Why not a "Lincoln-Douglas"-style debate?

[BrainGlutton]

From “When George Meets John,” by James Fallows, an article published in The Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2004:

The [Bush and Kerry] campaigns will wrangle over rules nearly until the first debate, which is scheduled for September 30 in Miami. In the negotiations for past debates some candidate has always vetoed the idea of a “Lincoln-Douglas” exchange, in which candidates directly question each other. . . . The Bush team will ask for debates limited to specific topics – foreign policy, the economy. The Kerry team will ask for, but not get, open-ended sessions in which any subject can be raised.

Well, he nailed that last part. The Bush team has balked at attending the debate the Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org) had scheduled for October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Their problem is with the proposed format: It is to be a “town meeting”-style debate where undecided voters will be allowed to pose questions directly to the candidates. The Bush team says it’s afraid Kerry supporters will pose as undecideds and ask Bush loaded questions. (See the Washington Post, September 8, 2004.)

But why shouldn’t we the people insist on a “Lincoln-Douglas”-style exchange? Wouldn’t that be the best way to size up the candidates against one another? Wouldn’t it be the best way for us to take their measure?

[rjung]

Yes, it would. That’s exactly why Team Bush is opposed to it.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

But why shouldn’t we the people insist on a “Lincoln-Douglas”-style exchange? Wouldn’t that be the best way to size up the candidates against one another? Wouldn’t it be the best way for us to take their measure?

I don’t understand. By what mechanism, other than voting, do we the people insist on a particular debating format for the campaign? Neither candidate is required to debate at all.

[wolf_meister]

Instead of the usual questions such as “What are your economic plans, etc” why not ask questions that have a factual answer? (A GQ style debate). Something like “Mr Bush, who is the President of Eqypt?” I think a lot of us would have fun listening to Bush’s replies. (Assuming of course that John Kerry is the smarter and more knowledgeable of the 2 candidates.)

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

I don’t understand. By what mechanism, other than voting, do we the people insist on a particular debating format for the campaign? Neither candidate is required to debate at all.

I know, I know, but I wasn’t just being rhetorical. The candidates are required to debate only because it is traditional (even though the tradition goes back only to 1960), and refusal to participate by either of them would be seen as an admission of weakness – too politically costly. Perhaps a vocal popular groundswell would, eventually, change the terms of that tradition. I admit I see little prospect of the people getting worked up over such an obscure detail, and if the people can be mobilized around the debates at all, I wouldn’t even give the format change top priority. The most urgently important thing is to abolish the bipartisan (not nonpartisan) Commission on Presidential Debates, and give the whole thing back to the League of Women Voters.

[foolsguinea]

@John Mace

I don’t understand. By what mechanism, other than voting, do we the people insist on a particular debating format for the campaign? Neither candidate is required to debate at all.

Ah, that’s our problem. These guys need a formal test to see if they measure up, not just a riggable popularity contest.

[SteveG1]

We’ll never see such a debate. Bush, by dodging this debate is actually doing a smart thing. Given his “problems” with both the written and spoken word, Kerry would tear him into itsy bitsy teeny tiny little pieces in short order.

[BrainGlutton]

@SteveG1

We’ll never see such a debate. Bush, by dodging this debate is actually doing a smart thing. Given his “problems” with both the written and spoken word, Kerry would tear him into itsy bitsy teeny tiny little pieces in short order.

No, we won’t see it this year. But maybe if we start making noises now we can get a “Lincoln-Douglas” format in place for at least one of the 2008 debates.

[Martin_Hyde]

To answer generally, people avoid those styles of debate because they go against everything that is involved with being a politician.

Whichever candidate is in the power position in the campaign will always refuse to engage in debates like this, it’s just a historical trend.

If you’re up 13% (just a random number) then a debate has little chance of creating any real gains for you, likewise your opponent has no reason to be overly cautious in his argument because he himself has nothing to lose.

It’s just smart strategy on the part of the “stronger” candidate to not give his opponent a chance like the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

It’s not hard to ask loaded questions, and if you insist on asking enough of them you continually increase the chance of forcing a gaffe. Certain questions are very difficult to answer, or even invalid from an intellectual standpoint.

In a completely open debate none of that would matter, though. It’s easy to take a question without serious intellectual merit and phrase it in a way that viewers will find it legitimate. Such a question could be impossible to answer without losing face on some front.

Think of it like this.

In football if you’re up 21-14 with 45 seconds left, what do you do? Do you go at the opponent full force to try and guarantee they have no chance to win after your possession?

No, that would be foolish. You run the football, force them to use their timeouts, then you kneel the ball until the clock ticks away.

It’s always smarter in football, and in this case politics, to play containment. Limit the methods of attack that your enemy has, in doing so it may limit yourself in YOUR methods of attack, but if you force the game into a slow moving no-score type of ball with the lead all you’re doing is maximizing your chances of finishing up the game without allowing any 4th quarter heroics.

To get more specific, I don’t really know why Bush is considered such a failure at debates.

Al Gore was widely considered, even by Republicans, to be the more intelligent candidate in 2000. But in the debates nothing happened, Gore didn’t tear Bush up at all. Bush didn’t fall over himself and start foaming at the mouth.

Some analysts say Bush came out looking the best in those debates, I tend to agree because I think the debates helped him greatly. Gore made great factual points but he made them in a way that really just hurt his personality points and turned off some voters.

Ann Richards was considered a very hard ball political genius, she was soundly destroyed by George Bush during the gubenatorial race in Texas. Bush gets tongue tied from time to time but I’ve yet to see any truly objective or verifiable evidence that the man is anywhere near as stupid as you people claim he is. I’ve also yet to see these “debating failures” that supposedly plague him, either.

Furthermore, the debates are of little importance. Almost no one bases their votes on them, and in all honesty no one should.

Debating skills have nothing to do with executive leadership. The President has never in my historical memory gotten things done by going over to Congress and debating points to the ground. No, the President tends to get things done with good 'ole fashioned politicking.

The idea of a “factual quiz” is just stupid. This isn’t Quiz Bowl 2004. If we’re going to make candidates know obscure trivia about the world (like how many languages are spoken in Russia, what is the national bird of Colombia et cetra) then let’s pull Ken Jennings away from his millions and appoint him President right now.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

Furthermore, the debates are of little importance. Almost no one bases their votes on them, and in all honesty no one should.

Are you sure about that? The polls have been seesawing back and forth. This is a very close election. Voters now undecided will make all the difference. And the September 30 debate will be Kerry’s first real chance to present himself to the public and establish himself as a public personality, in a forum somewhat less scripted than a campaign commercial or the Democratic National Convention. I think these debates will be very important.

[BrainGlutton]

In support of the above – from [ur]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/14/165933.shtml:

Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004 5 p.m. EDT
Sabato: Debates Will Be Crucial

Drawing on the history of past debates, Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and a renowned political observer, shows how vital debates can be for a candidate’s chances.

“Debates do matter,” he writes, “perhaps more so in a macro-issue year like this. Voters are unsettled to varying degrees about the incumbent, but they haven’t been sold on the challenger’s alternatives, either.”

Sabato looks back at recent campaigns and recalls:

the critical role in Kennedy’s extremely narrow victory (113,000 plurality in the popular vote, though a more comfortable 303 to 219 in the Electoral College)

the Ford-Carter debate with “Gerald Ford’s verbal stumbling on whether Poland was controlled by the Soviet Union in 1976 – which probably did make the difference in the close race with Jimmy Carter”

the back-and-forth on the age question for Ronald Reagan in 1984

the over-emphasis on George H.W. Bush’s glancing at his watch in 1992
the obsession with Gore’s sighs in 2000

Everyone knows about the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, but there were more that made a difference.

The Ford-Carter second debates arguably made the difference in the election results.

Carter had been losing ground and Ford was gaining rapidly when the Oct. 6 debate was held, where Ford committed his free-Poland gaffe.

It stopped all his forward momentum and made Carter seem more knowledgeable than the incumbent president.

Still, Ford finished just 2.5 percent behind Carter and fewer than 25,000 votes away from winning the Electoral College.

Had he carried Ohio and Hawaii, Ford might have been president … if only Poland had never been discussed in that debate!

In the Reagan-Carter debate, Sabato writes that Carter had his turn at the gaffe, citing daughter Amy as his expert of note on nuclear proliferation.

Reagan defanged his own image with his jocular “There you go again” jab at Carter when Carter suggested that disaster awaited the country under a Reagan presidency.

Reagan also uttered what has become the gold standard of debate lines: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

A close contest began to tip Reagan’s way that evening, widening to a landslide after the collapse of negotiations for release of the American hostages in Iran just two days before the election.

The 1988 debates were arguably the last chance for Democrat Michael Dukakis to overcome Vice President George H.W. Bush’s lead.

That chance evaporated with Dukakis’ answer to the first question, from CNN anchor Bernard Shaw, who asked the longtime opponent of the death penalty what he would do were his own wife murdered. Dukakis waffled.

Bill Clinton was well on his way to victory already in 1992 when the debates were held, thanks in part to Ross Perot’s independent candidacy (which drew votes mainly from Republicans).

Still, President Bush’s fate was sealed at a Richmond town meeting when he was unresponsive to some admittedly nonsensical questions from “average citizens,” and seemed bored and oddly detached, looking at his watch - a gesture that was captured on camera.

Sabato writes that history teaches us the following about the 2004 Debates.

1. The debates are one of the few times in an entire four-year term when a president is stripped of the presidential seal and all the trappings of office. If a candidate cannot pass the presidential threshold at the debates, he has no chance to win.

2. There will be unscripted surprises, and these moments are often the ones remembered by the voters and history. Here is where the quality of the questions from the moderators and panelists and citizens truly makes a difference. An oddball query, a tightly constructed inquiry and a tough follow-up can reveal the truth that will never be available in any other way during the long campaign.

3. Debates do have an effect on some undecided voters … viewers may be tuning in hoping to see a train wreck.

4. Every moment counts. There is no down time in a debate. An unenthusiastic attitude sends nonverbal cues to voters. A touch of anger or arrogance in an answer, even if partly justified, can turn off undecideds.

5. The news media spin has an influence. President Ford’s Poland gaffe was unnoticed until the media made it the story.

[BrainGlutton]

Sorry, that’s http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/14/165933.shtml

[Quartz]

@BrainGlutton

From “When George Meets John,” by James Fallows, an article published in The Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2004:

<snip>

But why shouldn’t we the people insist on a “Lincoln-Douglas”-style exchange? Wouldn’t that be the best way to size up the candidates against one another? Wouldn’t it be the best way for us to take their measure?

Because they can be subverted. Think of the reception given to the American Ambassador on Question Time immediately post 9/11. In commerce, it’s called Stealth Marketing - your stooges go to an event sponsored by a rival and then prominently display your product. Or you have logo-ed airships floating overhead (I think Pepsi did that - not sure). Remember the Olympics where you were forbidden certain brands?

[BrainGlutton]

@qts

Think of the reception given to the American Ambassador on Question Time immediately post 9/11.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, qts, I think you’re confusing a “Lincoln-Douglas” debate with a “town hall” debate. The Bush team balked at attending the scheduled October 109 debate at Washington University in St. Louis because of the proposed “town hall” format where undecided voters would be allowed to ask the candidates question on any topic; the Bush team said they were afraid of the “stealth” tactics you’re describing – Kerry supporters posing as undecideds. (Why there should be any greater risk of that than of Bush supporters posing as undecideds is not clear to me; why Bush should fear the possibility more than Kerry should is entirely clear to me – the man just can’t think on his feet.) The “Lincoln-Douglas” format is one where the candidates stand face-to-face and pose each other questions directly – just like we do in this forum – and there’s no chance of “stealthing” in that kind of format; each candidate goes in knowing exactly whom he’s facing, if not exactly what he will be asked.

[Bricker]

For anyone who believes that the debates will favor Kerry over Bush – why do you suppose Mr. Gore was not similarly advantaged in 2000?

[BobLibDem]

To be honest, I don’t think today’s Americans have the attention span to watch a debate in the true Lincoln Douglas tradition. The National Park Service has transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. A brief snippet from the third debate illustrates the style of the time:

Again, in reference to our platform: On the 16th of June the Republicans had their Convention and published their platform, which is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglas’s. In it they spoke their principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should stand upon that platform? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is supporting me, or has supported me at some time in his life, and who has said something at some time contrary to that platform? Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one? If it turn out that the rule is a good one for me-that I am responsible for any and every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend-then it is a good rule for him. I ask, is it not as good a rule for him as it is for me? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you think differently, Judge?

MR. DOUGLAS-I do not.

MR. LINCOLN-Judge Douglas says he does not think differently. I am glad of it. Then can he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and never were my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State Convention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is not to hold me responsible for them in some way. If he says to me here, that he does not hold the rule to be good, one way or the other, I do not comprehend how he could answer me more fully if he answered me at greater length. I will therefore put in as my answer to the resolutions that he has hunted up against me, what I, as a lawyer, would call a good plea to a bad declaration. [Laughter.] I understand that it is a maxim of law, that a poor plea may be a good plea to a bad declaration. I think that the opinions the Judge brings from those who support me, yet differ from me, is a bad declaration against me; but if I can bring the same things against him, I am putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, and now I propose to try it.

When I read the texts of these debates- it occurred to me that not only were the candidates much more long-winded than today, but the audience was expected to have known about these issues and also was expected to follow some very long and tedious speaking. These were the days before sound bites. I honestly don’t believe that either of the candidates would be up to the challenge of this format, nor do I think the audience is equipped to follow it. Three minutes of this and it would be flipping to MTV for a lot of people.

[Stonebow]

@Bricker

For anyone who believes that the debates will favor Kerry over Bush – why do you suppose Mr. Gore was not similarly advantaged in 2000?

Unfortunately, I think that Kerry will fall into the same trap that Gore did last cycle. Basically, all that Bush has to do to ‘win’ one of these debates in not drool or soil himself on air. The more the media plays up the advantage that Kerry might have as an orator or debater, the lower the bar for Bush becomes.

Besides, political discourse suffers from the same problem as any other content in today’s media. If it’s more than a sound byte answer, people tune out. They’d rather have a clear vision of disaster than a nuanced approach to success.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

@Bricker

For anyone who believes that the debates will favor Kerry over Bush – why do you suppose Mr. Gore was not similarly advantaged in 2000?

The 2000 debates were a referendum on the successful Clinton/Gore administration, which had few if any apologies to make. These debates will be a referendum on the Bush/Cheney admin, which has a lot of explaining to do. Kerry should be able to smack Bush around with the ugly stick. Whether or not he’ll do that remains to be seen.

Now, while this explains why Gore was (or should have been) advantaged, it doesn’t explain why he ended up losing 2/3rds of the debates. Gore and Bush were apparently rated by the media on style and posture and not much else. Gore came off as a blowhard and Bush as a likeable ol’ uncle George. A lot of folks gave Bush a generous handicap going into the debates, so any minor flubs were buffered.

[BrainGlutton]

@BobLibDem

When I read the texts of these debates- it occurred to me that not only were the candidates much more long-winded than today, but the audience was expected to have known about these issues and also was expected to follow some very long and tedious speaking. These were the days before sound bites. I honestly don’t believe that either of the candidates would be up to the challenge of this format, nor do I think the audience is equipped to follow it. Three minutes of this and it would be flipping to MTV for a lot of people.

So what? I’m not suggesting allowing as much time for the debates as Lincoln and Douglas got. I’m talking about the format – having the candidates face off and go at it head-to-head, give-and-take, instead of taking turns addressing questions posed by a moderator. They would have to compress their answers to sound-bite length, of course – but it would be a truly exciting spectacle! At least, by the standards of political debates.