Centerfield

I'd argue that the Republican side is better at the post-debate spin. They always just seem more organized and more on-message than the Democrats.

Thoughts?

Who determines who wins the debates? I do. And you do. Rivk. And Susan does. And Mark does. And Will and Matt and Heather and Amy. And Todd.Even Alex. The prize is each of our votes.

If you let the media decide for you, that's your bad. I gripe about the media as much as the rest of us for whom it's a pet peeve. But come the debates, if you haven't been paying attention so far and haven't already made your call, it's up to YOU. Nobody gets off the hook by pointing fingers. Either you make the effort to rise above it and somehow get past it, or you get what you deserve.

Of course, then I get what you deserve too. It's a problem. :-)

One good way to avoid falling into the media spin is to start watching by having a few concrete ideas of what you're looking for going in. Then grade it yourself. If necesary, go on blackout afterward. But for god's sake don't get pulled down into the vortex of triviality.

"But for god's sake don't get pulled down into the vortex of triviality."

(sigh!)

But the problem is, except for policy wonks, its the trivial stuff that often helps us decide. I was a judge at some high school debates years ago and, while there are technical bases for judging, I found it really hard to decide who "won." I ended up relying on very subjective and, most likely, trivial criteria. That's pretty much what happens in a debate. Unless one candidate or another makes a really egregious blunder, they can both justify their policies pretty well. If you already have opinions on the issues, the debates probably don't matter anyway; we all know the differences between Bush and Kerry. If you are not sure where you stand, I think it will be very difficult to make a decision based on the substance of the debate. So, then less substantive factors come into play, e.g., Kennedy appeared more relaxed and in command than Nixon, Ford seemed to say (even though he didn't)that Poland wasn't controlled by the Communists, Bush I looked at his watch during the debate, etc. That's why I think these kinds of debates--where, after all, they really aren't "debating" with each other--are overrated in terms of what you can learn about the candidates. And then the media gets involved in trying to determine who won and the post-debate spin takes over. I would love to see the two candidates sit down on the Charlie Rose show and just talk; we would get a better idea of who knows the issues,etc. Or just have a call-in, where voters get to ask unscripted questions. Obviously, that's never going to happen. I always find the debates dull, especially these days as they are so scripted.

I am going to try and bring myself back to high school debate days and provide an academic analysis of who won in why. My theory is that nobody will win and that it will mostly be determined by spin, because both sides will rely on techniques that have nothing to do with actual rules of debating. Kerry has brought up some good points this week. If he could rhetorically ask questions that force the moderator to try and get some answers from Bush ,we might actually see a contest worth our time. I think the President has to go beyond rhetoric and politics tonight and actually provide credible answers regarding the justification for war, planning after the initial invasion, and a plan for the future. In regards to Homeland Security he has to defend not the policies that have come from his administration that I believe to be sound, but the actual implementation of those policies at the state and local level. Kerry has to provide details, period. Spending his time trying to knock Bush off message means he is simply going for all or nothing. If he is successful than he wins the election, if he is not than he loses. The trouble is, Bush is notorious for sticking to his talking points. I think a better strategy would be for the Senator to tell us why we should elect him as opposed to why we should not re-elect his opponent. Kerry cannot win a pin the tail on the donkey contest with Bush.

Who determines who wins the debates? I do. And you do. Rivk. And Susan does. And Mark does. And Will and Matt and Heather and Amy. And Todd.Even Alex. The prize is each of our votes.

If you let the media decide for you, that's your bad.

I agree, but only if you actually watched the debate. I think there is a segment of the population that can't be bothered to watch the debates and just reads/watches the news on the following days. And so the post-debate spin has become important, probably more important than the debates themselves as they have become so rigid in their format.

This article provides a fascinating history at Bush and Kerry's debates, as well as an analysis of their styles. (WARNING: it's long).

I'm really curious to see the evolution of the post-debate analysis, tonight (after the debate) and over the next few days (relative to my own opinion of it, of course).

Edwards is going to be here in Columbus for the debate. They're going to show it on a big screen at a downtown park, and then have a rally afterwards.

There's a reason I always turn off the TV after the debates. I hate post-game shows!

Nice blog, really enjoyed it.