Presidential Debates: Will These Be The Deciding Factor?

[China_Guy]

@BrainGlutton

That was then, this is now. Bush has been president, has held the most important job in the world, for four years. Shouldn’t the people hold him to a higher debate-performance standard than they held him in 2000? The Bush camp, after all, can hardly repeat the tactic of spinning him as an amateur. You just can’t do that when you’re going for a second term.

I was trying to state the events rather than my opinion. Yep, it sure as hell is my opinion that Bush should be able to hold his own in a debate. Of course, rumors of how he runs his meetings/briefings leads me to believe Bush hasn’t been in a debate since his time with Gore.

[Fear_Itself]

@DoctorJ

One approach that the Bushies might consider? Just not showing up. I don’t think Bush can hold up in any sort of reasonable debate, so I’m sure they’re wondering how much it would hurt them to just not show up at all for the debates. He could play it up–“I’m far too busy with the important business of fighting terror and boosting the economy to listen to your flip-flopping liberal drivel.” It might just work.

Not likely. Jimmy Carter’s “Rose Garden” strategy backfired on him, as it would on Bush. He will have to take his lumps, one way or the other.

[ElvisL1ves]

Huh? Carter *did * debate Reagan in 1980, twice IIRC. Remember the chuckle and “There you go again”? - possibly the only thing many of us *do * remember from that campaign.

But it does seem obvious that no US candidate would dare refuse to debate anymore - the negative implications of that would far outweigh the possibility of looking like a fool, and it’s easy to prepare canned answers that mitigate that possibility, or folksy quips to disarm the audience if it happens anyway.

[ElvisL1ves]

IDNRC. The 1980 debates. Carter did duck the first one but did debate Reagan once, and “There you go again” was from 1984.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@scr4

Is Bush that bad in debates? My vague recollection is that he did quite well against Gore. I guess his technique mostly consisted of quickly changing the topic and giving snippets of prepared speeches, but it seemed to work.

It was my opinion at the time (and remains) that Bush trumped Gore in the 2000 debates because he stayed on message and Gore committed the grave sin of responding to press criticism. First he was too soft so he got tougher then he was cast as ‘mean’ so he changed again. That presented no clear portrait of who he was to the electorate and may well have cost him some (apparently) crucial votes on election day.

[BrainGlutton]

@scr4

Is Bush that bad in debates? My vague recollection is that he did quite well against Gore. I guess his technique mostly consisted of quickly changing the topic and giving snippets of prepared speeches, but it seemed to work.

The Atlantic Monthly article I cited above looked at Bush’s whole history as a debater, back to when he first got started in Texas politics. And Kerry’s history, too. The author’s impression was that Bush is an effective debater only when he gets to control the situation entirely (e.g., the way he carefully timed and placed the debate before the gubernatorial election), and is best when reciting statements memorized in advance – he is not so much a debater as an orator, and as an orator he’s not bad (for a man who has trouble constructing a complete and grammatically correct sentence). Kerry, on the other hand, has a talent for thinking on his feet. So I guess a lot will depend on what format they end up using – one that allows for prepared statements in answer to predictable questions, or one that allows the mods to throw each candidate a curveball or two.