That was the time limit for Dem candidates in Nevada with 45 seconds, that is, two-thirds of a minute for a rejoinder.
Is that the rule for tonight?
How much time do the journalists get to ask their question and then to interrupt a candidate for going over the time?
Can we really learn anything about the candidates? or the issues?
For extra credit: Were televised political debates ever any better? more informative? ended with a clearer understanding of candidate differences?
Let's see. The five top moments of debates: Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow. Ronald Reagan promising not to bring up his opponent's youth. George H. W. Bush looking at his watch. Gore looming over W. Bush. Trump feigning assault on Hilary Clinton. Bonus sixth great moment (multiple): Every time Trump snared a new label for an opponent -- Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, etc.
ReplyDeleteHard-hitting. Incisive. Real game changers.
Didn't Gerald Ford once deny that the Soviet Bloc was under the sway of the Soviets, or some such? I remember the headlines that deemed it a major gaffe. Whether it actually made a difference in the election outcome, I don't know.
DeleteIn what may have been the first question of the first GOP primary debate in 2016, a journalist asked the Republican candidates whether, in each one didn't secure the nomination himself, he would back the GOP candidate. Every candidate said he would back the GOP nominee. Except one, who emphatically did not say he would do so. Three guesses who that exception was. In my view, that moment was decisive; it signaled to GOP party leaders that this guy couldn't be trusted to deliver the votes the party counts on. In my view, all of the otherwise-inexplicable lockstepping and fawning of Der President traces back to that moment.
DeleteI was too young to have been interested in watching the Kennedy-Nixon debate, but reading about it later, it marked a turning point in which politicians now have to also be actors. It is said that both Kennedy and Nixon debated in a serious way about substantial issues. But what everyone remembers is Nixon's palor and perspiration (he was recently recovered from an infection that he was hospitalized for) and Kennedy's youthfulness and tan. Which may have been a side effect of Addison's disease. Oh, and Nixon's shifty eyes.
ReplyDeleteKennedy-Nixon debate...Didn't the missile gap cause a stir? And remember Quemoy and Matsu!
Delete"Early on in the presidential debates, Kennedy was asked if the United States defense line in the Far East should include Quemoy and Matsu. Kennedy responded that these islands — just a few miles off the coast of China and more than a hundred miles from Taiwan — were strategically indefensible and were not essential to the defense of Taiwan. The Massachusetts Senator also alluded to the unsuccessful efforts by the Eisenhower Administration to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to abandon the offshore islands in order to avoid the possibility of being dragged into a major confrontation with the PRC over these two islands. Perhaps feeling the need to disagree with Kennedy, Vice President Nixon countered. Since Quemoy and Matsu were in the “area of freedom,” Nixon contended that they should not be surrendered to the Communists as a matter of “principle.”
..."To millions of Americans watching the debates even the names of the offshore islands – Quemoy and Matsu – had a certain phonetic and unforgettable cachet. Quemoy and Matsu dominated the debates like no other single issue with its peace or war ramifications."
I'm living proof that it did something to my brain.
Probably Tom's too.
http://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2010/11/quemoy-and-matsu/
I remember my parents talking about Matsu and Quemoy. They were Republicans and of course backed Nixon on that subject. Odd to think that it never amounted to anything and they are still held by Taiwan. Odder still that they are a tourist attraction.
DeleteOne of my granddaughters is currently (school resumed today) teaching English to Chinese students on Kinmen Island, formerly known as Quemoy. Matsu remains nearby. Both remain part of Taiwan.
DeleteWhether Trump knows that is a mystery. He began by talking about more arms for Taiwan, and when that ticked his friend Xi, and Trump found Xi is a dictator after his own heart, Trump made noises about us giving Taiwan back to China (which never had it). But then he wasn't able to make a deal with Xi, so China is now an enemy again. For now.
Tom, hopefully she isn't where there is any corona virus.
DeleteKatherine, Last night CBS had a story on there not being anywhere near enough face masks to deal with a pandemic. We knew that because Katie tried to buy some before she went back earlier this month, and there were no good ones in town or, apparently, in the state. Taiwan is in better shape than most of its neighbors. For now. But the virus, contrary to our uninformed president, is pretty much everywhere. Which is where Katie figured it would be when she went back.
DeleteShe and her students have their temperatures taken in the morning, when they arrive at school, and again at noon. Anyone who is high, goes straight to the nurse. But no one had to yesterday.
Quemoy becomes Kinman Island! Who knew. Was the name change a clever ploy to make the Chinese forget?
DeleteI watched the first half of the last debate. I did not watch the others. I wanted to see how each of the candidates handled their moments on camera, interruptions, attacks from the other candidates - to learn something about their personalities and how they react to pressure.
ReplyDeleteIt is not possible to learn much about their approach to issues, proposed policies etc - that takes time and a lot of reading. I tuned in mostly to take a look at Bloomberg, who seemed shockingly unprepared to respond to the issues that would be used against him.
I think the problem with giving the candidates more time is that it just opens up more space for them to pivot to their stump speech, which usually isn't very enlightening; and also gives candidates more time to say things to which other candidates feel compelled to respond. Sometimes that makes for healthy and helpful debate, and sometimes it get the entire evening off-track - consumes time that could have been spent on more substantive issues.
ReplyDeleteTelevision, as a medium, has proven to be increasingly hostile to conversation. It didn't have to be. In the early days, when nobody knew any better, there were some talk shows in which people had the kinds of conversations people used to have before we raised a generation that thinks talking is like, man, Chris Matthews. Irv Kupcinet, whom Jim may be old enough to remember, used to have a weekly show in Chicago in which whoever happened to be in town lounged on sofas and talked with people who were already there. I remember one night when a very good saloon singer and a well known professor of constitutional law got into a discussion of early Western liquor laws. Neither was on the show that night to sell something or someone.
DeleteBut then the "experts" took over. In Hollywood today, this very minute, it is conventional wisdom that if what you have doesn't grab someone in the first four seconds (some say six), the person is gone forever. That is based on putting cameras on people while they scroll on their computers. It is why you can stop the ads on YouTube after five seconds.
So in order to avoid joining the ranks of the Too Dull to Be Invited, someone appearing on television -- whether as host, moosehead or victim -- has to talk faster than the average mind can think, which means falling back on handy memes, a word that didn't exist before the four-second rule went into effect.
I found the first debates helpful in that the candidates made an effort to introduce their plans, differentiate themselves, and give civil answers that followed the rules.
ReplyDeleteThe last debate was bad-tempered and didn't really tell me anything new, though I enjoyed Warren breathing all over Bloomberg about his NDAs.
I would prefer to see a different debate format. Maybe a town hall. Or randomly pair candidates and let them respond to each other in a moderated discussion. They let local reporters from New Hampshire ask a few q's in that debate, and they were better than those asked by the network anchors who often seem very camera aware.
Which debate was moderated by Alex Trebek? That was an embarrassing low. I'd watch one that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert moderated, though.
I lasted for 1 hour 45 minutes tonight. Not sure what to make of it. Bernie was relatively effective - he commands the stage, and when he talks, people listen. At one point, Buttigieg tried to talk over him and failed completely. I'm about 3/4 serious in saying this: there is something about New York brash that shuts up people from other parts of the country.
ReplyDeleteBiden was waving his arms and punching the air for emphasis - came across as too strident, didn't seem in command.
Warren is a good attack dog. Is she running for veep? But she can't be Sanders' running mate, can she? - can there be a ticket with Vermont and Mass on it? Saw a number of real-time comments that she wasted a lot of good ammo and airtime by going after Bloomberg all night when Sanders as front-runner should be the target.
I'd say the same about Buttigieg - good attack dog. He and Klobuchar seemed rational, prepared, good communicators, made good points, came across as competent. Possible futures as campaign surrogates and cabinet positions? I guess Klobuchar makes more sense than Warren as Sanders' running mate.
Not sure about Bloomberg. Or Steyer. Steyer doesn't fit the narrative of this race - he's a piece from a different puzzle, he doesn't fit into this one.
Re: Sanders as a debater: I don't think Trump will be able to intimidate him. Like Trump, he doesn't let himself get defensive - he's attacking all the time. If he debates Trump to a draw, that's a win for the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteI did 40 minutes of Bernie shouting, Bernie waving his arms Bernie being offended, Bernie lecturing and Bernie talking over everybody. I was most impressed by Buttigieg's question about whether we want to hear Bernie and Trump shouting for the next six months. I sure don't. With the caveat that if Bernie runs against Trump, I will vote for him. But I am sure not going to listen to him.
DeleteI could have done with more Steyer. He is even more polite than Ms. Minnesota Nice, who still looks to me like bear meat for the incumbent.
Tom - I am supposing that there are many Democrats out and about who would like nothing better than to have Trump shouted down, lectured to, arm-waved into silence and told where to get off.
DeleteJim, You -- and many people -- assume there will be debates between POTUS and the Democratic nominee.
DeleteI don't.
If the D's nominate somebody POTUS is afraid of (like Bloomberg) there will be no debates. And there may not be debates anyway because, as Sen. Graham will quickly note, the Constitution does not require the president to debate. Remember, this is a guy who now is demanding that two justices of the Supreme Court recuse themselves from his cases. He has no limit.
Bernie! after a quick answer to any question, he reverts to his stump speech. That's what he'll do from the Oval Office on the platform giving the State of the Union. He has a looping tape in his head that turns on after 30 seconds and his arms start pumping to provide accompaniment to the tape.
DeleteAren't we all part of working families? How many working families consider themselves part of the "working class." Reminds me of the thirties... and tangentially of the book "What's Wrong with Kansas?"
Pitting the working class against the rich guys is pretty effective rhetoric - that's essentially how Obama beat Romney in 2012 in the same key swing states/counties which Trump won in 2016. That rhetoric works in the upper Midwest.
DeleteI didn't watch the debate, I wasn't up for that much mortification, even though Lent is starting. But nothing I'm reading has changed my opinion that our primary system is broken. It is like the Hunger Games. Everyone pretty much agrees that the prime directive is to beat Trump in the fall. To do that the Democratic party has to unify. These debate spectacles are the absolute opposite of unification. It's all about personalities and the actual issues take a back seat. The Democrats' job is to convince people that they would do a better job of running the country than Trump. I think they are in a panic right now.
ReplyDeleteWatched the debates; no one came out ahead.
ReplyDeleteI blame the moderators whom I suspect really like the shouting. Last election they replaced talking heads with shouting heads. All a part the media's self serving promotion of conflict in this country. That is why I don't have a TV any more. Watched the debates on the internet.
They could easily have a system in which they control all the mikes and turn the speaker off when their time runs out. That might not end the shouting matches but it would muffle them.
Why are we getting more and more moderators on stage?
"All a part of the media's self serving promotion of conflict in this country." I agree, Jack. The shouting match, prize-fight, low information atmosphere is a feature, rather than a bug.
DeleteTurning off the mikes is a good idea. I saw a couple of comments last night that, as an alternative, they could do what is done at Oscar awards shows and start playing music to alert the speaker that s/he's gone on too long. Although I doubt that would stop most of them from talking.
DeleteRe: the number of moderators: my guess is that these debates are turning out to be ratings bonanzas, and so the networks want to showcase their lead talent. Last night, they had the nightly news anchor, a 60 Minutes guy, the White House correspondent and at least two others whose roles I don't recall. I'm not sure it matters how many questioners there are; what is needed, and what seemed to be missing for large portions of last night, is one big dog who has the presence or gravitas or ruthlessness or something to shut down bad behavior on the part of the candidates and restore a semblance of orderly process.
Just getting rid of the rooting sections and letting the spectators watch on a Jumbotron would help.
DeleteThe following comment is not worthy of the seriousness of our situation, But: my favorite moment last night.
ReplyDeleteWarren brings up again the women who worked at Bloomberg and signed Non-disclosure agreements. Bloomberg says he apologized and replies that he has done what Warren asked, released the women from the agreement [haven't actually seen news of their accepting.]
Warren goes on...Blumberg repeats. She doesn't give up. Bloomberg finally throws out, "I did what she asked, what more can I do?"
Isn't there a scene like this somewhere in I Love Lucy...?
Is it Ricki and Lucy or Fred and Ethel?
I could see either Ricky or Fred being driven to say that. Maybe not Little Ricky though ...
DeleteThat anecdote that Warren recounted last night, in which she was fired from her special-ed teacher job for being pregnant, is one that she has used previously during the campaign - and of which a number of folks question the veracity.
DeleteIt may have been one of those deals where the employer claims to have fired her for cause, or said that she resigned of her own volition; and she claims that she was pressured out because of her pregnancy. Neither side would be able to prove or disprove that pregnancy was the real reason.
DeleteMy (somewhat callous) take as a voter is that I don't cate about an event 40 years ago. How is she going to address issues happening here and now? And how is she going to do it under constitutional constraints, and given that she would likely still have to deal with Mitch McConnell and a hosti!e Senate?
Katherine - yes. Re: your questions for her: it's sort of moot, I think, because she's just not getting traction with Democratic voters. I think the ship already has sailed on her candidacy.
DeleteI hate to say this, but I think there is some truth to it: Bernie's health is really looming as an important consideration. If he has another, similar episode, all bets are off on the nomination narrative. To be sure, he looks and sounds just fine - maybe better than before his heart attack. You get the ticker fixed, lose a little weight, work out, it all helps ...
Jim, I agree that Warren is not likely to be the nominee. I think it is a problem though when people focus endlessly on events in the distant past, and fail to substantially address current issues.
DeleteI don't wish Bernie any ill health, but yes, at age 77 heart issues are a major concern.
Jim and Katherine, I am sorry you wrote off Warren. I was leaning toward her for our primary on March 17.
DeleteTom, maybe it is too early to write her off altogether. If she picks up significant deligates, but still is not the front runner, she would be in a good position to make deals or perhaps be considered for a veep.
DeleteTom Friedman in today's NYT proposes that the front runner who he suggests may be Bloomberg promise to bring the other candidates into his/her administration...Amy Klobuchar for VP; Bloomberg for Treasury; Biden Secy of State; Warren Health and Human Services, Pete head of intelligence....etc.
ReplyDeleteWith jobs for Steyer, Harris, Booker, etc.
The goal is to bring progressives and moderates together to beat Trump. He is taking his cues from a new book by our old friend, E.J. Dionne, "Code Red."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/democratic-primary-candidates.html
Bad precedent: File nomination papers, get a plum job.
DeleteSort of like the existing precedent: Give a million to the election campaign and get an appointment that lets you be called Mr. Ambassador for the rest of your life. Trump could fire Gordon Sondlund, but he couldn't take away the traditional honorific-for-life.
Rick Perry and Ben Carson ended up in the Trump Administration. Maybe there are others - hard to remember all 16-17 candidates from that cycle.
DeleteI couldn't open today's Thomas Friedman column, but I did see the one from Feb 12 where he was plugging B-berg. He made a goid case for him. Better than B made for himself in the debates. He still doesn't have any delegates. He would have been a lot better off to declare early on.
DeleteIn the original post, Peggy asked, "Can we really learn anything about the candidates? Or the issues?"
ReplyDeleteJim Geraghty offers a fairly in-depth answer: "This System of Debates is Failing Everyone".
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/this-system-of-debates-is-failing-everyone/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=featured-writers&utm_term=first
To Peggy's point about a 1-minute-45-second time limit:
"Then there are the moderators’ questions. There is a time and a place for broad, open-ended questions such as: “What changes would you make to the American health-care system?” Given a minute and 15 seconds to respond, a candidate can’t get into many specifics. The answers usually turn into a list of goals — “I will make health care more affordable for everyone, and I will make sure every American gets the care that they need” — with little sense of how to get there or what specific changes to law would be made to try to bring about that outcome. It reflects badly on the primary and general electorates that they are so easily satisfied with a wish list instead of a plan with specific details."
Geraghty touches on a number of other issues, including the difficulty in talking about (rather than visually showing) numbers and dollar amounts, the pros and cons of giving marginal candidates as much speaking time as top-tier candidates, and much else.
I have bad hearing, so at times the debate was just disconnected sound:
ReplyDelete--"Kill it!"
--Fidel Castro
--Love letters to tyrants
--"No, he went overtime and now I'm gonna talk!"
--Boooooo!
--Revolutionary politics of the 1960s
--D- from the NRA
--Game of Thrones-type theme music, bring on the dragons and let them fry candidates who hog the time.
--"Here's the deal, folks."
--Wanting to slap the smug off Margaret Brennan
--Pete's wedding ring
--Reparations
--CDC has been gutted
--Two-state solution
Trump will be speaking to the nation at 6 p.m. about the corona virus. That should be a treat.
Jean, The Ds need you. You make it sound so much more exciting than the 40 minutes I saw.
DeleteWhatever. It's easy to just sit back and act world weary and bored. Oddly, Jim, our most unapologetic Repub, seems more critically engaged than some professed Democrats here.
DeleteThe debate formats are terrible, not the candidates. It was better when onlookers were not allowed to make any noise. It is better when there is a single moderator. I would be happy if there were only questions from the audience allowed, submitted in writing to prevent moderator grandstanding.
Jean's list comports with the Times TV critics analysis of the SC debate: "It probably got voters’ attention, in the same way that it gets your attention when several car alarms go off on your block at once. But it may not have helped anyone distinguish the candidates, except by volume."
DeleteUnfortunately he does not post a list as good as Jean's.
"I Can't Hear You, There's a Debate Going On."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/arts/television/south-carolina-democratic-debate.html?searchResultPosition=1
I liked Amy's comment about Trump "taking a hot dish" to the world's tyrants. She is really very sharp, but maybe not to anyone outside the Midwest.
DeleteShe's fine with born and raised Midwesterners (of a certain age).
DeletePoniewozik: "They closed by asking the candidates for a personal motto and the biggest misconception about them, a.k.a., 'Please root through your stump speech for an inspirational yearbook nugget.' "
DeleteWho thinks up these stupid questions? It's like those embarrassing ice-breaker games they play at Zonta Club: Introduce yourself and tell what famous person you most resemble. I always say "Marilyn Monroe," whom I don't resemble in the slightest, but people don't dare laugh on the off chance that I really think that.
I really wish one of the candidates had said, "That's an idiotic question, and I want to make this last important point ... "