Do you think there will be presidential debates this year?
I know they don’t HAVE to, but who would be better served by debating, Kerry or Bush?
Or by refusing to debate?
Also, what about vice debates? Who would have the advantage there?
Even if their campaign is completely on the ropes, neither candidate would ever refuse to debate. That just makes them look scared, and the other candidate would be quick to emphasize this.
So, from a political standpoint, they do HAVE to debate. Same goes for the veep candidates. There will, however, be wrangling about moderators, venues and rules.
Yes, there will be debates.
I have a hard time imagining John Edwards being bested by Dick Cheney, but the VP debate doesn’t count for much.
As for Bush vs. Kerry, I have no idea. I thought Gore would wipe the floor with him, but I was wrong. Presidential debates are all about perception, and the better argument doesn’t always win. I am very nervous about Kerry going up against Bush.
My prediction: There will be 2 presidential debates and 1 VP debate. The only way this would change is if one candidate were so far ahead in the polls that he had nothing to lose by skipping the debates. That’s an **extremely ** remote possibility. There will be 2 presidential debates. End of story.
If the 2000 campaign is any indication, expect the Bush Administration to try to throw out as many conditions and clauses they can to derail the debates. A reminder, courtesy of Tom Tomorrow.
There will be debates. I bet the Bush team pushes hard for Nader to be included. Nader will probably be harder on Kerry than Bush.
My opinion is that Nader has no business in the debates. He received a tiny fraction of the vote and his campaign is nothing but a vanity show. Perot didn’t get invited in 1996 and Nader should not be invited this year.
Here’s the schedule; three Presidential, one VP. Should be fun.
In 1992, there was a schedule too, and IIRC they just ignored it at first because Bush wouldn’t agree to the terms of the debate. For good reason, since Clinton does know how to work a crowd. So the schedules doesn’t mean much until they actually get started.
(I was watching The War Room this weekend.)
Do you think the Kerry camp won’t have terms and conditions of their own, that need to be negotiated?
But it’s only a bad thing if the Bush side does it, right?
You need to grow up.
You have got to be kidding.
The Bush team wants Nader to debtae Bush like Carrot Topp wants to be in a beauty contest with Brad Pitt.
But
was there ever a race where therre were Not any debates?
Which debate had the most obvious winner?
I don’t think LBJ ever debated Goldwater. Prior to Kennedy-Nixon I don’t think presidential debates were all that common.
I’m sure someone will come along shortly to set me straight.
They’re actually a pretty recent phenomenon, not even as old as the television age. Kennedy and Nixon had one (1) famous one in 1960, in which TV viewers thought the young, dashing Kennedy was the winner, and radio listeners thought the more-substantive Nixon won. Then that was it until 1976, when Ford issued a challenge to Carter during his acceptance speech, and they’ve been part of the campaign landscape ever since - which is a very good thing. Yes, candidates now *have * to do it, or risk getting the empty-chair-on-stage, what-is-he-afraid-of? ridicule treatment.
Neither Bush nor Kerry will want Nader onstage, sure, and his lack of a party nomination provides all the basis needed to deny him. The wrangling will be over the format, as usual - Bush will insist on scripted questions so he can read his answers off a teleprompter, while Kerry will want a town-hall forum like the one where stiff ol’ Poppy Bush was seen looking at his watch.
Probably, but I doubt the Kerry camp will want to avoid the Presidential Commission Debates outright, like Bush did in 2000. Or did you forget about Bush’s months-long dodge already?
ElvisL1ves, debate can be done in a Presidential election by presubmitted questions and teleprompter? That isn’t even debate!! Anyone could read someone elses work from a teleprompter and sound like they know their stuff… oh… That explains a lot. ok.
Well, the formats (town meeting, moderator questions only, questions to each other, etc.) are set in advance, as is the general topic (the economy, foreign policy). But I’ve never seen an actual Teleprompter up there and I strongly doubt it would be allowed.
If Dubya doesn’t make any big mistakes, he’s the all-American straight-talker vs. the fancy-schmancy liberal Yankee; if he does, he was flummoxed like B’rer Bear against the B’rer Rabbit of the fancy-schmancy liberal Yankee. The press may be disgusted but most people don’t read the analysts. So we’ll see.
Not realistically - I was suggesting that that’s what Bush would request. Formats are set by agreement between the campaigns.
In the July/August 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, there was a cover article, “When George Meets John,” by James Fallows, speculating about how Bush and Kerry will stack up in the debates. From the story:
If I were on Kerry’s team, I think I would publicly insist on a Lincoln-Douglas style direct exchange, and make a big issue of it if Bush didn’t agree. No way to lose there – if Bush agrees, Kerry will make him look like the fool he is, and if he doesn’t he looks like a chicken.