Why are political debates in the U.S. so short?

Great Debates
41

If they could hold up against them, it would be in spite of being actually informed, intelligent, and honest, not because of it. The country, as an electorate (and I suspect that many other countries are like this) is impatient, immature, intellectually lazy, self-absorbed, emotional and irrational, fickle, and inclines towards magical thinking.

How else could Virginia, for example, go for Obama in November 2008 and about a year later elect a cretin like Cucinelli as attorney general? To a large extent, it is because a lot of people who voted in 2008 didn’t bother to vote in 2009 or didn’t really pay attention to what they were voting for. That just proves my point. By now, voters should know that every single election has consequences. But, no, they get emotionally worked up for an “important” election in 2008 and don’t even bother to show up for statewide elections in 2009.

The only reason we’re subject to the “handpicked by our corporo-feudal overlords and then primped, processed, coached and imaged within an inch of their lives” phenomenon is because we as voters let it happen. They don’t do the primping, processing, coaching, and imaging just for fun. They do it because it works, and it works because the voters are shallow morons who fall for primping, processing, coaching, and imaging.

If people actually paid attention, then it really wouldn’t matter who big business or moneyed interests bought and paid for and paraded about in their suits and ties, because people would seek out and vote for people who actually acted in their interests.

The candidates we get are nothing more than the mirror held up to ourselves. And every douchebag who ends up in office is not evidence that politicians are douchebags; rather it’s evidence that the people, collectively, are douchebags and we’re getting exactly what we deserve.

There are no bad politicians. There are only bad voters.

42

Tradition. There’s a frontal (I mean not them answering questions in turn, but directly adressing each other) debate between the two presidential candidates who made it to the run off in France. A candidate who wouldn’t participate would have to explain his choice (Chirac refused to debate with the far-right leader Le Pen, for instance, because he didn’t think of him as a legitimate republican candidate).

I’m not sure to what extent refusing it would actually harm the candidate, and there’s definitely a significant risk when there’s clearly a “winner” (which in my opinion, at the presidential level, generally means dominating the opponent rather than having in fact offered better and more convincing propositions). Still, they don’t refuse, that’s why I think it’s more a matter of tradition and public expectation.

43

Dangerous. What guarantees the modrator’s fairness? Even if everything he says are hard, cold facts, what facts exactly you’re presenting makes a huge difference. And it doesn’t need to be intentional. For instance, if both candidates make statemements contradicting what they have said in the past, it’s very possible that the moderator will call upon it only one of them, because he’s unaware that the other has just done the same.

You might end up with a big mess, if one of both candidate end up having to argue with the moderator : “you just stated that policy X had a negative impact on the purchasing power of poor households, but failed to mention its impact on the unemployment rate of the middle class, which was the entire point of this policy”.

44

What about simply a moderator who interrupts a candidate for not answering a direct question? That would easily be unbiased.

There was an interview with a British politician, I wish I could think of the name, where the Pol would not answer a simple direct question, so the interviewer asked the question over, and over, and over again, to the point of ridiculousness trying to get an answer… does anyone know what I am talking about? Could’ve been quite some time ago.

I just wish politicians here got grilled, ever.

45

I think there could be both.

46

I listen to the BBC World Service some times, and the Beeb correspondents grill your random African dictator a lot more roughly than American reporters ever do. In the US, especially in Washington, if you get nasty you no longer get invited to parties and that would be a shame.

47

I think there are two answers. First, the debate format has to be agreed on by all participants, which rapidly leads to the least common denominator debate. Sarah Palin didn’t even pretend to be answering the question in 2008. If we had real reporters she would have been torn to shreds.
But even those candidates who can put two words together without strangling themselves adhere to strict campaign plans, and must stay on message at all times. So even they make sure to get the talking points in, but do it in a less obvious way than the nitwits do.

If we really wanted campaign reform we’d forget about money and strictly limit the campaign staff instead - and shoot any ad man or image consultant who gets within 100 yards of any candidates.

48

A debate isn’t an interview. The moderator isn’t supposed to “tear her to shreads” he supposed to ask the questions and make sure she doesn’t go over her time. Her opponent can attack her for not answering the question, if he wants. Or he can just trust the viewers to notice it and be approprietly unimpressed.

And it seemed to work, at least in that case. From wikipedia:

So showing up and answering the questions asked rather then throwing random buzzwords does seem to impress the voting public more.

49

This made me laugh. Poor Nick “Other Guy” Clegg just can’t catch a break.

50

Paxman vs Michael Howard regarding whether he threatened to overrule someone.

The shit goes down around 2m45s in.

51

Debate is a rhetorical battle, the belligerents need to fight on the same field. Have a peer reviewed set of numbers given to both sides beforehand and available online for everyone to review. Both sides will later bitch about how those numbers are inaccurate, but at least for the debate I’d like to compare the candidates view point, not the Googling skills used to find people who agree with them. There is no way for a debater to respond to, “Dr. Madeup of the Bullshit Think tank at Whatsamatta U has just released a study proving my program will work.” without doing his own version of that.

In other courts of law outside of the United States expert witnesses are chosen by the judge, while not all experts agree the judges choice is as close to impartial as you’re likely to ever find. The contest is then the legal merits of the case and not what color the sky is.

52

The clip I am thinking of looked older than this, and the interviewer asked his point blank question without commentary, in the exact same way, over and over again in the exact same cadence, it was a lot more uncomfortable than this which made it even more hilarious. Great link though…does anyone know what I am talking about?

53

Yes.

The cynicism about politicians not wanting to sound-bite their way out of office is not unwarranted, but the networks fully back the sort of 30-second “debate” inanity we have all come to know and hate. A recent specific example, of course, would be the Repub NH Debate/Shush-a-Thon. Ten minutes into the debate I was ready to kick John King (who opened with this bizarre lie about not having time limits or bells so long as responses were within reason) directly in the balls for his intolerable interruptions. The sound of him grumbling in the background throughout every answer, reminding everyone not to speak for more than thirty seconds, because gods forbid it takes longer than 30 seconds to explain how you would create jobs, should clue everyone in that the networks are just as responsible for debates that could be conducted entirely via Twitter.

54

To be fair, it was a Republican primary debate, so it’s not like they’d have any actual jobs programs to talk about anyway.

55

Why are political debates in the U.S. so short?

The mercy of God.