From Kevin over at Pundit Review, a distinctly right-leaning site (with an interesting radio show on WRKO that I was on a couple of weeks ago):
Content no longer matters. Ideas dont matter. Pithy matters.
This is not Gergens fault [although he did a pretty lousy job –ed.], it seems to be how all debates are structured these days. As a voter looking for insight and information on candidates, this is no way to find it. As a political junkie, I know the candidates, I have been reading the blogs, watching the campaign for months now. But most people just start to pay attention a month before the election, and a forum like last night does a disservice to them, and all citizens of the state, if this is how we are delivering information to the masses about who should run the state and why.
I propose a new debate format. One that would expose the candidates, illuminate their abilities and ideas. It would go something like this,
Moderator: Candidate A, you say you have a specific plan to deal with property taxes, you have ten minutes to explain that plan, how you would work with the legislature and what you expect the outcome to be.
Moderator: Candidate B, you have five minutes to respond.
… Have a series of debates, as we do now, but cover a few specific topics, in detail.
I dont think forums that reward the candidate who does the best imitation of the fast talking Fed Ex spokesperson from the classic 1980s TV commercials is anyway to decide who runs a state.
Right on all counts. These people aren’t running for captain of the debating team. They’re running for Governor, and the notion that the best way to figure out who the best person to be Governor is depends on the ability to compress complex ideas into 30-second “responses” and “rebuttals,” or the ability to get off the best one-liners, is absurd. Think about it: when, in the next four years, will the skills necessary to “win” these debates — namely, the ability to deliver quick policy sound-bites and clever zingers — actually be useful in running the state? Answer: never.
I like Kevin’s idea of an hour-long debate focused on only one or two topics, and with the candidates being allowed — in fact, required — to speak at some length about them without being interrupted. That way, we might actually get to hear the candidates explain and defend what they want to do.
The Healey crowd, of course, thinks that this problem will be solved by the one-on-one debate that their flagging candidate so desperately wants. But they’re wrong. It’d be more unilluminating sound-bite-based one-upmanship, unless the format of such a debate were radically altered from what we’ve seen so far. Until someone starts floating a different form of debate — where each candidate is guaranteed to be able to talk for several minutes at a time, without interruption from the other candidate or the moderator — we’ll just get more of the same.
None of this means, by the way, that voters are helpless. If they want to find out where the candidates stand, the websites are an excellent resource where voters can take all the time they need to read through the various proposals and judge for themselves. But voters should realize that they will not have this information handed to them in the course of these debates. They need to go out and find it.
and reporting on the issues rather than the latest hail mary from the Healey camp the debate would also be about issues that will actually have an impact on voters.
Sorry folks, this is my time so i may be posting my comment on the wrong thread but somehow i think there are some big issues that we have to let deval’s pr know about. maybe some one can re-post this as a separate thread.
<
p>
1. first of all, kerry healey has alot to answer for so she shouldn’t be made to believe that she stands a chance to do one-on-one with deval. in any case, what would healey say if christy demands one-on-one with her with the same stupid excuse that his numbers will improve and probably pass healey? it will be a ligitimate demand going by her own demands but i bet she won’t even think about it.
<
p>
2. charter schools. i think deval is right about caps but hasn’t fully explain his stand. i once worked for a charter sch. the question is if the traditional schools are failing for whatever reason, who wouldn’t want to leave for a better system. how can u leave some people behind in the old rotting systm if we all all good schools? the answer is, and deval is right about it: fix it. charter schools operate on physical properties with human resources(dedicated teachers et al). it makes no sense to vacate one physical property to another, invest more money and time so that a few can have a better opportunity of being well educated whiles the majority lag behind. the solution is simple: fix traditional schools and model them after successful charter schools without implying that everybody should be allowed to go to charter schs.
<
p>
3. so far everything has been centered on local issues but this is a question that the criminologist has to answer: there are 3 american soldiers in iraq that have been accused of raping an iraqi woman. i condemn all acts of rape but the justice system requires that every accused be represented in the court of law. would healey argue for those soldiers being thrown in jail because they have been accused and if not, would she be willing to defend them if she could?
<
p>
4. deval hasn’t stressed the point enough that healey has cut funding for services for victims. how can u be for victims when you are against the things that hurt them. folks there are alot to be said but i will be back to touch on some more. can somebody show me how to post as a main thread without having to reply to unrelated topics. thanks
You can click “Post a comment” on the shaded bar just below the main post to start a new comment thread. Or you can click “write a new post” in the main menu box to write up your own user post.
<
p>
Welcome to BMG!
This frakking “free form” thing is just crappola on a stick. Not illuminating AT ALL.
“when, in the next four years, will the skills necessary to “win” these debates — namely, the ability to deliver quick policy sound-bites and clever zingers — actually be useful in running the state?”
<
p>
At every interview, press conference and speech. We as a public aren’t demanding 10-minute policy explanations. We’re happy with soundbites and catch phrases that sum up complex issues into three words.
<
p>
Advancing an agenda as Governor will require the ability to keep talking to us as though we were watching a debate.
<
p>
It’s sad, but true.
Different skill set.
We could show them how it’s really done.
Right after the LG forum, I think. Probably too late now though. Everyone’s schedule is so squeezed.
to plan something so large scale. You’d want to see it televised/broadcast statewide. I’d rather not do it at all than not do it properly.
<
p>
However, NEXT cycle, we might well have what it takes.
There was an environmental debate months ago on MITs campus (although not run by MIT), about 2 days after the tunnel ceiling panel collapse, which explained Reilly’s absense. But, DP, CG, CM, and GR were all there — KH claimed she was waiting until after the primary to debate.
<
p>
It was a nice forum, and it bounced around between Cape Wind, state parks, growth, etc. I believe there was also a health care debate, but I could be just imagining that one.
<
p>
It’s a solid idea. It’d be a great way for stronger interest groups (environment, health, education K-12 and higher, F.O.P. and other anti-crime groups, AARP and other senior groups, etc) to get the campaigns to focus on their interests while also forcing the candidates to carefully consider their interests.
<
p>
Don’t rely on the traditional media to organize these. Interest groups have got to do it (working with the LWV if they’re smart) and then invite the media.
Many voters don’t have internet access–or at least, the high bandwidth to deal with a fancy site.
<
p>
So it is worth pushing for a debate format that gives a candidate at least five uninterrupted minutes to speak about an issue.
<
p>
Five minutes is not too long–if people can listen to a pop song for five minutes, then they can listen to a candidate for five minutes.
I remember all the complaints during the presidential debates that the format was basically interwoven campaign speeches rather than a real conversation. Now it seems like people are sick of what the candidates do to conversation and want to go back to longer campaign speeches. Is there any doubt that 10 minutes on property taxes would not result in a meaningful answer, but rather devolve into the Proud Republican History on Taxes, which Rapist Enabler Deval Patrick would raise through the roof when he’s not busy commiting street crime?
<
p>
Politics is not peopled with Arnold Vinicks and Matt Sanotses. I think at this point that it’s fair to ask if the problem is the format, or the candidates…
We don’t need 10 minutes of speech giving, we need 10 minutes of interactive conversation between the candidates on a single topic.
<
p>
I propose, instead, a format something like this:
Moderatorsays:Taxes. Discuss your ideas for 4 minutes. Patrick, go….Other candidates: 2 minutes to respond each. Panel asks questions about specific points or unanswered question from each candidate’s statements. Candidate gets 2 minutes to respond, other candidates get 1 minute rebuttals.
<
p>
I disagree with most of what you said. You state:
<
p>
<
p>
This is true. However, how useful will it be in running the state to have all of candidates to come to some sort of mathematical precision about all of their policy specifics? It’s a bad idea to have candidates commit to specific details on the campaign trail, because those details inevitably must change when they hit upon political reality after the election. Because they “pledged” certain specifics during the campaign, they may be compelled to pursue such policies even when things change and those ideas are no longer good or feasible. Call this the “George W. Bush” problem — never changing one’s mind even when the events on the ground demand it. This is not good for the state, and not how a leader should operate.
<
p>
That is why themes ARE more important than details at this point. We as voters should know the basics of what each candidate stands for, and allow the details to come later (which only makes sense). Give us a choice between two different visions for where the Commonwealth should go, not a choice between what’s said on sentence 3 of page 18 on each campaign’s policy specifics manifesto. Perhaps the current debate format doesn’t get the basic themes out (though I think they have). But going to a highly specific format that voters will tune out (for good reason) is heading in the wrong direction.
i think i understood your comment to mean that you’d like a meaningful 1-on-1, but that accepting KH’s offer was unlikely to yield that.
<
p>
but i wasn’t sure if your view was that DP should accept or decline the offer.
<
p>
it’s kind of a luxurious position for DP. he can decline without any heat, or he can accept b/c he’s simply a better debater.
I agree wholeheartedly. But who would tune in to such a thorough debate? Do you think that such a forum would keep viewers tuned in? Or would they, after 5-10 minutes turn to something else? I don’t know the answer, I think we have to try it first!
<
p>
It’s a hard problem. On the one hand, we deserve a debate that is thorough and gets at the heart of the issues, and allows people more than 20 seconds to make their point. On the other hand, you have to have a debate exciting and interesting enough that the average voter actually wants to watch it.
Have both!
<
p>
You could bill the crappy one as a “pop” debate. People like the Pops…even if it serves up less-meaty fare most of the time…
Our local cable access television station allows candidates to come in and film a statement. All candidates are given the same amount of time, same lighting and background, etc. Then the taped statements are played at intervals throughout the election season.
<
p>
In the bigger, statewide races, this could be done with better production values – the candidates would probably want to film their own statements, and have the option of speaking to an audience or using more complex editing to show themselves in action.
<
p>
Someone discovered a few years ago that the original congressional charter for public television required that stations provide free air time for candidates for public office. No one had spelled out which candidates, how often, for how long, at what time of day, etc. I believe that WGBH negotiated terms with congressional candidates on the fly in the middle of election season a few years ago.
<
p>
This public air time requirement could be revisited, and could be very valuable in providing an alternative to the current wham-bam format of what passes for a “debate” in the modern election culture.
<
p>
The hour length, it seems to me, is arbitrary and wholly a product of a media format fast becoming obsolete. I’ve seen each debate at least three times now, thanks to the internet and on-demand cable. I’ve also seen whole transcripts, parts of transcripts and snippets. Nor do I have to rely on secondhand reporting of the event to flesh out my understanding and thinking about it as I once did. There is no reason, given these methods of viewing and evaluating to constrain the thing to an hour.
<
p>
I do not object to anything about the format other than the time constraints thus I think the time constraints should be removed.
<
p>
Modern day baseball has this ridiculous practice of using short relief pitchers and 9th inning ‘closers’: the starting pitcher is no longer expected to go more than 6 innings and numerous pitchers, some only for one or two batters, are used between the starting pitcher and the ‘closer’ in the 9th. Under these circumstances each pitch, for each pitcher, assumes importance far far greater than it should: If you only throw five or six pitches in the entire game, each one had better be perfect, no? It’s a recipe for failure as no pitcher can possibly perform at that level and that consistently. It’s also a bit of a double standard as the starting pitcher doesn’t have to perform at that level. I often wonder if a bucketload of runs could be prevented if some crucial 6th or 7th inning pitches hadn’t been made to assume such outsized importance. Debates are like this: if you only have 30 seconds to get your point across your words had better be pitch perfect and maximally impactful, which is pretty nigh impossible in pretty much all instances.