I've been meaning to read this article for months and just go around to it. While it would have been an insightful read prior to the Presidential debates, it's also remarkably interesting to look at in hindsight. Given the way the debates and the election unfolded, this longread seems quite prescient. It analyzes the importance of Presidential debates and the debating styles of both Romney and Obama. Though less timely now, this article is still definitely worth a read.
"They Retort, You Decide!" by Robert Draper
Published in GQ, October 2012
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201210/presidential-debate-2012-robert-draper-gq-october-2012?printable=true
Eric
For all the talk about the debates though did that really swing the election? I think it was the intolerant Romney policies and ignoring non-white/male voters. It seems like these debate prep guys are kind of scumming. Is it not odd the the purpose of a "debate" is not to discuss substantive issues but instead to give a "look" or a soundbite?
ReplyDeleteI think the debates were important. Before the first debate, it looked like Obama would coast to victory. Yes, this was largely for the reasons that he ultimately won anyway -- support from minority voters and moderate white voters. However, that first debate in which Obama bombed turned it into a race again. Obama's hold on a lot of those voters seemed tenuous, and instead of the last month being a cakewalk, it was hotly contested. In the end, Obama rallied for the last two debates and hit Romney hard (including in some of the ways suggested in this article). That swung the momentum back his way, but I think there's little doubt that the debates really did affect the way the race played out.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the debate prep guys, it is true that they are scumming a bit, but that's true of so many people involved in the election cycle machine that it's hard to really blame them. Since so many people truly vote on substantive issues (or on a nuanced understanding of those issues), it doesn't surprise me at all that the debates tend to be more about appearances and soundbytes.
Eric
when you look at the numbers i'd say he did coast to victory, how much more would he really win by? i think no matter what happened the race would get "tighter" as it came towards the stretch run, it's not that the debates did nothing but i don't know that they REALLY changed it.
ReplyDeletemy hang up here is the fact that the debates aren't even expected to contain substance. Then what the hell is the point? it seems to me that the purpose should be to get at issues in a meaningful way to inform people. it's like the infamous give and take started by Brian Lewis "i'm not going to argue with you" finished by the immortal mayes gilliam "why not, isn't that the point of a debate?"