Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Debates Set
The debates are set, there will be four of them: Sept. 30, Oct. 8, and Oct. 13, and Oct. 5 for the VPs. All are at 9 p.m. Eastern. Get more details and read the memorandum of understanding (it is unreadable in Preview for me, I had to use Acrobat). There's not much different in here than in previous years. Says CNN: "A senior Kerry source said the Bush campaign was 'hung up' over whether a light or something audible like a buzzer would be used to tell the candidates when their time is up. A Bush official acknowledged that last-minute questions, mostly over the time cue issue, held up the agreement." In related news, it appears the first debate proposed by the truly nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, scheduled for this Wednesday in Columbus, isn't going to happen.
Typical of politicians to get stuck on the least important decisison...
According to "the Economist", however, Kerry is already "kebabized" over Vietnam and his changing mind over the Iraq war, while Bush is very hard to kebabize about his military record the silver spoon he had in his mouth when he was born, and "probably up his nose", and also because he is constantly underestimated.
People have already started voting thanks to loose absentee rules in several states, electronic voting machines are everywhere, districts are gerrymandered, the vote is amplified by the electoral colleges, and everyone has already accepted the result thanks to biased polls.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
All this about bush being stupid, but Kerry was on the faily show and he said 'bush has never lost a debate he has been in'
It should be an interesting battle. I doubt kerry will win
I'm personally a Kerry supporter, but I don't think his campaign has been handled terribly well. One of the most frequent complaints I've seen levied against Kerry has been that he hasn't presented a clear plan for what he would do if he were president. People seem to feel that, whether or not they agree with what Bush says, he seems very forward in his message and they feel like they have a good idea what to expect if he served another term. Kerry, on the other hand, has given vague suggestions about what he'd do, but hasn't presented much in the way of a solid plan. Now, his attacks this week about Iraq were quite a bit more specific than what he's done in the past, but Iraq is such a volatile issue that I doubt it's going to rally undecided voters much.
Edwards will likely do well in the vice presidential debate, regardless of how Kerry does, just by virtue as coming across as generally more likeable than Cheney. This probably won't mean much, of course. But if Kerry comes out and answers questions directly, without trying to skirt the issues, he could see quite a gain from his debate performance. He's a much better speaker than Bush, and if he comes out directly with solid goals for when he becomes president, he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.
Of course, who knows what Kerry will actually do. I don't have that much confidence that he'll be able to pull it off. But I think if he makes a solid effort to present himself as decisive in the debates, it could very well change the momentum in the election. Or he may just fuck it up like he's been doing the rest of the campaign. We'll have to wait and see.
hot foreign sheep.
That might be because Kerry decided to run on his Vietnam service and his 15 positions on Iraq..
districts are gerrymandered
In a presidential district the only state that districts matter are ME an NB (total 10 EV).
the vote is amplified by the electoral colleges
As it is intended to be, we are a federal Republic not a direct democracy
and everyone has already accepted the result thanks to biased polls
The same polls had Kerry Winning two months ago? If kerry loses this its because he refused to define himself as anything other than a vietnam vet who would do "everything" "different" in Iraq (note the specifics he has given)..
A very good idea, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Debates have gotten so stale, even the most stalwart arm chair politicians have a hard time swallowing them. The 2000 Bush-Gore debates were just awful because of their predictability and the absense of real political discourse.
Citizen's Debate Commission is made of people all over the spectrum who want to bring back real debates, where the candidates answer actual unscreened questions from actual human beings. Count me in.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
or:
Mindboggling, but I suppose given the stakes that's not surprising.
I guess the following is to protect Bush or Kerry's ass if either stuffs up majorly:
As if a major faux pas (or pratfall!) wouldn't get media coverage anyway, but I guess it's not as bad as if it was used in an opposition campaign ad...
Can someone explain this to me? I'm not sure what is meant by it:
But what irks me most is that the format does not allow sufficient time for comprehensive, you know - debate. Come on: 120 seconds for a statement, 90 seconds for a rebuttal and a maximum of a further 60 seconds split between both candidates for extended discussion (and then only at the moderator's discretion)?
Coupled with the following:
I know there are a lot of topics and only so much time, but this isn't going to lead to debate (as I understand the term) but a series of extended and pre-rehearsed soundbites. And the inability to actually ask your opponent questions strikes me as stupid and cowardly (what are these guys afraid of?), but I guess I'm used to a parliamentary model where candidates are at each other's throats much more directly.
Incidentally, I wonder how often the domestic/economic questions will be turned into homeland "security" questions, viz economic security, healthcare security, unborn child security, national park preservation
a world in progress...
at least get your sentence in french correctly
"les français sont des singes capitulards mangeurs de fromages".
As Dave Berry said, the French on the opposite think that the Americans are overweight burger munching trigger happy ignorant religious zealots driving gas-guzzling SUVs, and like all nationalistic clichés, this is also true.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
Am I the only one that finds it frightening that someone could wait until a month before an election, and hope to make up their minds based on a debate? When you have a four year presidential record and a 19 year senate record to consider, how can a couple hours of talk convince you of anything?
In my mind, the "undecided" voter is just about the most foolish creature on earth. A political campain will tell you what you want to hear. A record speaks volumes about what you can expect.
The old cliche holds, talk is cheap.
And I dont even think we should whine they are racist for saying that
That stupid stunt (will you enlist your kid) is typical of moore who in bowling for columbine snipped part of different heston speaches together to make it look like he told the famlies to take their grief and shove it.
Do you think that the Congress actually did read the "Patriot" Act before passing it?
I dont think congress reads allot of stuff before passing it, thats not bushes fault.
and a brother of Osama bin Laden
Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11 is not expressed in a way you would like, but most of the problems it discussed are real, without question
It was as accurate as any political commercial, take a few facts see them through very biased eyes and edit them to make your point.
My problem, is its not a documentary, it was nowhere near objective. His editing style make his moves more about entertainment and political knee padding than anything else.
ut it is very difficult to present all that he did in just 2 hours.
Not if you leave anything that does not fit your political message on the cutting room floor its not.
Or a good way to describe the UN Oil for Food scam..
Moderator: Targeted specific question about exact concrete details that you would do the next four years in your administration.
Kerry: Patriotism, I am not Bush, purple heart, I am not Bush.
Bush: 9/11, fear, terrorists, tax cut.
I see the average person (in your opinion) is smart enought to get an MBA from harvard and fly a fighter interceptor
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Badnarik is on 49 ballots.
Cobb is in 28 ballots.
Nader is on 44 ballots
Peroutka is on 39 ballots.
All four candidates have the potential to win the Electoral College due to the states on which they have ballot access.
Why does the "nonpartisan" debate commission insist on excluding every candidate that can win?
With the Democratic Primary debates we saw that you can have a debate with 10 candidates, so why not have one with 6?
It is a shame that Republicans talk about economic freedom and Democrats talk about personal freedom, but at the end of the day neither party wants you to have POLITICAL FREEDOM!
He was not just above the averge he was more than 25% over it (keep in mind that in the 60's not everyone took the SAT only those intending to go to college which was a much smaller % of the population than today).
Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average. I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university.