The Debates

[BellePlaine]

Here's an article from 1987 about the Democrats and Republicans serving themselves at the expense of the voter. Is this not evidence of a broken system? I'm sick of it. It is/was a fucking power grab.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/19/us/de ... tml?src=pm


DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS FORM PANEL TO HOLD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

By PHIL GAILEY, Special to the New York Times
Published: February 19, 1987


The two major political parties today announced the creation of a bipartisan commission to sponsor Presidential debates in the 1988 general election campaign.

The move provoked a sharp response from the League of Women Voters, which announced plans to hold its 1988 debates in the primary and general elections.

''I think they're trying to steal the debates from the American voters,'' the league's president, Nancy M. Neuman, said of the agreement by the Democratic and Republican Parties to assume control of the general election debates.

At a news conference, Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican national chairman, said they had the support of all the 1988 Presidential hopefuls for the new arrangement, which they said would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the political parties in the electoral process. Move Underscores Importance

The parties' effort to take control of the Presidential debates underscores the central and potentially decisive role the nationally televised debates have come to play in both primary and general election campaigns. Political experts note, for example, that Ronald Reagan scored a breakthrough in his 1980 debate with President Carter. Four years later Mr. Reagan fumbled badly in his first debate with his Democratic challenger, Walter F. Mondale, but was able to recoup in a second debate.

In response to questions, Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit group made up of representatives from each party, was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates. He said the issue was a matter for the commission to consider when it worked out the format, timing and other details of the debates with the candidates.

Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates. But he said he could not speak for the commission.

At her news conference, Mrs. Neuman said the need to assure legitimate third-party candidates a place in the debates was one of the reasons the league should be in charge. She said that, unlike the two political parties, the league ''does not have a stake in the outcome of the election.'' She also contended the league's sponsorship of debates in the past three Presidential elections had earned it ''public trust.''

Mrs. Neuman said she had written the major Presidential contenders asking them to participate in league-sponsored debates but had not received a response. Even so, Mrs. Neuman said the league was proceeding with plans to sponsor eight primary campaign debates, four in each party, and two Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate in the general election. Debate Formats Called Staid

Critics of the league-sponsored debates have contended that the formats were staid and did not allow the candidates to question each other. Instead, the candidates made opening and closing statements and were questioned by a panel of journalists selected by league officials and the candidates.

Mr. Fahrenkopf said the bipartian commission would raise $1 million to finance the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates and would have the responsibility of working out the debate arrangements before the two nominating conventions.

In his statement, Mr. Kirk said, ''We believe the Democratic and Republican Parties are making history today by assuming their rightful responsibility for the single most effective voter education project'' in Presidential elections.

Mr. Fahrenkopf asserted, ''The extremely competitive nature of the two parties will ensure that we will reach the best possible agreement for all concerned, most importantly for the voters of this nation.''

The party chairmen said today the commission would not become involved in primary debates and invited the league to play an advisory role in the commission's work. But Mrs. Neuman rejected the offer and invited Mr. Kirk and Mr. Fahrenkopf to serve as ex-officio members of the League of Women Voters Education Fund.

Turning over the sponsorship of Presidential debates to the two major parties was the main recommendation of the National Commission on Elections, a bipartisan group that studied the election process in 1985. Although it is ultimately up to the candidates to decide whether to debate, the panel said the two parties had the best chance of making debates a regular part of Presidential election campaigns.

[Amskeptic]

Here's an article from 1987 about the Democrats and Republicans serving themselves at the expense of the voter. Is this not evidence of a broken system? I'm sick of it. It is/was a fucking power grab.

Power grabs occur and are blessed in a vacuum of citizen involvement. We need look no further than ourselves to see that our apathy has allowed a stunning number of power grabs and disenfranchisements. I have been smoking the electorate in my travels this fall when met with the chorus and refrain of "I am not voting because my vote does not make a difference" and "I haven't been following the election season" and "they are all alike."

I do not doubt that the power mongerers and power brokers will seek greater advantage more and more until they meet up against the boundaries. We are the boundaries.
Colin

[retro1302]

A big problem with voter apathy is the fact that the all the hype is on the "swing states" or "battleground states". In my state (New Jersey) we already know that nod will go to Obama, so where does the individual think that the vote really matters?

I'll vote. A lot men died giving us and preserving that right, but I think the electoral college system needs re-examination.

Stan

[Bleyseng]

Your vote does count and I vote electronically from Suriname as going to the Embassy is a joke. No wonder they got the guy in Libya. But is the solution to build bunkers? I think not.....

[Amskeptic]

I think the electoral college system needs re-examination.

Stan

It does help prevent the mobs in the big states from overwhelming the small fry in the little states. . . even if I agree with the big coastal states by and large, I want the representation to be carefully conducted. Tweaks, yes, eradication, no.

Gerrymandering appears to be the more pressing distortion occurring right now. Some congressional districts look like odd protein structures.

[RussellK]

Is this an election year or something? Apparently Romney has my state bagged and Obama has written it off. Nary a yard sign, bumper sticker or radio or TV ad. It's almost eerie.

[yondermtn]

There are very few yard signs here in Chicagoland. I was in Maryland last week and they were everywhere for both candidates. I like the lack of signage and we haven't seen any TV ads. Of course, this state is locked up for BO.

[Amskeptic]

Is this an election year or something? Apparently Romney has my state bagged and Obama has written it off. Nary a yard sign, bumper sticker or radio or TV ad. It's almost eerie.

So your Obama "Forward!" sandwich board should have a greater effect than we initially thought...

[denjohn]

Democracy Now video here:
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.co ... s-and.html

"The only way to forestall the work of criticism (critical thought) is through censorship, which has the same relation to criticism that lynching has to justice."

Northrop Frye


Would you be surprised to learn that secret deals between the two major US political parties and the major news media control access to the Presidential debates, thereby controlling the discussion, turning them into show pieces and beauty contests obsessed with the trivial and the technicalities of performance art, rather than substantive discussions of the issues?

Did you wonder why third party messages and non-corporately sponsored ideas are completely ignored in the discussions, debates, and for the most part in the 'free press?'

It appears that for at least once the Democrats and Republicans were able to agree on something. They agreed to monopolize access to the presidential debate, with the help of a compliant and greedy corporate media, in a way that would almost certainly violate the antitrust laws, assuming these politicians were subject to any laws but their own.

This is not a serious and original discussion of the issues. This is bread and circuses. Bread for the media and the politicians, and circuses for the people.

[ruckman101]

Eh, no pivotal moments to dissuade anyone already decided that I saw. I'm of course biased, but thought Romney was a bit of a rude bully, and used the pulpit for campaign stumping rather than actually responding to questions. He had his script and hammer points he kept to. The "trickle down" redefinition struck me as completely Rovian.


neal

[RussellK]

Eh, no pivotal moments to dissuade anyone already decided that I saw. I'm of course biased, but thought Romney was a bit of a rude bully, and used the pulpit for campaign stumping rather than actually responding to questions. He had his script and hammer points he kept to. The "trickle down" redefinition struck me as completely Rovian.
neal

Left me wondering how I can get back my 90 minutes so I could spend them on something rewarding. Romney was all over the place with numbers & facts that seemed to have originated only in his head while Obama seemed reluctant to challenge those and was caught several times looking off camera and smiling away as if this was all a joke. Leher has to be the worst moderator there is. Sure this was a loose format but he didn't maintain any control and to interrupt a speaker's response to ask the other if he agreed or disagreed? Debates =

[Amskeptic]

Mitt did a better job in the art-of-debating department than I expected. But I am still baffled this morning . . . did he not go totally centrist? "I agree with you Mr. President" came out of his mouth in unexpected places. I hope the fickle Roman Coliseum electorate follows through to the fact-checking reviews, where Mitt played unusually loose with the facts, ie "Obama took 716 billion from Medicare" (an already exhaustively corrected lie), and "my tax plan is not going to add to the deficit (sorry, 5 trillion is the number for dropping the tax rate down to 20%).

Though I felt disappointed in Obama's uncharacteristically quiet performance, I still think he is crafty and locked on the long view. Romney has blown his load and is crowing like a rooster, and Obama has still not contested the most egregious claims by Romney. Where does Romney go from here? Obama has yet to show his cards . . .
Colin

[sped372]

I couldn't help but feel like Obama was a bit preoccupied. Just watching him as a fellow human it seemed like his mind was not fully on the task at hand. I couldn't help but wonder what he had been dealing with earlier in the day, or how much spending his anniversary there was weighing on him. I agree that I was somewhat surprised by how well Romney did and have to give him credit for that.

[Amskeptic]

I couldn't help but feel like Obama was a bit preoccupied. Just watching him as a fellow human it seemed like his mind was not fully on the task at hand. I couldn't help but wonder what he had been dealing with earlier in the day, or how much spending his anniversary there was weighing on him. I agree that I was somewhat surprised by how well Romney did and have to give him credit for that.

If Obama and his team are as crafty as they have been in the past, the harvest is already coming in . . . the punditry has been talking up a storm today, and much is regarding Romney's change of position overlaid by "what was wrong with Obama last night?"

Current Reuter's poll:

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney gained ground on Democratic President Barack Obama after a strong performance in their first debate heading into the November 6 election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after their prime-time face-off.

Romney is now viewed positively by 51 percent of voters, the first time he has enjoyed a net positive in the U.S. presidential race, the poll found.

Obama's favorability rating remained unchanged at 56 percent, according to the poll.
The poll found that Obama's 7 percentage point advantage over Romney had narrowed to
5 percentage points, 48 percent to 43 percent.


27 percent of those surveyed said the debate had prompted them to see Romney in a more positive light,
19 percent said it caused them to view him more negatively
40 percent said it did not change their opinion.

Obama did not appear to suffer any damage.
54 percent said the debate did not change their opinion of the president,
16 percent said their opinion had improved
18 percent said they viewed him more negatively.

Obama's favorability ratings remained unchanged,
56 percent said they viewed him favorably
44 percent said they viewed him unfavorably.
His standing improved among independents by 8 percentage points.
His standing improved among independents by 8 percentage points.
His standing improved among independents by 8 percentage points.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Will Dunham)

[Spezialist]

I watched my first and last debate, only for the Zingers.
Which of course never showed up, or did I miss em?

I can honestly say, Obama is the first president I've ever respected as an authority figure.