Do you believe that there is any effective point to candidate debates?

Question

We have seen, with previous elections, that the results of the debates have no effect upon the voting patterns of the public. GWB lost all his debates to Kerry, but he was still elected.

The question is this...do people really and truly listen to the candidates with an open mind, or do they just vote along the party lines for which they've registered? And if thats the case, why is so much money and time spent on the campaigning process?

Answer 1

Effective tactics are always employed over ineffective ones. Debates exist because they benefit the candidates, and the candidates consider them worth their time. The great investment of time and resources are also effective in advancing a candidate's campaign, else they would allocate those resources to other activities.

As to who won the debates, the answer varies with each person's standards for judgment. People value different aspects of the debates for diverse reasons. Confidence, amiability, authenticity, respect, and rationality are all attributes which are based on both verbal and non-verbal communication.

Party loyalty is not an issue with the people, because parties do not finance/reward their party base. Parties simply try to hold their base by consistently advocating the values of their base, but people "jump ship" all the time, when candidates cross the subtle lines of values and betray various "groups" of supporters. I usually evaluate the parties based on the degree of their conformity with my values, and give the top parties on my list first consideration and preference for their candidates. The debates, however, open my mind to equal consideration of the candidates of all parties. Party loyalty is an issue with the candidates, because parties do finance and endorse their campaigns.

Do people have open political minds? Most people do, yes, but their minds are fairly closed when it comes to their values. When candidates challenge their values, they lose support. If the people's minds were closed politically, then your conclusion about the irrationality of resource dedication to campaigning is correct, but obviously these methods have sufficient effect to merit their employment.

I do believe that debates have long been obsolete in their scripted, rehearsed and controlled execution. The people prefer reality over script, so I would suggest a presidential reality show similar to American Idol, Survivor, Boot Camp, etc. The people vote off one candidate at a time, or the candidates vote one of their own, and then that candidate choose another to leave. The idea is kind unpolished and rough, but the possibilities, potential, and entertainment value seem to be without limit.

Answer 2

For an informed voter, the debates really do have to play some part in the decision process. It's one of the few times when a candidate can be caught off-guard or be pressed to elaborate on his/her position.

Normally, the debates are so scripted that their effectiveness is pretty minimal.. however, the new "YouTube Debates" give the candidates little time to prepare, since their teams must sift through a long list of potential questions, and it seems that the responses are thus more genuine.

People do pay attention to the debates, the problem is that too often they are looking merely at appearance and superficial characteristics of a candidate.

Answer 3

Good question. GWB also lost all of his debates with Gore, but it didn't matter, apparently because people mistook Gore's scientific open-mindedness for weakness and Bush's resolutely ignorant arrogance for strength. Sadly, an election is just a popularity contest and has little to do with the issues. Bush won as much on the basis of his good-ol'-boy phoniness as his politics. Intelligence isn't valued as it should be because too many people are jealous of it. Voters need to pay more attention to the issues and the candidates' records and less attention to the superficial attitudes and simple-minded campaign slogans. If Hitler were reincarnated as an American, he'd have a very good chance of being elected President, because the same tactics he used work here too. As the saying goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Answer 4

Who wins or loses a debate does not matter to me. However, I do like seeing them all together, answering the same questions at the same time and same place. I think it exposes more about them than speeches alone. I don't vote party, I don't vote based soley on the debates, but they are one part of many that I use in making my decision.

Answer 5

People tend to ignore the debates because the questions are preselected and the participants have had time to study and prepare. What they say off the cuff in the media is far more telling. Also looking at their careers and voting records is far more useful than watching to see who is the better debater.

Answer 6

Kerry was a dork.

We need to see who can BS with a straight face.

It is all about image. More people in the US want to be identified with a rancher than a tree hugging geek.

Brian, I know you are a lovable cartoon character but if you go into the debate not knowing the views of the candidates, you will not come away knowing the views of the candidates.

I think Hilary is kinda hot. (don't tell bill I said that)
I would vote for her just to see to it that America gets the president they deserve!

Who is Ron Paul?

That's it a nationwide IQ test the smartest gets to be president, but I don't think the Uni bomber would be could at foreign affairs.

Yes Celtic a bunch of pathetic narcissistic hypocrites. Government in our own image.

Answer 7

Kucinich could be a miles better president than Obama any day. that could be a disgrace that human beings are ignorant and base their vote on appearances, stereotypes, and the "because of fact i'm a Republican/Democrat" logic. Kucinich had a very extreme high quality platform, and he has ultimate adventure in government and legislative positions that opponents McCain's adventure. Democrats dropped the ball while they nominated a beginner like Obama.

Answer 8

No. They simply spew party lines and their sheeple swallow it all. They stand and cheer and smile at the fantasy that stands in front of them. Then the crook takes office and sales the nation to the highest bidders.

Look at some of the responders in YA who vehemently toe their party's line as though they will somehow benefit from being pawns in the greater game of greed and power.

Proof of this is two of the phoniest candidates on both sides are the leaders of the pack.

Answer 9

Unfortunatly people tend to have closed minds when it comes to politics. For example, the most reasonable candidate for the republican party who actualy belives in freedom (Ron Paul) is basicaly ignored at debates while everybody appluads Giuliani for denouncing habeas corpus just because he was the mayor of New York

Answer 10

I think it's fun to sit back and watch them swing from one side to another, back and forth up and down, any which way they can, depending on what the public opinion is at any given time, they chop and change frantically in their quest for votes, regardless off what they all set out to do. Mostly they are a bunch of pathetic narcissistic hypocrites.