Post-debate thoughts on the debate I mostly didn’t watch
I watched about one-third of this evening’s debate. After that I turned it on intermittently, but what I saw convinced me to finally call it quits, and to eat my (very late) dinner in blessed silence.
Maybe this really wasn’t one of the worst debates ever, but it sure felt that way. But maybe it felt that way because my disgust is cumulative. So I suppose that what I’m about to write refers to the entire debate process as it’s evolved (or devolved) over the years.
I could say that there are now too many debates, and that they’re too long. And there are, and they are.
I could say there were too many people up there, and that each GOP debate should instead have consisted of two groups of roughly equal size, randomly selected each time and both appearing in prime time, and running two hours each maximum.
I could say that the candidates should each have to answer the same question, until all on the stage have answered, and each should get the same amount of time to answer.
I think these things would go a long way towards improving the situation. But I also think those things will never happen, so they are probably irrelevant.
Right now it’s become a multi-candidate press conference conducted by a small number of “gotcha” journalists who are far more interested in “winning” the debate themselves than in helping the viewers get an idea of what the candidates would do about certain substantive issues. Yes, there are a small number of the latter type of questions, but way too few, and the rest are either attempts to trip up whatever candidate[s] they’ve decided needs tripping up, or to get one of them to trip up another, on and on in succession.
Because the candidates are, after all, in competition with each other, many are only too happy to oblige. And then it becomes a verbal duel to see which of the two who are warring at any particular moment can come up with the best sound bite put-down of the other. But there’s really no time for a takedown that’s meaningful and substantive, and someone can get away with a very bad answer in terms of the facts if it just sounds aggressive enough.
It’s an Attention Deficit Disorder debate with a World Wide Wrestling format. This is not just a frivolous objection about tone. I believe that the debates have become at least part of the reason we have come to choose presidents on a more and more superficial basis in recent years. This format not only lends itself to superficial, it pretty much requires superficial, plus a huge and growing emphasis on looks.
I can’t speak on who “won” tonight’s debate. I didn’t watch enough of it. I know that I’m usually very impressed with Cruz, because he manages to stay calm and focused, and because his mind is stupendously organized he probably gets in more statements of substance that anyone else there. I know that Donald Trump has never said anything in a debate that shows an understanding of issues, and that he shies away from detail and just want us to believe his bluster and boundless self-confidence is enough. It’s not. I know that Rubio looked shaky tonight during the time I watched, and Christie like the New Jersey prosecutor that he is. Carson said he wouldn’t attack Cruz and then seemed to go on to sort of attack Cruz. Kasich and Bush were there, I think, as they always are. Fiorina wasn’t.
You nailed it, neo.
What angers me most about the process is that each network devoted so much attention to the candidates in the best position to fuel higher viewer ratings, and never gave several halfway-decent candidates the time or opportunity to present their case.
Trump thinks he “nailed it.” I agree with Neo: this was not his best night. But at least he was less histrionic than previous debates.
Cruz continues to come across as solid.
I was not impressed with Kasich and wish he’d go away.
I know people like Christie’s New Jersey in-your-face, but I don’t care for it.
Some say Bush was there, but I don’t remember seeing or hearing him. Same with Carson, I’m sorry to say, as I like him.
Rubio? I think I’ve heard it all before, and I can’t disagree with Christie’s attack on him as just another politician.
Bottom line is that Cruz and Trump probably helped themselves; others, not so much. For me.
I did not watch the circus, but from the comments I am not surprised that Cruz kept his cool. He is the long drink of cool water a thristy republic needs. We need a principaled, POTUS, who understands the most basic concept of the rule of law. Otherwise the abyss looms. I do not want my grandchildren to face a hopeless future of debt and despair.
Carson missed his cue, and everyone else strode past him and onto the stage. Trump skipped his cue and stayed with Carson, and they went onto the stage last. It was a little thing, and was obviously not staged. Interesting dynamic.
My daughter’s brought a friend over so i had to turn off the debate to make a “safe”space and then make dinner.
When they went upstairs i turned the post debate analysis on and saw that Trump lost some points on the old lady in a home bit by Chris Christie. Trump hilariously said, “but she didn’t lose her home”. Right! Because the court decided no.
The analysis also talked about Rubio repeating himself. I saw the clips. Christie was in prosecutor mode all week.
I FEEL like Trump won’t win NH.
PatD,
ABC admitted sound problems. It wasn’t Carson’s fault.
I agree the media is a serious obstacle. I am very annoyed that Carly was not on stage. I don’t think I will ever again contribute to gop.com.
On another note, a liberal acquaintance told me about her view of Cruz today. It’s a good heads-up into the propaganda war the Demsheviks are waging:
– Cruz is a “dominionist”
– Cruz wants to establish a theocracy
– Cruz wants to put gays in jail
– His dad says blacks would be happier if they were slaves again
– Cruz is like an anti-Christ
This kind of thing is all over the Daily Kos and the HuffPo and similar rags.
@Baklava: That wasn’t the point. Every other candidate strode past Carson but one. Trump gave Carson a friendly tap on the shoulder, skipped his own introduction, and stood by him. When ABC figured out the problem, Trump nudged Ben out, went next, and Kasich then appeared. The question you need to ask is why did Trump stay with Ben instead of striding past him?
@ROPWA:
The Dominionist stuff is actually creepy.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/17/ted-cruzs-father-my-son-anointed-to-take-control-of-society/
Plus, Glenn Beck is creepy these days.
I enjoyed the debate more than Neo did. It would have been better if Fiorina had been there but the men were quite entertaining even without her and they handled themselves quite well.
Since we are in an unacknowledged war with Islam, I was interested in the candidate’s views on Islam. On that front I can eliminate several of the candidates. This week Bush praised Obama’s visit to a mosque and bragged that the position that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism originated with his brother. He bragged that his brother attended a mosque much earlier in his term than Obama did. Christie is a fierce warrior against terrorism but is careful to let us know terrorists have nothing to do with all the good Muslims he knows. Ditto for Kasich.
Rubio is clearly a Catholic who is sympathetic to persecuted Christians in this country but he was carefully to avoid any negative comments about Islam. So I’d say Rubio is close to the correct approach.
I’m sorry to say it since in many ways I don’t like Trump but he was the only one on stage who was willing to question Islam itself and to connect Islam with terrorism. Cruz and Carson didn’t say much but based on past statements they both seem to be fairly well informed about the actual teachings of Islam.
Overall, I thought Trump did quite well, he acted more adult and mature that usual but his parting shot that Cruz only won Iowa because of Carson votes was jarring and hurt himself more than Cruz. Cruz was rock solid as usual and that consistency helps him. Kasich sounded less like a grumpy old man this time around so he helped himself somewhat.
The rest didn’t do so well. Carson sounded whiny at times. Rubio did OK but he was under constant assault and wilted slightly under pressure. Christie did little more than attack Rubio all evenig. Bush is on the stage because his name is Bush.
This “debate” was a disgrace. More “gotcha” questions, more “He said that about you, are you going to let him get away with that?” Rubio made an ass of himself — Christie was 100% right. Carson was ignored — IIRC, he got two questions! No questions about Russia or China. “Should we premptively strike a North Korean missile on the pad?” Seriously?
What should we do about ISIS? Only Carson had the right answer — “ask the Joint Chiefs and other military leaders.”
And the Donald, as usual, getting all of the media attention. “Mr. Trump, what should we do about [fill in the blank with a question of your choice, it doesn’t matter what]. “We’re going to make America great again! We’re going to build a wall! And China! And Japan! And Mexico! And I love our veterans!”
A total waste. Sheesh! If I were a New Hampshire-er, I’d vote “None of the above.”
neo-neocon
It’s too bad that you can’t observe with objective eye what is happening here. I do understand though. I can’t bear to listen to O’Bummer’s voice or look at him on video. I just turn it off. And so you appear homeless at a most critical juncture in American history. Civilization is literally at stake and you just can’t deal with it because you don’t like the front runner. Not much to talk about then.
Ben (Johnston):
I see you’re back.
Interesting how you completely misunderstood my post.
In this post, I mentioned Trump in passing along with the others. He actually was not the source of my problem with this particular debate last night, and since I had watched all the other debates this season (except the one Trump wasn’t in, actually, because I was busy that night) there was no reason to conclude his presence tonight was some sort of reason I just couldn’t take this particular one.
In fact, as I’ve made clear, I’ve always detested debates and have trouble watching them under the best of circumstances. Most of this post criticizes the format of this debate and others, including the format of debates long before this campaign season ever began. In fact, I wrote:
I don’t think I could have gotten any more explicit that. And yet you either completely misunderstood the post or pretended to.
However, I can assure you that at the time I turned this debate off, Trump had been relatively subdued up to that point and I had hardly noticed him. He was most definitely not the issue.
And your fake concern and “understanding” is not especially touching.
Ben,
If you mean Trump when you say “the frontrunner,” I’m totally with neo on this. He says he’s going to wage an economic war on China and that will bring them to take care of the Norks. What kind of world does he live in? He is now pretending to defend Carson, who he previously called pathologic. Sure Trump was less of an attack dog tonight, but his superficiality hasn’t diminished by an inch, nor have his contradictions become more coherent. He is going to take the oil from ISIS after he has bombed it. He is a blustering idiot.
As to the other candidates, Cruz did best on understanding foreign affairs, and his answer on waterboarding was really good (Trump’s was typical bluster). How well Cruz did depends on the voters. If they want to follow Cruz’s thinking on issues, he will do well; if they are trying to choose someone for a reality show, he will probably go down.
I don’t understand why Christy’s only message was Rubio’s inexperience. Yes, he fought to get some things done in NJ, but he didn’t give an overview of how he would handle problems when he had the support of a much more Republican congress. He also didn’t say much about foreign affairs.
Rubio, despite his repetitions at first, did seem to understand the complexity of the problems we face, but I don’t think his decision to be the candidate who could win the middle was effective among conservatives. We’ll have to see what the NH voters think. He didn’t overcome the questions about his lack of executive experience.
Bush was better than I expected, as was Kasich. Carson didn’t get enough time. I think we have a hard time seeing this in terms of what will win NH voters, who are not like us at all. I hope that he other candidates can get a few anti-Trump ads from last night.
I also agree completely with neo that the debate format stinks. This was the first debate I watched, but I’ve seen enough clips from others to know that they don’t allow voters to come up with a comprehensize prioritized idea of what kind of platform they would like and who would best implement it. As soon as one candidate makes a forceful comment, they stop talking about the issue and move on looking for more ratings bait.
Gameshow politics is progress, i.e., a result of progressivism. Little wonder then how low we’ll go, for it’s well designed to take us lower still: a conveyor-belt to idiocracy. Put away your books and welcome to the future.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
This is totally OT, but I want you to see it because it gives a better idea of what Merkel is facing in Germany.
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21690055-nostalgia-ostpolitik-fouling-up-german-diplomacy-bear-backers
I share your distaste for the debate formats, neo. It has become almost like a cage match. Some people may be energized by seeing men and women verbally beat up on one another, but I’m not one of them. I think it’s important to know more about policy issues and where each candidate stands on such things as the economy, taxes, the size of government, foreign policy, defense, and more.
I watched Carly do a town hall meeting yesterday morning on C-SPAN. It was a very informative two hours. (Why wasn’t she on the debate stage? It is a travesty she was left out.) She was very incisive and clear about what she would do and why she would do it. IMO, that is the kind of information we should be getting from the debates. Instead we get ad hominem attacks back and forth almost like a school yard taunting session.
Unfortunately, I see no one among the candidates, with the exception of Carly, who fits my bill of requirements to be our next President. Who has the temperament to be the C-in-C, the primary job of our President? That requires a deep knowledge of foreign affairs, of our military capabilities, of our adversaries capabilities, and the judgment and willingness to use diplomacy, military intelligence, and military power in concert to defend the nation. It’s sad that we don’t have a Churchill or a Reagan among the men, but we do have a Thatcher-like woman who is getting no traction.
Did the chicken come first or the egg? Is the debate format devolving American’s ability to decide or… is the public’s devolution resulting in how the candidates act?
Upon what basis would today’s politicians presume that the majority of the public is even capable of following an actual, in depth, knowledgeable discussion of the issues with each candidate indicating their understanding of the issues by the ‘solutions’ they propose?
As for the ‘gotcha’ questions, an unaccountable media will behave as they wish. Which all ties back to the public’s devolution… In support of this supposition, add up both Trump, Clinton and Sander’s supporters. They make up a majority of the American public.
expat,
That many, if not most Europeans, embrace appeasement as a viable strategy is well known to all here, it is leading Europe down the same 1930’s path that pacifism must ultimately, always lead.
People who believe in nothing beyond their own safety, nothing for which they are willing to die… “cannot remain free, unless kept so by the efforts of better men than they”.
Christie made a good point about governors having to actually do stuff. If you think that’s relevant, then he had a hell of an impact.
I saw Carly on C-Span earlier. I would vote for her in a minute. I sure hope she’s on the ticket some way. It would be, among other things, interesting to see the feminists try to Palin her.
Best comment I’ve seen on last night was made by a commenter over at Power Line:
“The RNC must be run by idiots. They consistently allow debates with moderators hostile to the Republican brand. The goal of the moderators is to reduce the electability of all Republicans.”
‘Did the chicken come first or the egg? Is the debate format devolving American’s ability to decide or… is the public’s devolution resulting in how the candidates act?’
Nailed it!
“Right now it’s become a multi-candidate press conference conducted by a small number of “gotcha” journalists who are far more interested in “winning” the debate themselves than in helping the viewers get an idea of what the candidates would do about certain substantive issues.” [Neo]
Bingo!. This is precisely the reason I don’t watch them anymore and also the very reason I stopped watching Megyn Kelly. She proved herself to be one and the same in the first debate back in September.
Also, an interesting take on the “faulty” sound system problem that left Ben Carson stranded. The initial reports claim that neither Carson nor Trump heard their names called. This makes me think otherwise because it claims that Trump was proceeding to the stage and then stopped (H/T Erik at DonSurber.blogspot.com).
The link:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/07/the-classiest-debate-moment-that-no-one-noticed-never-leave-a-good-man-down/
Since I didn’t watch the press conference, I’m curious. Any thoughts?
More of an ouroboros than aught else, isn’t it? Progressivism proves self-devouring.
I didn’t watch the debate, but I did read this post at Ace of Spades.
“Rubio’s Glitch”
How anybody can still think that Rubio is a desirable or even viable candidate after that, I don’t know.
He is the Republican version of Obama.
The line/idea that Rubio kept repeating: “Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama is undertaking an effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world.”
That reflects Neo’s fool versus knave question re Obama talked about many times here, and puts Rubio solidly on the knave side.
I’m very glad he’s now given this idea prominence in the national conversation.
I agree with everything neo said. I was disgusted by the left-wing moderators who only seemed interested in throwing out “gotcha” questions in order to get the candidates to spend their time attacking each other. It seems to have succeeded though. As Ann says, the RNC must be run by idiots to allow moderators whose only goal is to make the Republican candidates look bad. The RNC never seems to learn.
Also, I didn’t understand Christie’s spending so much time attacking Rubio. I’m sure he must have thought that by diminishing Rubio he would stand to gain. I think that he did hurt Rubio, but didn’t help himself. I had been warming to Christie lately, but now not so much.
Regarding all the “gotcha” questions:
(I imagine I speak for a few others in the following, but I just want to get the point out there anyway. Or [sigh] maybe I imagine too much.)
I’m actually reasonably happy with the (so-called) “gotcha” questions tossed at the Republican field. They ought to be answering any and all skeptical, tough questions.
I am NOT happy with the reluctance of moderators to ask (so-called) “gotcha” questions of Democrats. (Marco Rubio touched on this syndrome briefly.) By crackie, *they* ought to be answering any and all skeptical, tough questions.
* BUT PLEASE NOTE *: I wish to distinguish here between “gotcha” questions and these he-said-she-said “whatcha-gonna-say-to-*that*” questions. The latter are same-old-same-old, and they seem to me to be there largely to pit Republicans against one another (and for ratings, and for moderators’ personal limelight). I’m not talking about those, but about genuinely skeptical, tough questions. Bring ’em on — even-handedly!
rickl:
Ace (one of my favorite bloggers, by the way) has been very anti-Rubio for a long time. I believe it began with the Gang of 8, as it did with most people who are anti-Rubio (and it’s a valid concern, I might add). However, I have a different take on what happened between Christie and Rubio, which I’m trying to make into an article. If I don’t manage to get an article about it, it will be a blog post here.
I will add that I plan to take a different approach to anything I’ve seen anyone else say about it. I study it from the point of view of someone trained to analyze communications during arguments.
Anyone who still calls Trump the front runner is disingenuous, at best. There has now been one vote–Trump didn’t win. The pre-vote polls were wrong. There is no reason to give them credibility now.
Dilbert’s take.
@T
I saw that video. Carson realized he had missed his cue and held back. The other candidates came out on cue and walked right past him. When Trump came past, he stopped, and stayed with Carson. When the production team realized what was going on, they called for Carson and Trump. They forgot about Kasich, which was kinda funny.
I could be wildly wrong, and I often am, but it seemed that Trump saw the problem and formulated a solution that let Carson go to the stage in a dignified manner.
It reminds me of the story my father-in-law used to tell. He was in London after WW2, and went to a Shakespeare play starring Olivier and Richardson in their prime. Unfortunately, they’d been to the pub before the show and weren’t at their best. They reach a crux in the play and both of them are lost for words. The prompter throws them the line. Nothing. The prompter tries again, and Olivier says “I know the line darling, but whose line is it?”
Within the context of our election debates this one was fine. A good deal of foreign policy stuff.
And as for Christie’s great gotcha, Rubio has it right. Obama is a womb to tomb, died in the wool marxist, so everything he has done is deliberate and consonant with his lifelong ideology.
I still prefer Newt Gingrich’s idea of Lincoln style debates, just candidates live streamed with a clock.
Having to listen to Hail to the Chief every time Rodham enters a room is going to be painful.
Some “republic” or “democracy” we have here. I say it is neither, it’s already an oligarchy, fast turning into a totalitarian regime.
The question you need to ask is why did Trump stay with Ben instead of striding past him?
One theory that would explain it is that Trump is no longer ordered as the Trojan horse to attack Carson, since Carson isn’t running in front.
Democrat engineered third party runs, like Ross P, tend to happen under Clintons.
Considering how little media coverage she is getting, Carly is getting some traction. Her NH events are packed and she’s doing pretty well on social media. I think she will do better than expected in the NH primary.
Off topic, but the link below is to a rant by Kevin Williamson. It is a rant, but it’s a damned good one, and in our ongoing discussion about whether a hypothetical Trump presidency could be worse than a hypothetical Hillary presidency, it deserves to be widely disseminated and read.
The link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/430898/print
The question you need to ask . . .
No: the question I find necessary is why would a sane people, a non-stupified people take more care with staged gameshow walk-ons than with politicians’ corn-based ethanol subsidy stances, for instance, by which means the proponents of subsidies steal tax dollars from a vast population of Americans to ‘give’ to a tiny group of others, all while driving energy and food prices higher as well as grabbing their own program ‘management’ fees along the way?
Our politics shows itself to be so degraded that often the proper questions don’t arise due to displacement by utterly inconsequential questions.
The next question is why? Why is that? Why are so many Americans so utterly ignorant of their political interests?
For example, why do so many Americans ignore the fact that a Democrat candidate ought to be in prison for treason, instead treating her as qualified for the highest office in the land? Why do so many Americans ignore that another “Democrat” candidate runs for the office of the Presidency as an avowed socialist, a hideous and failed political theory resulting only in misery and destruction on every occasion attempted?
But no, some large fraction of Americans want none of those questions. They’re instead content to focus on vicious television personalities, i.e. clever morons. But how did Americans come to favor clever morons?
Answer: they too were taught to be morons.
Next question? Who would want to teach Americans to be morons? Well, how about clever moronic power seekers who believe they know everything, but certainly do know this one little thing: that knowledge is a source of power, and hence, knowledge in others is dangerous to their own desires, the acquisition of more power?
Remember the joke about the bear. The one fellow says he doesn’t have to outrun the bear in order to avoid being eaten: he only has to outrun his companion.
I watched 3/4 of the debate. I thought these 3 did well:
1) Trump
2) Christie
3) Cruz.
Trump was less bombastic and gave more specifics about his vision for the U.S. Maybe not as much as some would like, but much more than he has ever used in other debates. Did anyone else read the Breitbart article today about how the Bushes used eminent domain to build the stadium in Texas? LOL. I know most on here are not Jeb fans, but where was this outrage about eminent domain in 2000 when George W. was running?
Christie was GREAT. I loved everything he did. His attacks on Rubio were fantastic and on point. He should’ve been like this from the beginning. I still am sad he did not run in 2012. That was his best chance. Then he blew it when welcoming Obama to his state after the hurricane. But I want him to do well in NH, because he is great at targeting people with substance.
Cruz did exceptionally well in his foreign policy responses. He also had substantive arguments for everything. Was glad he had a great night.
BTW, did anyone else notice the class of Trump? When Carson did not hear his name called, Trump, instead of taking his place at the podium, waited in the wings until Carson got to make his entrance. For all of those who think Trump is class-less, I point to that moment as who he is beneath the bluster.
K-E, I can only judge Trump by the weight of the evidence. He may flash redeeming qualities from time to time, but he keeps them well hidden for the most part. So, what is the real Trump personality?
K-E:
I beg to differ. Christie’s attacks on Rubio’s multiple responses about Obama were stupid, ill-informed and showed his utter lack of empathy for the concerns of the Tea Parties, the rest of the conservative base and lots of moderates as well.
The point was that Obama is not incompetent, but that everything he’s doing is quite deliberate and designed to “fundamentally transform” a country he despises into something it was never set up to be. Why do you think the base is so lathered up about handing the Congress to the Republicans only to watch them deliberately enable everything he’s doing?
The entire field out to be pointing that out, and tarring Hillary/Bernie/Biden as Obama’s 3rd term on steroids. Only Cruz has been saying that until Rubio on Saturday, and even he ought to mention it a lot more. There are a lot of people still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt for his disastrous performance because the media has portrayed him as the victim of a situation left for him by those dastardly Republicans, and that one else could have done a better job than Obama.
Any patriotic American who loves this country could have done a far superior job on ending the recession, creating the environment for job creation, forestalling the upheaval in the Middle East, protecting our liberties and defending the Constitution simply by dint of not purposefully trying to make the situation worse.
K-E:
Well, I guess you think it’s true that Obama is a bad president because of inexperience, not for any other reason.
Because that was Christie’s main message. Go back to the transcript. He makes the analogy several times. Christie’s answer to the “knave or fool?” question for Obama is: fool.
That makes Christie a fool. Rubio was trying to say that. Too bad Christie’s belittling of Rubio’s method of saying it fooled you.
I wonder: would people have liked it better if Rubio had just let the analogy of his inexperience with Obama’s inexperience—and the idea that that’s the source of Obama’s “errors”—stand? Or would it have been better if, instead of saying “Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” several times, Rubio had said “Obama is aware is the meaning and consequences of his own actions, and is therefore culpable rather than incompetent?” Why is that better?
I’m just saying Christie’s attack on Rubio worked, because suddenly I was listening to Rubio and his repetition. It was canned & memorized. Even if you think Rubio was RIGHT, he repeated the same phrases over and over, so he sounded robotic.
I think Obama is incompetent AND calculated. Think about early in his presidency. He handed the Queen of England a thumb drive (or something similar) with all of his speeches on it as a gift. Was that really calculated or just plain DUMB? I say dumb.
You can argue with me about the substance of what Christie said, but as a viewer, it didn’t matter. He pointed out the repetitious quality of Rubio’s canned stuff, and it became obvious that Rubio was spewing what he memorized. Does it matter if what he memorized was correct or not? It didn’t to me. It just came across as empty. As if Rubio couldn’t come up with own words. That all that mattered.