All the hype about the debates

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Here's a thought. Is it just me, or the influence of the presidential TV debates looks overly pumped up? I mean, those debates are presented as if they're somehow expected to turn everything on its head before the election. As if nothing of what had happened over the last months is of any importance any more. Well, when was the last time a TV debate caused a complete 180'? And, while we're at it, when has any VP debate affected the main battle between the presidential candidates?

OK, in all fairness, there are a few very notable exceptions from the rule. Probably the only VP candidate that made such an impact was Lyndon Johnson in 1960. But neither Dan Quayle, nor Geraldine Ferraro, not even George HW Bush (as Reagan's VP) had such a significance for their respective campaigns. And Sarah Palin only confirmed what everybody already knew in 2008: that there was no way Obama would've lost.

Come to think of it, it's too difficult to say for sure what exactly affects the undecided voters during a campaign. Even in a presumably polarized election like this one, where both candidates have said that "we're standing at a very clear choice". I.e. two contrasting ideological concepts. But let's face it, the media debates in their current version are a pale shadow of what they used to be in 1960, and they're fast losing of their significance. Today, when most of the media is about spin and talking points, pretending that two separate press conferences of the two candidates (where the main points are watered down, perfumed and served in a neat, pre-rehearsed package) constitute a "debate" in any way, is a farce. Most discussion elements are stripped down. The candidates are concerned more about appearing presidente-ey, rather than presenting something of substance.

And the same applies to this type of TV duels where each of the candidates recites pre-written stanzas in response to a pre-selected set of questions. Not to mention that very often they're forced to squeeze their positions into tiny 1-2 minute bits where such complex subjects like the economy, health care, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the Iranian nuclear program are impossible to dig into. They only scratch the surface of the issues, they don't have time to get to essentials (like Clinton did in that speech at the Democratic convention), and they certainly don't dare to stray too much into tangents or paddle into dangerous waters where they could potentially do some stupid mistake and extend their list of gaffes. (And the gotcha-journalists are sure to stalk for those as soon as anyone opens their mouth).

It's become clear that such a debate format gives little opportunity for a nuanced elaboration of positions. It all boils down to an "express" exchange of remarks, and the repetition of well rehearsed soundbites, designed for a single purpose: hitting the subject right on the head, and staying on course, with no chance of deviations, and no potential slip-ups.

That said, we-the-public who for the most part behave like virtual vultures, are just waiting for any of the candidates to "discover" a non-existing country somewhere in the world, or add 7 new states to the list of US states, or forget the name of the department they mean to shut down, or to shock the audience by proclaiming themselves the ultimate expert on the history of the Soviet Union. And all that explains why ever since 1960 when the famous Nixon v Kennedy debate happened, the public's fascination with these presidential TV duels has steadily declined. Even despite all the showbiz-style efforts of the TV anchors to turn it into some kind of reality show.

But still, I have no doubt that millions of Americans (and even people in Europe who'll have to stay awake until the small hours) will be watching the first debate today. Maybe hoping to witness a major meltdown of one (or both) of the candidates, while pretending to be listening "because we care about the issues".

Why is that? Because this election will be very closely contested, that's why. And in such situations, it's natural to expect that the final outcome would be at least partially affected by the debates. There's a sense that even the tiniest remark, or the smallest but very smart rebuttal, could get overhyped and "go viral" to an extent that it'd sway the vote. We've seen what a small Youtube video could do, after all. There's also this: maybe those who still haven't decided how they'd vote (if at all) are still holding some hopes that they'd see what Romney is really about, whether his policies are really as dangerous as some are presenting them to be, and whether he has the necessary economic competence that's expected of a president. In other words: does he look like a presidential material or not.

And lastly, but most importantly, the TV debates on October 3, 16 and 22 could have some importance only if the two candidates are still close in the polls by that time. If one of them (probably Obama) takes a too big lead, the effect could be like an avalanche of withdrawn support from Romney. There was a sense of doom about McCain's candidacy back in 2008, mostly due to Obama's irresistible aura of Hopey-Change. Now that there's no trace from that hype remaining, it's all about Jobs Jobs Jobs, etc.

The super large poll margin was the reason why nobody cared particularly much about the TV debates between Reagan and Mondale in 1984, or the Dole v Clinton debates in 1996. By the time the debates came, the press was already writing obituaries about the doomed candidacies and odes to the winners, long before the poll stations were opened. But if this month Romney puts a dent in Obama's rhetorical armor (which would equal a miracle), then maybe I'd be prepared to stand corrected.

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I disagree heartily.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So why do you disagree and where are my assertions wrong? Reagan was the first guy to win with an entirely new GOP coalition that's ensured two two-term GOP POTUSes and one one-termer, while Carter failed entirely to motivate his base and his flops with things like that 'rescue' attempt where the Hostage Crisis was concerned and being the only man in Washington shocked by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan just dug his hole a little deeper.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

For a lot of reasons. But your point here?

Reagan was the first guy to win with an entirely new GOP coalition that's ensured two two-term GOP POTUSes...

Sorry, well I disagree with that too. Richard Nixon essentially created that coalition 15 years earlier in 1968 (Nixon called it The New Majority) (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v010/10.1galvin.pdf), made up of traditional upper class Republicans, combined with traditional Northern Democratic Catholic urban voters with conservative Southern white voters (traditionally Democratic leaning) and law and order leaning union types.

Richard Nixon won in 1968 (interestingly enough,with NO debates in his two campaign cycles), and 1972 with one of the largest victories in the presidency. Ford lost in 1976 by only two percent and his own debate flubs too ( I didn't mention that in my initial reply), had a significant impact as well.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

For a lot of reasons, so you state, but you have only named one of them, and I appreciate your naming this one.

Your statement is wrong, in that the rise of the Religious Right, one of the largest and most effective elements of the Reagan-Bush coalitions was not a Nixon-era phenomenon but came later. Consolidating this was the result of the work of people like Falwell and Buckley. Nixon's Administration nearly ruined the GOP, but Buckley and Falwell enabled it to bounce back. Richard Nixon won 1968 in no small part because the Dems were in nearly as ghastly a disarray as the Goldwater campaign had been four years earlier, with LBJ not running, RFK gunned down, and things like the riots on the part of the rich white kids who didn't want to die in Vietnam.

1972 was primarily the result of facing a blithering idiot of an opponent who didn't have the capability to run a campaign well.

Ford lost his election to Carter in no small part because he was too tied to Nixon, and because he'd never actually been elected in the first place. As such his building an actual *base* to run with was for obvious reasons difficult.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And Ford lost in no small part to his goof-ups and Carter's debate performance (Carter cited his debate performance as the reason he won against Ford, and historians have cited it as very watershed moment). Watergate was known through out the entire election, and yet Ford was surging in the polls until he flubbed with the infamous line about Eastern Europe was no longer under the domination of the Soviet Union. He never recovered from that.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ford's major problem was that people at the time were, flatly put, tired with Wahington and Carter was running on that basis. Ford also had a number of other disadvantages, but things like pardoning Nixon were a big help. Which historians cited it, and are these popular or professional historians? My citation of this statement comes from the prologue to a biography of Ronald Reagan titled President Reagan, the Triumph of Imagination. Where it noted that difference between Carter and Reagan was that one was anti-Washington, the other anti-government.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And yet the poll results after the gaffe were pretty telling. I think we're talking past each other and this really isn't productive now.