Questions about politicians and debates

Great Debates
1

Hi SD,

I am not well-versed in politics, so I’m relying on you to help me out with this one.

When the field is wide, like it is now, there are tons of debates in which some come out looking better than others. Politicians snipe at each others’ records and viewpoints to try and get the upper hand. Negative campaigning and maligning of character is common.

But then a candidate is chosen to represent the party.

The wide field of potential presidential hopefuls got me thinking–these very same people who “endorse” a chosen candidate were just bashing them earlier! Those who say they throw their support behind a candidate were at their throats previously.

  1. How do politicians explain away their negative portrayal of their rivals within the context of a unified party? If it’s “just politics”, as they say, then their pointed barbs and criticisms are not genuine. If so, then how can the American public believe that these politicians stay true to their own personal beliefs? How can the public trust them? Is there a tacit understanding not to take a politician at his or her word?

  2. How far will a politician get who absolutely refuses to change his beliefs or compromise? Obviously, this person will maintain support from a like-minded base, but is moderation (moving to the political center) par for the course in politics? Who is the most extreme candidate (left or right) to ever hold office in this country?

  3. Is it common for politicians to say “I don’t agree with the candidate our party chose, and I am only supporting him/her because I like the other choices less?”
    Does an outright refusal to support a rival candidate (of the same party) happen often, and is it news when it happens? I would think it would happen all the time if you assume they are speaking from the heart.

  4. Are debates effective as an indicator of leadership ability? It would seem to me that you can memorize talking points and pick at your opponent’s record all you want, but how does that translate to taking the “phone call at 3 AM” kind of leadership required to preside at the White House? What portion of debate preparation is done by the candidate him/herself, versus the “handlers” that prepare talking points and counterarguments? You’d think that a candidate’s performance is too important to the campaign to be trusted to just his or her own skills alone.

Thanks,

Dave

2

Since this is largely about politics and requires opinions and speculation, let’s move it to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

3

This requires many books full of examples to answer. Remember that the following is way oversimplified.

  1. Politics is a game. People understand the rules. The party is more important than individuals. The primaries are all about show.

  2. Without compromise they will never be the nominee. Those who continue to play to their base are doing so just to continue playing to their base.

  3. No. Nobody is speaking from the heart. They are playing a game.

  4. No.

4

They depend upon us (the voters) to forget. We’re not supposed to be paying enough attention to perceive the “swing to the extremes” during the primaries and how this contradicts the big “swing to the middle” in the later, one-on-one campaign.

The better campaigners know how to disguise their ideological swings. They use remarkably nuanced language, so they can say, with some plausibility, “I always opposed invading Ruritania.”

This is where stuff like, “I opposed it before I supported it” and “There are unknown unknowns” come from.

As Exapno Mapcase says, it’s a game. The winners tend to be those who play it best.

5

I’d be surprised. If offering the candidate your support means anything at all, you can leverage that for political favours later (if the candidate wins), be it a cabinet post or ambassadorship or just some pork for the supporter’s constituency. It would silly to burn that bridge just out of petulant spite.