In reply to z31maniac :
That was the first televised presidential debate.
Nixon had much more experience. Kennedy won. Kennedy was prettier on camera.
In reply to z31maniac :
That was the first televised presidential debate.
Nixon had much more experience. Kennedy won. Kennedy was prettier on camera.
SV reX said:In reply to z31maniac :
That was the first televised presidential debate.
Nixon had much more experience. Kennedy won. Kennedy was prettier on camera.
Kennedy won according to people who watched it on TV. Nixon won according to people who listened on the radio.
spitfirebill said:Has anybody's mind been changed by a presidential debate?
Yes often in the primaries.
02Pilot said:SV reX said:In reply to z31maniac :
That was the first televised presidential debate.
Nixon had much more experience. Kennedy won. Kennedy was prettier on camera.
Kennedy won according to people who watched it on TV. Nixon won according to people who listened on the radio.
Kennedy won the election.
Y'know what... If debates are going to be spectacle, let's just lean into it. Start with moderators who have the power and will to moderate and give them tools to inflict the will upon unruly debaters.
Establish ground rules that the moderate can and WILL cut their mics if they are speaking out of turn or being disrespectful. Give them the power to lower a candidates podium 1" ever time they attempt to dissemble or evade.
No questions from regular people. Moderators prepare questions that really dig in and grill the candidates.
Better yet, subject them to an actual test of how they'd deal with really being president. Burst into their hotel room at 3am with a made up crisis and see how well they're able to respond. Film it. Then show the videos halfway through the debate and have them explain themselves.
SV reX said:02Pilot said:SV reX said:In reply to z31maniac :
That was the first televised presidential debate.
Nixon had much more experience. Kennedy won. Kennedy was prettier on camera.
Kennedy won according to people who watched it on TV. Nixon won according to people who listened on the radio.
Kennedy won the election.
True, though it can be argued persuasively that his victory had more to do with LBJ's, um, influence in Texas (and Daley's in Chicago, for that matter) than it did with his debate performance....
I can't watch any and all politicians flap their lips on TV. Making your kids watch all of the debates is cruel and unusual punishment.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
tuna said one of them is 15, about right time to be aware of current events.
I had a middle school history teacher that made watching the debate a sort of assignment for class discussion.
In reply to j_tso :
I did say ALL of the debates. 
I do think that this particular debate is a bit silly. With 8 people up there, they are just trying to stand out in whatever way they can, which often means saying outrageous things. Also, none of these people have a prayer of winning, and the guy who does wasn't even there. And finally, it's freaking August! What are we even doing having a debate this early?
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:And finally, it's freaking August! What are we even doing having a debate this early?
Money. Visibility is a necessary precondition to fundraising, and that has to start very early indeed, especially for little-known candidates. They all have the general election in mind, but the younger ones will also be thinking about building name recognition and a war chest for future efforts if things don't work out.
Its interesting to me that on the current era televised debates, it always ends up with people ranting past their time, the moderator politely mousing that the time is up, and they dont just cut off their microphones. When your time starts, we turn on YOUR mic, not any other candidates mic. The instance that your time runs out, the mic feed drops.
but that does not give us the "jerry springer"/worldstar hip hop stile debates that rile people up.
While I agree totally with pretty much all of the complaints against debates, don't miss the point. Largely people still watch the debates in todays populace. While I don't have a large sample size, it seems my kids are far more put off than we were by these things. I hope this is some sort of sign of the end of the silliness.
Also interesting, the primaries are not elections in the same way that general elections are. The parties can simply pick a candidate to represent them, and skip the primaries. There is no electoral mandate. I wonder if the pendulum has swung enough that party committees will start to realize that having so many candidates is a bad thing.
I'd just like to see the candidates take a citizenship test and pass a middle school civics lesson on the 3 branches of government before the debates or in lieu of debates. I'm not sure there's been a politician in my lifetime that could do either of those things, let alone both. All you have to do is listen to their rhetoric to know I'm right on this count. I'd go as far as to say no one involved in either of the two corporate parties could do both, from the lowliest coffee fetching interns to the leaders.
The fact my state doesn't let me vote in the primaries because I'm not registered to either of the corporate parties tells me the whole thing is a sham anyway, but that's another discussion.
Let us know how the discussion goes with your kids about the electoral college and how the votes of the minority party in each state gets thrown away and doesn't count towards electing the president.
In reply to RevRico :
I don't get it. The primary is not a government run election, nor is it required. It's literally a popularity contest among people who are members of a party. The party has no obligation to pick the person elected in the primary as the candidate for the general election.
Why should it be necessary for the parties to allow people to vote in the primary who aren't even party members? Seems like you are trying to make it something it isn't
Its an honest question. (I'm not a party member either, and I used to live in PA)
VolvoHeretic said:Let us know how the discussion goes with your kids about the electoral college and how the votes of the minority party in each state gets thrown away and doesn't count towards electing the president.
Sounds like a Constitutional issue. Feel free to start campaigning for an Ammendment.
SV reX said:VolvoHeretic said:Let us know how the discussion goes with your kids about the electoral college and how the votes of the minority party in each state gets thrown away and doesn't count towards electing the president.
Sounds like a Constitutional issue. Feel free to start campaigning for an Ammendment.
Well, after something like 11 presidential elections of my vote not counting and wondering why I even keep voting when I know the outcome, I just don't care anymore. Hopefully Tuna55's kids might try though. 
If I could only force anybody running for public office to have to take an IQ test with the results placed on the ballot next to their name, I would be happy.
Beer Baron said:Better yet, subject them to an actual test of how they'd deal with really being president. Burst into their hotel room at 3am with a made up crisis and see how well they're able to respond. Film it. Then show the videos halfway through the debate and have them explain themselves.
I...I would watch that. Perhaps reality TV is the only way to engage voters while holding candidates accountable.
SV reX said:VolvoHeretic said:Let us know how the discussion goes with your kids about the electoral college and how the votes of the minority party in each state gets thrown away and doesn't count towards electing the president.
Sounds like a Constitutional issue. Feel free to start campaigning for an Ammendment.
I have less and less of a problem with the electoral college as I get older and wiser. I wonder if my kids will do the same thing. I'll let you know how they react as we go through that this cycle.
In reply to tuna55 :
I understand the electoral college, and have no problem with it (though it does get misused). "Throwing out minority votes" is not what it is about.
Im also ok with changing it. Through a Constitutional Amendment.
tuna55 said:SV reX said:VolvoHeretic said:Let us know how the discussion goes with your kids about the electoral college and how the votes of the minority party in each state gets thrown away and doesn't count towards electing the president.
Sounds like a Constitutional issue. Feel free to start campaigning for an Ammendment.
I have less and less of a problem with the electoral college as I get older and wiser. I wonder if my kids will do the same thing. I'll let you know how they react as we go through that this cycle.
The electoral college is far from perfect, but a straight popular vote has it's downsides, too. Candidates would basically ignore every place but large cities, because that's where the bang for the buck would be as far as reaching the most voters. At least with the EC, they have to pay lip service to rural voters.
But yeah, unless you live in one of about 5 states, your vote doesn't count for much in a presidential election. That's not great.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
That would probably be the same in a straight popular vote. It would be the 5 biggest states.
maschinenbau said:Beer Baron said:Better yet, subject them to an actual test of how they'd deal with really being president. Burst into their hotel room at 3am with a made up crisis and see how well they're able to respond. Film it. Then show the videos halfway through the debate and have them explain themselves.
I...I would watch that. Perhaps reality TV is the only way to engage voters while holding candidates accountable.
Credit for the idea goes to my U.S. Government professor back in college. Back in 2004, we were discussing the limitations of the conventional debate format and he commented how debates (even moderate and respectful ones) don't reflect how good someone would be as president.
He suggested ambushing them at 3am as the closest test to what the job is actually about.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
IQ results on the ballot would then have to be interpreted by voters, 50% of whom have below average intelligence.
You'll need to log in to post.
