I'm not sure why we watched the debates last night streaming on the Man's computer. I knew they would be disappointing. And they were - entirely.
Here's what I saw:
Candidate 1: Here is a fact about what I have done or what I say I will do.
Candidate 2: That is wholly incorrect. The truth is quite the opposite.
C1: I don't know why Candidate 2 is saying that but it is wrong and now I shall restate the fact as I first presented it.
C2: Yes, Jim, I know there is no time left on this topic but let me tell you this story about someone who will be negatively affected by Candidate 1.
JL: Sigh
Closing arguments:
C1 and C2: America is a great nation but is in a hard place right now. I will make the difficult decisions that need to be made - but NO ONE will be hurt by my decisions because they are right. On the other hand, my opponent wants to drown babies and eat the elderly. (Ok, maybe that last bit is aggressive paraphrasing on my part...)
Here's what I learned:
President Obama definitely wants to cut $716B from Medicare. President Obama does not want to cut $716B from Medicare.
Mitt Romney certainly wants to cut taxes by $5T. Mitt Romney certainly does not want to cut taxes by $5T.
Neither of the candidates can work well with others. Both of the candidates have proven records of working well with others.
Sigh.
I will continue to watch the debates, but I have to say that if an undecided voter was trying to make a decision based solely on the debates, I don't know how he would do it. I doubt that anyone going into the debates with a clear idea of who he'll vote for had a change of heart.
I just with the candidates would be specific and not misleading and would actually tell us something we can use.
4 comments:
Voters who change their minds based on debates aren't doing so because they've been presented with facts they'd previously been unaware of.
They are doing so because differences in the social signaling highlighted by the debate format -- how a candidate looks, how they talk, how easily flustered they are, whether they signal dominance or submissiveness, etc. -- influence them more than differences in policy.
In that case I'm not sure why they're talking about politics at all. If they're not going to be specific about what they'll do for Americans, I'd rather see them in a trivia contest.
Also, I disagree. (I forgot to mention that.)
I think a trivia contest is an excellent idea. Let's confirm that they know the names of all the countries on the map and their leaders, etc! We might learn more by watching them under fire. I think you're onto something, Yum.
Post a Comment