Single Issue Debates
 

I have watched a few of the debates so far, and I got to thinking. They are debating, they are just answering questions. Why can't they have a 2 hour debate over the Iraq war/terrorism, another on health care, and another on taxes. When you have 10 candidates and they get a minute to answer the question, I think they don't go into the depth that is needed.

Do you guys think this would be a good idea?

It would be very helpful to me if they did exactly that. Unfortunately we are very early in the nomination cycle still, and the heat has not yet been turned up. I am using this time to visit web sites, and look at voting records rather than hoping anything worthwhile comes from the regurgitation of talking points both sides are calling debate.
Personally, I doubt the final debates will be anything more than a slugfest when it comes down to it, and I do not intend to base my decisions on the artificial statements candidates are virtually required to present to appease as many voters as possible. Looking at the record, and statements made during the career of any politician allows for a far more complete picture to form and does away with some of the Media hype.
Thats part of my problem with Obama, I like the man but cannot say he has a record I can evaluate with any accuracy. Time will tell....as it usually does.

i am not sure why anyone is really paying too much attention at this point--the campaign for president is now so bloody long that it nearly dissolves as a discrete activity, becoming as much a war of attrition that favors the candidate(s) with the greatest financial resources.

so it seems that these events function in a way like being in the court of louis 14 did for the french aristocracy, forcing enormous expenditures onto the candidates so they can simply continue appearing at the appropriate rituals because it is only by appearing that one is available for the glance that might result in Favor. the difference is that louis organized the court to break the aristocracy's ability to revolt by draining off their resources (a reaction to the fronde) while the american system is ultimately about teaching voters to subordinate themselves.

this elongation of the presidential campaign does nothing for the amount and quality of information voters can access, nothing for the nature and quality of voting decisions (on that one day in every 4 year cycle during which we might plausibly be seen as exercising political freedom)---and it is not about this fiction of american democratic process--rather it is about generating an illusion of increased flows of information--behind it is the same old same old--in this american order, money is THE index of quality----behind the candidates left standing at the end of this empty, stupid process is a huge pile of cash. the argument made across this theater: candidate x was able to afford to weather this process because he or she had a Huge Amount of Money from Important Donors who Know More Than You DO and so you really should just submit and choose one and everything will turn out hunky dory because economic actors are always rational capitalism is the best of all possible worlds and american democracy is not a joke.

the endless campaign is relatively new and seems to have grown to truly neurotic proportions this time out. were there a Volition running the show, i would think that the tactical decision behind this long tedious charade would be that in a context shaped by legitimation crisis it is important to put on a nice show and if it is long enough and boring enough and glittery enough and gets enough tv coverage, folk will forget what is happening in reality, they will forget and confuse this sorry spectacle with something that happens in a functional democracy.

He's held elected office since the '90s. I'm sure you can get at his voting record in the Illinois state senate fairly easily.

This would be cool, but there would have to a few of them which might be hard to organize. Given the prevalence of reality TV these days, you'd think it be fairly easy to build up a game-show-like buzz about something like this that would be profitable for the organizers.

We could have like three debates on three different issues, with various members being voted off the island, and five minutes of Obama eating bugs...:rolleyes:

It'd be nice if Mike Tyson punched them in the stomach every time they didn't answer a question and just went to a talking point we've all heard a thousand times. Fucking politicians.

You couldn't do it with ten people onstage at the same time. It would turn into a Springer episode.

You know what I'd like to see? A special debate using abstract topics that have nothing to do with current political issues, but instead showcase the candidates' sharpness of mind and breadth of knowledge. That would be fun and force them to debate without the net of talking points and party lines.


For example: :)

if they did talk about a subject for 2 hours, we would learn where they stood exactly and they could not fake supporting every side, or the sides that get the most votes.