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.

Comments

The debates could be very good for Kerry

[bskin]

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.

Re:bush is hard to beat

[fenix down]

Bush can't lose because everybody thinks he's stupid. That's why he wins, he wanders around stuttering and mispronouncing everything for 6 months, until the expectation is that he'll debate like a rotting fish. Then Bush just does enough coke pre-debate to create the illusion of competence, and victory is his.

Re:useless - Kerry is already kebabized

[N3WBI3]

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

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)..

Go Citizens' Debate Commission!

[quintessent]

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.

MOU comments and question

[Malfourmed]

The MOU outlining the debate procedures strike me as incredibly anal, cf:

Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color, and type of paper each prefers and using the type of pen or pencil that each prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff of the Commission will place such paper, pens, and pencils on the podium, table, or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.

or:

The stools shall be identical and have backs and a footrest and shall be approved by the candidates' representatives.

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:

Neither film footage nor video footage nor any audio excerpts from the debates may be used publicly by either candidate's campaign through any means, including but not limited to, radio, television, internet, or videotapes, whether broadcast or distributed in any other manner.

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:

The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.

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:

The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.

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 ... security.

Too late to decide

[99bottles]

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.