The presidential debates: did anyone actually answer a question?

Question

I heard a lot of redirection, off-topic responses, and mud-slinging (as is typical - regardless of party), but very few relevant answers.

Are Americans intelligent enough to recognize when a question is being answered and when it's not? Or do buzzwords, rhetoric, and emotional button-pushing throw us off?

Answer 1

I would have to say that in the context of answering rather then obfuscating the ability to answer, in a determining manner is the outcome of years of entrenchment into our societal morals from an otherwise indisputable tendency to not only avoid answering but also to cloud this issues when presented by someone who thinks they are smarter then the person being asked the question. Therefore to be able to elucidate on this query one would have to go back in time to possible the magna carta when King John had to answer to the Lords. His answers were often blurred and skewed by jargon of the time much as the Honorable Senator has shown the ability to misdirect the inquisitor and to rhetorically rebound any requests for information.

Answer 2

I don't even watch the debates anymore--it's a waste of time (in my opinion) to spend an otherwise nice evening sitting around listening to people lie to me. I have, in fact, decided to stop voting until someone finally puts forth a candidate worth voting for. I'm sick and tired of voting for whomever I feel to be "the lesser of two evils", and being whizzed off when they let me down later (as I should have known they would). I truly feel like we will likely never see the faces of the most of the worthwhile candidates, primarily because they refuse to pander to special interest groups and take their campaign contributions. This year's political races (and others) have so far taught us that if it takes nothing else to win, it takes money. The candidate I support for president has been excluded from several of the televised debates, and is having trouble getting on the ballot in several states due to the thousands of dollars it takes to register.

Answer 3

I think the public is intelligent enough to know that the candidates aren't answering the questions and get so fed up that they don't pay attention any more. They become so disengaged because none of the candidates (of either party) won't just tell the public what they will or won't support and what they plan to do when elected to office.

Answer 4

Somewhat, I was extremely dissatisfied with last night's debate.. I'm tired of all the rhetoric, we are at war, social security is going bankrupt and tensions with Iran seem to be increasing, yet I'm still unclear on what the candidates solutions are.. I've already made up my mind, I'm supporting Congressman Paul, at least he can give a straight answer.

Answer 5

No many think if you scream some down you won the debate and never had a speech class or were ever in a debate, fear rules here. They are to scared to give a speech therefore they do not know what rules are to be followed in a debate.

I.E. they don't know what a real debate is and that is sad.

The Public School System sucks here.

Answer 6

I don't think any candidate as directly answered a debate question in the last 20 years.

Answer 7

I would say that Richardson had the most direct answers. Even answers that weren't "popular" (eg Human Rights vs. National Security)

Answer 8

Well, you didn't listen.....it was probably all the big words they used that threw you off.....you know, those words with more than 2 syllables?

Answer 9

Kucinich always answers his questions completely.

Answer 10

I hope so, I sat there all night saying, answer the question and quit tap dancing.