Campaign coverage deals with minute changes in the candidate's stump speeech.

They give the same speech 20 times a week and the only thing that gets press is when they slip up and don't follow the script.

It is a crazy way to run for President

context has a liberal bias

I know this is almost too obvious to bear repeating, but are we really all so stupid that we judge participants in presidential debates by who gets off the best prepackaged zingers?

I'm not so sure that's necessarily stupid, if its not the only criteria.

I mean, we do all understand that these things are written ahead of time by staffers and then desperately plugged in by the candidates come hell or high water, regardless of whether they actually make sense in context, right?

Well, I certainly know that these things are developed by the campaign (the exact division between staff and the candidate probably varies), and that candidates use them on a continuum from randomly spurting them as-memorized with no or at best tenuous connection to the immediate context, to adapting them and working them into context-appropriate responses. And this is just as true of "talking points" that a candidate (or office-holder) brings to a press conference, etc.

How well a candidate is able to internalize and adapt material like this to the context is at least one indicator of whether the candidate is actually capable of and interested in applying original thought, and a pretty big difference between William J. Clinton's press conferences and debate appearances and George W. Bush's. So, yeah, I think there is useful information about candidates abilities and inclination that can be derived from their delivery of such "zingers".

And that they're about as genuine as a 70s-era laughtrack?

Are you trying to suggest that modern laughtracks are somehow substantially more genuine than 70s-era ones such that specifying the era is important here?

Very few people actually watch the debates. What's important is the sound bite that makes the news shows. The pundits engage in their usual meta-of-the-meta and judge the debate by who got off the best cable-ready 2-second bite.

I want to see real, old fashioned debates. Not overly puffed up Q&A sessions. I want to see actual DEBATE.

Between these crapshots of spectacles and the US, Politics, and Media class I'm taking right now, I'm kind of craving the kind of debates we had pre-TV, just so I actually get an idea of where people stand outside of meaningless soundbites.

d) Who cares?

Kevin, wake up! you're wasting your time with this non-issue, while peak oil has finally arrived!
"Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says new study"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

We are a mean, stupid, and bigoted nation.

Are you trying to suggest that modern laughtracks are somehow substantially more genuine than 70s-era ones such that specifying the era is important here?

Possibly cm, possibly. Very few 70s era prime time TV comedy shows were free of canned laughter. All In the Family was a notable exception. By the 90s, many comedies opted for a natural response from their audiences.

Maybe Kevin should have said, “…the sound of laughter in….�

More correct, but also more wordy. I got what he meant.

Yes,yes,yes, and this is why I do not watch debates.

These pre-packaged sound bites get the massive coverage they do because 1) our pundit class decided some time ago that voters are idiots who make all decisions based on a gut reaction to a candidate's personal appeal rather than policy (despite evidence to the contrary, like, say, Gore getting more votes than Bush); and 2) as a a result, these pundits now operate like theatre critics -- grading entirely on entertainment value and avoiding substance like it carried plague.

Who am I? Why am I here?

Who cares! Nobody outside the punditocracy is actually watching the debates. Everyone else has already realized how useless they are and has long since found better things to do with their time.

It depends upon whom you mean by "we".

I would ask "are we really all so stupid that we" waste our time taking presidential campaign debates at all seriously?

"are we really all so stupid that we judge participants in presidential debates by who gets off the best prepackaged zingers"

Debates predict a candidate's performance as POTUS about as well as a stand-up comedy routine predicts performance as CEO of GE.

Your question is interesting though: Why does any American thinks the American-style debate provides meaningful information about candidates? Stupidity is one answer. Ignorance is another. Desperation, inertia, indifference, and irresponsibility would be others.

but are we really all so stupid that we judge participants in presidential debates by who gets off the best prepackaged zingers?

No, we're not, but the newsreaders think we are or else that we deserve this inanity to dominate the newscycle.

Are you looking to help The Daily Howler with a topic like this?

Hey Kevin.... you haven't mentioned anything about it, but we're certainly hoping that you're not in any danger with the wildfire in the Irvine area.

Sounds like Mr. Unhappy here is used to the low levels of discourse so common among Democrats. Join us and watch Fox News. ...Join us.... You'll find everything is so much more peaceful, more calm.... Everything will feel so much better. No more of this intemperate "blogging," Mr. Sad Pants. ...Your worries and concerns will melt away....

You should really include some examples of the zingers for those of us who did not watch the debate.

KD, what zinger you hear recently that got you venting today? Something last night?

Everything last night?

Well, there you go again!

This reminds me most of Schwarzenegger's 2003 debate performances. That was the most scripted I've ever seen anyone ever be in one of these debates, which says a lot.

In terms of presidential candidates giving the same speeches over and over, I'd say it's not limited to that level. Even on the city council level the same things are said over and over. The only person I've seen be different was Al Sharpton. I saw him speak three times in '04 and each time he was substantially different.

Hey, it is the one-liners that make the news cycles, which is the only part of the debate that 99% of the people aware of them even see. What is the actual viewership of the debates themselves at this stage? About a million people?

And, in any case, who cares about any of the content? Who looked the best?

These things really seem more designed for journalists than home viewers, and I assume the candidates think of them that way. It's like a political convenience store: they have 1 of everything but no sane person would do their shopping there.

The weird thing is that journalists don't compare the candidates' positions and perspectives, only their "performance". Which is why they're so scripted in response. Of course no one cares about "performance," but that's the gestalt perception you get after watching the debate, so it seems important to the observer.

What really confuses me is why journalists aren't mocking candidates who don't answer specific questions.

They ask "how would you solve the healthcare crisis" and they get "Bob, the American People believe in fairness and equal rights as a God-given truth and beauty about our open and freedoms and society deserves a fair days dollar for a fair day's work and we need to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work that the American People deserve and have always had the heart and..." Then they turn to their viewers and seriously nod and say "Candidate Steve's performance was commanding and heartfelt. He just looked presidential up there."

That's where the disconnect is. Non-answers don't get the ridicule from the journalists they deserve. Apparently it's our job to ignore the whole thing. Which is why it's mind-boggling that 1) questions aren't baldly policy-based, 2) candidates don't actually answer them, and 3) journalists don't punish the blah blah blahers. We'd all watch their stupid show if they did all 3.

Zingers are worth covering when they make a substantive point, e.g., "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".

But since debates don't matter anyway, zingers don't matter either. (Indeed, the guy who delivered the above zinger never made it to the Vice Presidency.)

I watched the debate and was struck by two things:

1)There was not a single new policy suggested by the Republicans. Nothing, nada, zip. No ideas whatsoever. When will the media notice this?

2)Chris Wallace enjoyed letting the R's beat up on Hillary for 15 minutes -- and letting each candidate get his licks in. John McCain was the only one to look faintly embarrassed by this tactic. And Republicans wonder why liberals think Fox is biased.

Last night's GOP debate was, pure and simple, a painfully public exercise in collective self-delusion. Quite frankly, I'm not going to waste any more of my time watching this pathetic bunch of clowns.

I have absolutely no intention of voting for anyone with an (R) following his or her name. In its present condition and form, the Republican Party is inherently incapable of governing.

demtom: like, say, Gore getting more votes than Bush

Really? You mean Bush isn't president, and I've been having this terrible nightmare?

Donald from Hawaii: this pathetic bunch of clowns.

Sir, I resent the comparison.

Yours truly, Chuckles the Clown.

What do you expect journalists to do? Write about health care?

sherifffruitfly: We are a mean, stupid, and bigoted nation.

Who you calling a nation, fruity?

I know the answers are (a) yes, (b) yes, and (c) yes. I'm just venting.

Actually, I'm afraid you're wrong. Most people don't know, and few would care even if you told them.

Your average voter doesn't really pay a lot of attention to the process, yet alone notice how absolutely canned the entire process has become. How would they know? No one in the MSM talks about it.

Political handlers do their level best to prevent the candidates from being candid. You can say the right thing 99.9% of the time, but if you stray from the script that 0.1% of the time and say or do something embarrassing, there's a chance the media will latch on to it and ruin your entire campaign, like they did with Dean's "scream". And of course a lot of these "gaffs" are actually prepackaged for the media (Dean's scream only sounds strange when you isolate his mike and eliminate that background cheering, over which he could barely be heard if you were there in person), like the Swiftboats against Kerry, or the myriad character attacks on Gore, and so on.

All you need to know about the stupefying shallowness of your average voter is that a lot of people liked Bush because he's the kind of guy they would enjoy having a beer with (never mind the fact he's an alcoholic). People also latched on to the bogus "Gore invented the Internet" thing, too.

Debates are silly, useless things indeed.
Everybody knows that the MSM and the Beltway have already decided it will be Giuliani v Hillary.

Augustus: Political handlers do their level best to prevent the candidates from being candid.

Best sentence of the thread!

It matters to the kinds of people who vote Republican. For most of them, it's all about gaining advantage over the next jerk, and they would rather identify with a "winner", no matter how phony, than try to create a better society -- or even stay "safe", as the propaganda puts it.

Well, there you go again!

Exactly. No one can forget how much mileage Reagan got out of that line, and it's impossible to know how long he had to wait to deliver it.

But Al Gore's sighs cost him the election, if you believe those infallible pundits.

Considering about 20 minutes of the 1 hour Hardball show was devoted entirely to who zinged who the best in the debate I'd have to say yes we're all that stupid, particularly Chris Matthew's Producer for making the show and me for watching the entire thing.

Forgive me if wrong, I think this point was made in some debates; I don't have time to keep up): ragging on Hillary's $5k/child birth bonus. Yeah, it sounds like pandering, but not in context compared to the existing and now long-standing and unchallenged 1k/child/year tax credit (on top of the usual deduction.) Why should we do that either, or why not the bonus and not so much doled out every single year after that until they are 18 (18/5 times Hillary's bonus.) We need to remind the Republicans and the public about this.

tyrannogenius

I feel your pain.

However, they work: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=12702

Hey - we haven't hear from you in a few hours - I hope you & Marian & Domino & Inkblot are ok.

I heard the geriatric leper McCain comment on Hillary seeking funding for a Woodstock memorial - something to the effect that he was "tied up at that time". A real knee-slapper that got the "we love torture" crowd sprung. Sick perverts.

gr8flmo - I was thinking the same thing myself - watching Southern CA burn, and hoping the Drum household was OK - Kevin, if you see this, can you post an all clear?

Sounds like nearly the whole damn South Coastal California is burning, with fires from Malibu in the North to San Diego in the South -

Good thing that all of our National Guard, Reserve, and regular troops are at home, rested and well-supplied, and available to help with the tragedy - -

oh, wait - - -

Much to chagrin of its radical right organizers, this weekend's Values Voter Summit of GOP White House hopefuls produced only confusion. Despite the gymnastic contortions and acrobatic back-flips of Republican presidential candidates eager to win evangelical hearts and minds, no clear winner of the conference straw poll emerged. Thanks to his stuffing of the online ballot box, Mitt Romney edged Mike Huckabee, the clear favorite of actual conference goers, by 1,595 votes to 1,565.

Eager to avoid a repeat of this year's inconclusive outcome, the organizer of the event, Tony Perkins' Family Research Council, is moving to a new competitive format designed to produce a definitive winner. Here, then, is the guide to:
"The 2008 Values Voter Olympics."

we do all understand that these (memes) are written ahead of time by (the White House) and then desperately plugged in by rightwing bloggers, reading from scripts that arrive with their morning Kool-Ade and Froot Loop breakfasts.

Yep, sure 'nuff.

Speaking of prepackaged schtick plugged in randomly without context, Kevin, whattaya gonna do about that "Perrspectives" clown's random blogwhoring, like he did -- again -- just above? In one sense, nearly as bad as Al or Chuckles, since he ain't here to contribute to the conversation, either.

*But Al Gore's sighs cost him the election, if you believe those infallible pundits.*

Even better was the moment Al quick-stepped across the stage and stopped just inches away from a startled Bush as George tried to answer a question.

The debates were so entertaining that year, both for Gore's constant remakes and for Dubya's comedic mis-performances.

What do you expect? Why, just the other day I saw a Republican walking upright, thanks to the invention of the wheel-barrow.