterly useless and pointless exercise.
There was a time when the presidential debates meant something, when it really was a chance to hear how each of the contenders for the job thought and felt about various issues, with real, hard-hitting questions and no tolerance for show boating, deflection and dissembling. Candidates were questioned, and how they answered as much as what they said mattered, as it was more likely to be what they thought and not what they rehearsed. But, sadly that has not been the case since 1988, though some argue not since 1984.
What happened? What changed? Well, simply put, everything.
Once upon a time, actually from 1976 to 1984, the League of Women Voters ran the nationally televised presidential debates. Under their stewardship, candidates could be asked follow-up questions, town hall participants’ questions weren’t scripted nor were they plants of one party or the other. Candidates were invited to participate, but if they declined, the show would go on without them.
The cost of declining to participate was paid by Jimmy Carter when he refused to participate in a debate with the Republican party nominee Ronald Reagan and Independent John Anderson in 1980. That's right, there were more than two candidates invited to a debate, as there are more than two candidates currently running for the position of commander-in-chief today. (There is a Libertarian candidate and a Green Party candidate. Can you name them without first performing a Google search?) This no-show has been in part credited with Carter’s loss. That’s debatable, but Reagans’ upsurge in the polls immediately after Carter’s no-show was a dramatic warning to all future
candidates.
The two parties took that warning seriously, and in 1984 jointly vetoed nearly 100 panelists for the first debate in an attempt to take control of the formats — and the outcomes — away from those who would allow each party’s candidates make themselves look bad; neither side wanted a tough moderator. Then, in 1988, Bush’s and Dukakis’ campaigns got together in secret and drafted a document called a "memorandum of understanding." In it, follow-up questions were abolished, and who would be allowed to sit in the audience and who would serve as panelists was specified. Lastly and most importantly, the League of Women Voters would be allowed to continue to host the debates, thereby appearing to comply with the FCC regulations on "equal time" and maintaining a veneer of impartiality and openness, but they would not be allowed any say on how or even where the debates were held.
In response, the League of Women Voters resigned as hosts, exposed the memorandum and issued a statement saying, among other things, that the two major political parties were perpetrating a “fraud on the American voter.”
Since then, all presidential debates have been run by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Granted, this is a nonprofit organization, but calling it nonpartisan is at best disingenuous. First, they are the only ones now allowed to host debates, and they only invite the candidates from the two major parties. It may be a correct assumption that a Green party or Independent candidate stands a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected, but their inclusion in the debates could at least broaden the discussion, moving it beyond each party’s stump speeches.
Having a third, or even fourth candidate up there may infuse new ideas or, barring that, at least require the major parties to address questions and issues from another perspective in response to the "also ran" candidates’ positions. Instead, you have a controlled, limited and highly orchestrated event that does little more than give the candidates a platform, cloaked in fairness, to spin their message for their bases.
This brings us to the complaint that is most often heard about these debates, that they do very little to actually influence voters. I have to partially agree with this accusation, judging from the responses to the question of “Who won the debate” here on the Patch alone. Even the media, whom I hold most responsible in this fraud being perpetrated upon the voting public for not just going along with, but actively feeding into this debacle, say that peoples’ minds don’t get changed by listening to these horse and pony shows; already-held opinions just become more entrenched.
Yet, hundreds, if not thousands of hours of air time has been and will be given to dissecting every perception, every reaction, all with a good dose of each news outlets’ bias. And then the media smugly proclaims they were right all along, the voting public doesn’t care, there are too many people who don’t vote and the American public is simply apathetic.
I have another opinion, or should I say another perception on all of this. I say the American people do care, but are simply tired of the artifice of politics and the media’s coverage of politics. That is my perception, and after all, perception is what counts. Just listen to the media, who won each debate is all a matter of how each candidate is perceived during his canned, rehearsed, orchestrated and thoroughly prepped for responses to the agreed-upon questions
Jerry
9:36 am on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
In regards to their impact on the final results, I agree completely that the debates have little to no impact. Most voters have their minds made up and the debates only serve to fortify their decisions. I do appreciate the history lesson as to how the current format has come to be. I was unaware of this and find it interesting.
As for the assertion that Carter skipping the debate with Reagan could have cost him the election...Carter and his handlers knew that he was winding down his first term as arguably the most ineffective president in history. If anything, skipping the debate probably helped Carter. He would have had his ass handed to him by Reagan and he knew it. I will give Carter credit for the fact that he had enough conscience to not try defending the indefensible. In his mind, I truly think he was throwing in the towel by not debating.
Jerry
9:37 am on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
As for third party candidates, it's not just the debate system and the fact that it has evolved into a two person face off that limits the possibility of a third party contender. There has been a legitimate, viable third party candidate as recently as 1992 when nearly 20 million votes (including mine) went to H. Ross Perot. That's almost 20% of the popular vote. Perot did incredibly well at the debates, but was like the smart kid in class that always knows the answer and is practically jumping out of his seat with his hand thrust in the air saying, "I know...pick me...ohhh, ohhhhhh!!". He was largely ignored by the moderator and bullied by the other two candidates. His biggest "mistake" was choosing a war hero non-politician as a running mate. But what ended up happening was he largely split the republican vote and since Bush Sr. lost by only 5 million votes, it could be said Perot handed Clinton the election. The real broken part of the system, though, is highlighted by the fact that his 20 million popular votes (again, nearly 20%) earned Perot exactly Zero electoral votes.
Denise Williams
12:46 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Jerry - I too liked Perot and agree he was definitely the smartest guy in the room.
Adrianne
9:48 am on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Thank you Denise for the historical information - very interesting and illuminating. I will watch tonight to see how each candidate answers the questions and have decided not to watch my favorite channel for the after-debate spin. I think it will be interesting to see what other pundits have to say. I think,to some extent, the spin and who the media declares the winner makes a difference in the polls taken after the debate. People always want to vote for the winner and will vote for who is perceived as the winner.
Denise Williams
12:36 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Adrianne - I understand what you are saying about people wanting to be on the winning side, and I may be delusional, but I want to believe people are smarter than that. I hope people vote for what they believe is right, for the candidate they believe best reflects their values and vision for the country.
mecando
3:53 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIVING, VOTE OBAMA................
SAVE AMERICA FROM ANOTHER "BUSH" WACKER MITT ROBME!!!
Jake Delrose
12:07 am on Saturday, October 20, 2012
I think this is a robo call.
Denise Williams
4:06 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
mecando, thanks for hitting 'all caps'. Otherwise, we might not have been able to see your post.
David Corsi
6:44 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
It is fact that the Nixon Kennedy debate hugely effected polls and public opinion in favor of Kennedy. Fords appearance of not understanding the Soviet Union and East Germany in his debate cost him the election. Regans one debate with Carter turned a likely win by Regan into an easy one, "there you go again!" Bush solidifed a lead after Dukakis offended Americans by appearing cold in saying he wouldnt want the death penalty for an assilant who raped and murdered his wife. Clinton turned a town hall debate into a master class in relating to the public as the sitting President Bush appeared out of touch by looking at his watch. Bush W. gained votes when he performed better than expected vs Gore as Gore rolled his eyes, sighed heavily and tried to physically intimidate ole' George who laughed it off along with the entire town hall and nation. And finally Romney stunned a popular sitting President and changed national polls anywhere between 6 and 12 points in a week in his favor, the largest swing in polling history after a debate. Who knows what the real end result will be but it is misguided to think that these few occasions the American public get to see the candidate speak unfiltered by commercials or speech writing don't matter. They matter!
Edward Andrysiak
7:18 pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Debates do matter. In fact it all matters! I will switch parties in an instant if I think the candidate has the right plan and understanding of the needs of the country. Mostly though I watch them all. Each party has a way it conducts itself and business. As you watch the conduct of individual people in the parties through the year and the party as a whole to see how it conducts business you begin to get a feel for who you like and trust. Unfortunately, we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. There is enought stench in both parties to go around. The character of the man and that of his party are important and their traits come out for all to see at election time...from the political advertising to the lies. Obama has had four years and I don't like what I see. In fact I don't like a lot of what I see in the democratic party. I have always hoped for a Presidnet that understood profit and loss, zero base budgeting, elimination of waste and a balanced budget to name a few. O turned into a rock star with no plan...he has got to go!
Denise Williams
12:00 am on Wednesday, October 17, 2012
So, does anyone have an opinion that is different than the one they had befor the debate? More importantly, did anyone think the questions, and every member of the audience was not thoroughly vetted before being allowed to be there? And is anyone wondering why, when a question was not answered directly, that the original person was not allowed either a follow up or a redirect to get their question directly answered?
Jake Delrose
12:10 am on Saturday, October 20, 2012
I do wonder what happened to the equal exposure rights of candidates law? or is it a law, I would have to look it up.
Why are the other non-mainstream candidates not shown in forums and why are they excluded? Why have there been no legal challenges for them to be involved on tv debates or interviews?
Plainfield Ind
1:38 pm on Sunday, October 21, 2012
RIght now, I refuse to watch the political debates. I don't need to be lied to for 90 minutes. Let's get a third party candidate back into the debates like Perot in 1992. Call the Presidential Debate Commission and tell then you want to hear Libertarian candidate and former Governor Gary Johnson in the debates. The two-party system is ruining this country for 330 million of us. Some will say you are wasting your vote on a third party candidate but I turn it right back at you and say you're wasting your vote on the democrats and republicans. They are the reason why are country is in the position it is in. If you vote for the elephants and donkeys, then you deserve the government you have now. Vote Gary Johnson for President!