Political Debates as Reality Television

[Notwisconsin]

With one debate to go, what do you think will happen? What is your opinion as to who won and why? As infotainment, were the three debates so far (and the one upcoming) how do the debates rate?

Is Hillary a likeable TV presence? How about the Donald? (same about Kaine and Pence) Are these things particularly persuasive? How about the drama factor?

...and oh yeah, the moderators and their performances are fair game too.

Have at it!

[Notwisconsin]

Does anyone here remember that far back? How did they work out? Did the "undercard" debates work at all? Of the various candidates that were on the main events, did any make a real impression besides Trump? Does anyone think Trump made a real impression?

How were they as infotainment?

Have at it.

[b2H]

I'll jump into the fray:

If anything, the fall debates have highlighted the differences in temperment between the two candidates.  I will not draw conclusions here, because each side has its perceptions and their perceptions are their realities.

I believe HRC has done what she can to discuss her views and her beliefs and provide some direction as to how she would serve the American people as President.  She has not dropped to deeply into the insult dive during these debates.  I think DT has spent most of his time denigrating his opponent (and, in this last one, even openly threatening her), without really explaining at any level how he would serve the American people as President.  Both have done a good job in showing how they would perform under pressure.

Let me be clear - in no way are these debates, by the way.  Not in the truest sense of the word 'debate'.  The moderators have not done the best jobs in reining in either of the participants, in terms of the true time limitations and addressing the specific issues asked that a debate requires.  These presentations serve more as forums than debates.  There isn't enough structure in these events to qualify as a debate.

Finally, we need to remember that TV presence is not a job requirement for POTUS.  Yes, it decided the outcome in the 1960 election that had JFK beating Nixon, I get that.  But I don't really care how the person looks or presents on TV.  I want to know how they're going to represent me nationally and internationally.  TV presence should have little or nothing to do with it.

Edited October 12, 2016 by b2H
one more thought.

[MulletorHater]

These so-called debates show what happens when celebrity journalists or TV personalities are picked to moderate them.  I would have preferred someone with more gravitas such as one of the C-SPAN moderators or someone from PBS like Gwen Ifill.  

The one thing that became quite apparent to me is that Trump's narcissism has taken a real beating because he's gotten so used to the adulation that large and adoring crowds given him that it must be quite jarring to actually be forced to answer questions from people who aren't impressed with his "celebrity."  Secretary Clinton has been able to do what 16 GOP candidates couldn't do--and that is to go toe to toe with Trump and still be standing.  It must kill him that a mere woman showed him up especially in the first "debate."  He was clearly out of sorts after the first 15 minutes.  The second debate was a horror show, with this big tangerine creature hulking behind Clinton and invading her space.  The visuals will never be forgotten by me.  He seemed out of sorts more than usual, possibly from a lack of sleep.  He was clearly playing to his base whom he managed to convince that he was treated "unfairly" in the first debate.  

I take some issue with the moderating.  I was really tough on Lester Holt, but I had to go back and amend my commentary the following day.  Sometimes, when a fool is shooting his mouth off, it's best to stand back and let him dig his own grave.  Although Clinton was not my first choice, I have to admire her strength especially after that cheap stunt and obvious attempts at intimidation we witnessed Sunday night.  Someone like me would have dropped the mic and would have been ready to cut a bitch, but I guess that's why I would never make a good politician.  She seems to be able to stay focused and to keep her eyes on the prize.  Given Trump's threats to bring the whole house down with him, we can clearly see what a child he is when things don't go his way.  Although I'm not particularly thrilled about some of Clinton's advisers and surrogates, I never get the sense that they won't be able to tell her the truth.  Whereas, Trump surrounds himself with mercenary sycophants, who quake at telling him the truth, or have their own agendas.  Some of his advisers believed it was a bad idea to bring in President Clinton's women; unfortunately, their voices were drowned out by Bannon, etc. and the result is what we saw Sunday night.

My husband, who can't stand Clinton, was looking forward to her closing the deal Sunday night.  As much as he can't stand her, he despises Trump.

Edited October 12, 2016 by MulletorHater

[Hanahope]

I was really torn between Clinton and Bernie during the primary, but I have to say, I am so impressed with the way Clinton has taken every dirty despicable deplorable lie that comes out of Trump's mouth and just lets it roll off her.  She has looked so poised, so calm, and is able to ignore most of the filth, that I have no doubts whatsoever she'll be able to handle Putin and anything else the world throws at her.  I know that comes from practice, practice, practice, especially over the decades that she's had to endure GoP slander, but I'm still impressed.  If she is blessed with a Congress she can work with, I think our country has a real chance to improve.

[madmaverick]

I really wanted Hillary to hammer Trump when he doubled down on his locker room talk defence during the debate and then tried to divert things by talking about ISIS (wtf?) and Bill Clinton.  I wanted her to call him out and say outright that the actions he bragged about in the video were sexual assault, and could not be dismissed as locker room talk of any kind.   But she didn't attack him on this, and definitely not in the way he later attacked her.  Did others here want to see more of her attacking his behavior on the tape or on his general behavior towards women?  Or do you think it was better to let the tape speak for itself and not take the risk of getting dragged into the mud?  I have no idea if people are really turned off when Hillary's more combative and aggressive.  For me, it's the way to be when Trump is basically flooding you with a sea of lies and BS.  

[ruby24]

I agree completely with you on that, that's the one thing I really wanted her to hammer him on. He thinks he's getting away with calling it locker room talk, and four senators who withdrew their support are now back onboard like the cowards they are.

He CANNOT get away with that, that's such bullshit. Hillary's strategy seems to be to pretend she's at a real debate, stay above the fray and keep her composure while he hurls abuse at her (which is frankly ridiculous, they should not hold these debates if he turns the whole thing into a sideshow). Maybe that does work for the general audience (she won every poll about who won this debate), but I don't think she should hold back in going after him a bit harder.

She did in the first debate a bit more (and she won that one by even larger margins), so maybe she will go on the offensive for the last one. I also think their other strategy was for her to try to actually connect with the town hall questioners, so this last one may be different.

I DO want to see her hit him on sexual assault, and I'd hate to think she held back because of the Bill stuff.

[Princess Sparkle]

I would have loved for her to hammer him hard on that, but I guarantee that if she did, there would be a bunch of rhetoric afterwards about how she was "shrill", or "loud", or "overly emotional" (all charges that have been leveled at her before).  I think she did the best possible thing - she responded calmly, rationally, didn't give any attention to the Bill stuff, and probably took a bit of the wind out of Trump's sails, because if she had responded with a bit more charge, I think he would've brought back up his "SEE! Her temperament is terrible!!" accusation from the first debate. 

[atomationage]

6 hours ago, b2H said:

The moderators have not done the best jobs in reining in either of the participants, in terms of the true time limitations and addressing the specific issues asked that a debate requires.

I thought Lester Holt did great in the first debate in allowing Drumpf to make a fool of himself.  In the second debate, Raddatz and Cooper kept reigning him in, and he looked petulant, weirdly aggressive and frustrated.  If they had let him go farther, he could have gone full nutzoid, and gotten carried away from the stage in a straight jacket.

[ruby24]

Will Chris Wallace be the worst moderator? Spend the entire time on Wikileaks, probably?

[b2H]

2 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Did others here want to see more of her attacking his behavior on the tape or on his general behavior towards women?  Or do you think it was better to let the tape speak for itself and not take the risk of getting dragged into the mud?  I have no idea if people are really turned off when Hillary's more combative and aggressive.

sadly, and only because she is not in possession of the right organs, her turning the attack on DT would have been cast as shrill and bitchy and not at all the temperment some would want for President.  Women don't get the same treatment - sorry, but it's a fact of life.  So no, unfortunately, she did the right thing and ignored it as not worth wasting breath on, which actually won her some points.

[atomationage]

Chris Wallace is probably the reason that Cooper and Raddatz were so confrontational this week.  I expect Wallace to act as a good employee of News Corp, and be as unprofessional as his fellow employees are, all day, all night, every day, every week.

[madmaverick]

3 hours ago, Princess Sparkle said:

I would have loved for her to hammer him hard on that, but I guarantee that if she did, there would be a bunch of rhetoric afterwards about how she was "shrill", or "loud", or "overly emotional" (all charges that have been leveled at her before).  I think she did the best possible thing - she responded calmly, rationally, didn't give any attention to the Bill stuff, and probably took a bit of the wind out of Trump's sails, because if she had responded with a bit more charge, I think he would've brought back up his "SEE! Her temperament is terrible!!" accusation from the first debate. 

 

2 hours ago, b2H said:

sadly, and only because she is not in possession of the right organs, her turning the attack on DT would have been cast as shrill and bitchy and not at all the temperment some would want for President.  Women don't get the same treatment - sorry, but it's a fact of life.  So no, unfortunately, she did the right thing and ignored it as not worth wasting breath on, which actually won her some points.

I hear you guys.  I still hope she's more offensive in her last debate as she was in her first, not only because I want her to stick it to Donald, but because I think he does less well when he's on the defense than when he's in attack dog mode.   I want it not to come off like she's being railroaded by Donald's relentless lies and negative personal attacks.  And I think she needs to be sharper and more concise in her talking points, maybe less wordy.  I appreciate thoughtfulness, but in debater mode, you need to keep things short and sharp.

And I hope she delivers a very strong appeal to the American people at the end of the debate as to why they should vote for her, and not just because she isn't Trump.

Edited October 12, 2016 by madmaverick

[b2H]

I don't think anyone is seeing Hillary being railroaded by his lies.  Those DT supporters that are already in his camp are the only ones that are buying what he is selling.  Most everyone else gets it.  

Hillary said today that all Trump has is negativity.  She is right.  And she needs to stay as far away from the perception of negativity as she can without rolling over and playing dead.  She has done this before and will do it again, exactly as she should.

[BuckeyeLou]

I've not always been a Hillary fan(Obama, all the way, for me), but I am so impressed with how she has kept her cool and remained calm & measured when being attacked by the Trumpster.  She is intelligent, she listens to the questions and makes a point of being personal to the person asking it.  In the 2nd debate, when Trump was skulking around the stage and getting in her personal space and leaning over her chair, I would have wanted to turn around & tell him to "Get out of the way!".  She has been able to withstand 30 years of attacks by the Republicans and she is still standing and fighting for what she believes in.  She has 30 years of public service & has showed dedication to her work.  Trump is just a 'TV star"(Might as well have Kanye running, he's interested :) As for the Moderators, I liked Lester Holt, he kept things moving along and reigned in Trump's rambling.  Anderson & Martha had less luck with keeping the time limits and had to put up with Trump's whining about "not being fair".  Trump did not answer one question, like the one about being a good Role Model for children, he just rambled on & tossed out his "Word Salad".

[biakbiak]

I didn't mind that she wasnt as agressive as she could have been because of the format of the debate where their our undecideds directly in the room and that can be a turn off in person. I thought she handled it fine.

Edited October 13, 2016 by biakbiak

[j5cochran]

During the second debate, I, too, wanted Hillary to blast Trump.  But on further thought (and after reading a lot of interesting discussion on the Interwebs), I've decided that she was very wise.  In part, because she looked calmly presidential, and in part because it's too soon to deliver the killing blow.  What if she had knocked Trump on his butt, and then out of the race?  She might end up against an outwardly reasonable Mike Pence or John Kasich or fill-in-the-name Republican candidate.  

Assuming that a third debate happens (and that's apparently up in the air), that is time to "release the Kraken"!

[ruby24]

Yeah, I wonder if they're going to plan for her to hit him harder in the final debate, maybe go for that knockout blow this time, somehow. I really don't know if it's better for her to stay above the fray as much as possible and let him hang himself, or go for the jugular. I'd LIKE to see the latter at this point, but knowing that the only thing his supporters want is for him to threaten her, maybe it's better to stay calm and presidential? I don't know.

His own supporters thought he was better in the second debate because he attacked her more, whereas in the first one he was a rambling loon who constantly took the bait from her all night. He'll probably just stick with attacks non-stop for the last one too. But the majority of the audience still thought Hillary won by being the adult in the room.

There's gotta be a way she can do that and hit him hard at the same time.

[madmaverick]

I would like to see Hillary come on strong in the last debate. Eviscerate him in the way Michelle Obama did, on his treatment of women, on all the ugliness and hatred he's unleashed and legitimized in his campaign.  Paint a picture of a progressive society which cannot and will not tolerate any of that, and deserves a leader who is so much more.  Speak from the heart and make an impassioned appeal.  

This Arrested Development take on the debate is genius for anyone who hasn't seen it.  Especially for an AD fan like myself.  

[MulletorHater]

On 10/12/2016 at 7:03 PM, b2H said:

I don't think anyone is seeing Hillary being railroaded by his lies.  Those DT supporters that are already in his camp are the only ones that are buying what he is selling.  Most everyone else gets it.  

Hillary said today that all Trump has is negativity.  She is right.  And she needs to stay as far away from the perception of negativity as she can without rolling over and playing dead.  She has done this before and will do it again, exactly as she should.

That's why the Democratic Convention was so much more effective and powerful than the GOP Convention.  Even some conservative writers took notice and gave President Obama and others for giving the speeches that they wished their own people had made.  The GOP Convention was marked by its naked aggression, lack of anything positive to say about the direction of the country, and its WWE-like atmosphere.

The theme of Secretary Clinton's campaign is Stronger Together.  She needs to play on that some more.  Her surrogates (including both Obamas, Senators Warren and Sanders, etc.) continue to set things up for her; it's up to her now to thread the needle and bring this thing on home.

[fastiller]

15 hours ago, j5cochran said:

During the second debate, I, too, wanted Hillary to blast Trump.  But on further thought (and after reading a lot of interesting discussion on the Interwebs), I've decided that she was very wise.  In part, because she looked calmly presidential, and in part because it's too soon to deliver the killing blow.  What if she had knocked Trump on his butt, and then out of the race?  She might end up against an outwardly reasonable Mike Pence or John Kasich or fill-in-the-name Republican candidate.  

Assuming that a third debate happens (and that's apparently up in the air), that is time to "release the Kraken"!

Wait. What? What are you hearing?

[Princess Sparkle]

14 minutes ago, fastiller said:

Wait. What? What are you hearing?

Earlier this week, Trump said he was "done" with the Presidential Debate Committee, which some are taking to mean he's going to skip the third debate.  That's the one that's moderated by Chris Wallace, so he'd be a bit of a fool to skip it (because certainly Chris Wallace will be more sympathetic to Trump than a non-Fox network debate moderator).

[fastiller]

Thanks @Princess Sparkle.  He really would be shooting himself in the foot if he skips the Wallace-moderated debate.

[atomationage]

I'm hoping that debate happens next Wednesday, and that Chris Wallace starts channeling his father Mike, and roasts Drumpf.

[xaxat]

It is a disgrace that we will get through an entire presidential debate cycle without a single question on man made climate change.

[NewDigs]

2 hours ago, xaxat said:

It is a disgrace that we will get through an entire presidential debate cycle without a single question on man made climate change.

It's a hoax.

Perpetrated by the Chinese.

Trump said so.

[atomationage]

I hope Hillary comes out tougher in the final debate, at least enough to rattle Drumpf.  The supposed debate topics seem tailored by Faux news for pitching softballs to Drumpf:

Debt and Entitlements

Immigration

Economy

Supreme Court

Foreign Hot Spots

Fitness to Be President.

[Hanahope]

I don't think Hillary has much to loose by coming out tough against Trump, and it may rattle him even more.

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

Although Clinton was not my first choice, I have to admire her strength especially after that cheap stunt and obvious attempts at intimidation we witnessed Sunday night.  Someone like me would have dropped the mic and would have been ready to cut a bitch, but I guess that's why I would never make a good politician.  She seems to be able to stay focused and to keep her eyes on the prize.  

I am surprised at the many comments I saw about this online, like it was in any way a surprise. My sister called me an hour or so before the second debate, outraged about Trump's stunt with the four women and all I said to her was, "is that the best he's got..." Because seriously, does anyone believe there is anything that can be said or done regarding Bill's not so PG past that Hilary hasn't already heard and dealt with? The woman dealt with her husband's indiscretions while he was the President of the country and she, the First Lady.

It doesn't get more public than that and the jokes, articles, etc. were everywhere. Trump's little stunt was child's play to Hilary. And even SNL pointed it out in that hilarious moment in last Saturday's sketch where after drawing some fake tears, Kate's Hilary scoffs at the whole thing and goes, "hi, girls". When I heard Trump was doing this, all I thought was "wow, he must REALLY be getting desperate because seriously, who does he think he's going up against, some amateur?"

[MulletorHater]

I read that the Clintons were going to forego the traditional handshake between the families at the end of the debate.

If this is true, good for them.  I expect that this debate will get really nasty since Drumpf has "taken the shackles off."  I'm sure there will be more outrageous statements to whip up the base.  Oh, and lots of sniffling.  And, if things don't go the way Drumpf and his handlers want, there will be more attacks against the moderators.

[atomationage]

AFAIK, the moderator is just Chris Wallace of Faux News.  I can picture Drumpf going into a snit if CW actually asks a difficult question or a followup. " WAH!  You're picking on me too.  It's two against one."  Drumpf is such a whining baby, I don't understand why his followers don't see that.  My opinion/hope is that Drumpf is going to lose Big League, that his followers are people that don't actually vote, maybe they're being paid somehow to come to his rallies, and it will be clear very early on election day that he has lost.  That, or Death From Above, preferably a lightning strike in broad daylight without a cloud in the sky, leaving him twitching like that disabled guy he was mocking.  Really, is it too much to ask for?

[Kitty Redstone]

His followers don't see it because they're whining babies, too.

[starri]

The two snap polls that came out said she blew him out of the water on this last one.  By 10% in the YouGov poll, by 13% in CNN's.

[atomationage]

I thought that Chris Wallace did a surprisingly good job.  Drumpf considered him to be a friendly moderator, and tried to take advantage, but Chris mostly did his job well.

[shok]

1 hour ago, atomationage said:

I thought that Chris Wallace did a surprisingly good job.  Drumpf considered him to be a friendly moderator, and tried to take advantage, but Chris mostly did his job well.

Well, except for him framing most of the questions as right wing talking points. When Trump is standing there with that clown grin on his face happy as a pig in shit about the question that Hillary has been asked, you know Wallace isn't being objective and impartial.

[atomationage]

1 minute ago, shok said:

Well, except for him framing most of the questions as right wing talking points.

I didn't expect that they wouldn't be.  The topics were revealed a few days ago.  It looked like a list of softballs that Chris would be lobbing at Drumpf.   It wasn't actually that bad, and Drumpf couldn't stick to the topic, answer the questions, or act like someone who wasn't an entitled whiny brat.  

[Kitty Redstone]

4 hours ago, Moose135 said:

That clown Hugh Hewitt was on MSNBC, and said Trump won 14 out of 15 rounds, but hit himself in the head and knocked himself out with the comment about not accepting the election results, and I'm wondering what debate he watched, because I didn't see Trump win 14 rounds.

Is that the guy who was arguing that Democrats are responsible for Donald because they allowed him to win Republican primaries?  Did anyone else see that?  I wasn't paying complete attention and didn't understand his line of thinking at all.

[starri]

She got in some really, really good quips this time, that sounded much more natural that "Trumped up trickle down."

When he mentioned his Vegas hotel, "built with Chinese steel."  On Social Security "Assuming he can't figure a way to get out of paying for it."  And the best, the comment on the Trump Foundation using $250K for a six-foot painting of the man,  "Who DOES that?"

The one thing I wish she'd hit him on was after he talked about all his time building a successful business was asking how many he'd steered into bankruptcy.

[fastiller]

15 minutes ago, starri said:

She got in some really, really good quips this time, that sounded much more natural that "Trumped up trickle down."

When he mentioned his Vegas hotel, "built with Chinese steel."  On Social Security "Assuming he can't figure a way to get out of paying for it."  And the best, the comment on the Trump Foundation using $250K for a six-foot painting of the man,  "Who DOES that?"

The one thing I wish she'd hit him on was after he talked about all his time building a successful business was asking how many he'd steered into bankruptcy.

The NY Times has a good piece on just this thing.  Hillary Clinton, Mocking and Taunting in Debate, Turns the Tormentor:

Quote

 

She mansplained him. “Let me translate that if I can,” Hillary Clinton said dryly after Donald J. Trump talked up his tax plan.

She interrupted him. When Mr. Trump boasted of the gilded Las Vegas hotel that bears his name, Mrs. Clinton leaned into her microphone. “Made with Chinese steel,” she quipped with a smile.

She mocked him. After Mr. Trump said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had “no respect” for her, Mrs. Clinton slyly posited why Mr. Putin seemingly preferred Mr. Trump: “He’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States,” she said.

 

[atomationage]

Vox's take on Hillary and the debates, Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlLFTI24Qkw

Two more things.  Chris Wallace, at the end of the debate, , when he said thank you and good night, made me think more of his father than him.  The other thing I didn't notice last night was Drumpf mouthing thank you, which seemed to be directly at Chris Wallace.

Edited October 20, 2016 by atomationage
two more things.

[madmaverick]

12 hours ago, shok said:

Well, except for him framing most of the questions as right wing talking points. 

I agree with this.  Don't know how it's decided who gets to be moderator/from which network in these debates, but I didn't think it was really fair that one whole debate had just one moderator who could frame all the questions as right wing talking points if he wanted, which is what a lot of the questions felt like to me, especially at the start.  Squeezed out the chance for more policy questions to be asked that would have been of more general interest to the electorate beyond the Fox audience.  Climate change was never going to be asked about, for example.

Edited October 20, 2016 by madmaverick

[Hanahope]

I do wish Hillary had responded more to some of Trump's clearly false claims and attacked a bit more.  Like when he talked about his great businesses, in response to Hillary's "this is what I did, this is what you did" bit, she should have countered with, "which businesses?  the bankrupt ones? the ones under criminal fraud charges? the ones with jobs in China?"

I also disliked that so many of her responses started with "well".  that almost sounded like, "yeah what you said is true, but...."