Nesrie
5182
I see your point. I mean the only way to “force” another country to do something really is with economical or militaristic force… and if these people think we’re just going to go to war with every foreign power that doesn’t like a Trump deal… that’s insane.
Tim_N
5183
I agree completely, didn’t they used to ban all claps/boos? In Australia they are only allowed to clap at the beginning and the end. Of course, that solves the zingers but not the fact that politicians tend to just repeat standard talking points in debates as there is asymmetric risk/reward to improvised speech (i.e. conversation). Gaffes can be devastating (if you’re not Trump), yet amazing insight and exchanges sometimes does nothing for you at all.
If the candidate has any speaking ability, they’re going to push for a crowd. The audience will give them energy, and they can use the audience against their opponent - as Christie did with Rubio.
Timex
5185
I understand that, I just don’t like it.
That kind of thing adds nothing to the substance of the debate.
I don’t think debates are really about the facts though, they’re a game of who’s quicker on their feet - of who is more charismatic - of who can move the crowd.
ShivaX
5187
It is now, but that wasn’t always the case., nor should it be really. You can still show who is quicker on their feet without a bunch of fans in the crowd.
Timex
5188
Removing the crowd wouldn’t remove all of the showmanship. But I think it would raise it up a bit.
So much of it is just mindless garbage at this point. I can listen to the debates, on either side, and I can tell you when the crowd is going to applaud. Because they so often are just applauding generic talking points.
Like here, take a Republican debate… Say something like, “we need to defeat the real enemy, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism!” And you will get a bunch of idiots hooting and hollaring. It doesn’t even matter what the question is.
And then, by appealing to those idiots who are responding in an almost Pavlovian fashion, you generate a round of applause that will almost subconsciously impact folks watching unless they are really guarding themselves. And it detracts from the debate because it’s just cheap fluff.
That’s the thing, they aren’t even good zingers or thinking on their feet. They are just pandering bullshit.
And that doesn’t even get into the issue of stacking the audience with supporters. Like when Rand Paul had his supporters who cheered literally anything he said. It was ridiculous.
I am ok with them keeping the crowd. It’s cool that they can attract a live audience to watch the candidate go at it, as long as the audience doesn’t get out of control. I am pretty sure the Lincoln-Douglas debates were filmed before a live audience.
Timex
5190
Yeah, but up until recently the live audience were quiet. The moderators would usually specifically tell the audience to hold their applause until the end.
Alstein
5191
I don’t, and then there’s a chance if Bernie drops out early that some of his support might go to Trump in a bizarre punt of 2016.
Some Bernie supporters want change at any price.
Nezz
5192
The eternal conundrum of democracy: If the common man cannot even be trusted to control his emotions for the duration of one debate, why should he be allowed to vote in the first place?
There was this great article I read in high school how the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon had the national public split between who bad won. The audience that listened on the radio were more likely to believe that Nixon had won, while those that saw the debate live on television felt that Kennedy had won. The article argued that the sweety face of Nixon made a difference .
So, perhaps we should remove the cameras, so that old policy wonks can win again?
Overall I agree, but there are a few occasions where allowing a live audience to weigh in as a proxy for the voters does add something to the overall experience; specifically on those not-so-rare occasions where a candidate screws up. Take the last GOP debate where Bush and Trump were going at it – Trump made some typically boorish rejoinder and the crowd booed him, causing him to then accuse them of all being scumbag donors.
That moment would have come across very differently without a live audience. Trump would have made his point and stepped back with a smug look on his face and Bush would have sputtered. We never would have gotten to see the flash of confusion in Trump’s eyes followed by the petulant anger and his childish lashing out at the audience.
Likewise, Rubio’s downfall would have been less impressive without the live audience - Christie would have still made his point and it would have stung, but it was really the audience’s groaning and booing during the fourth repetition of the talking point that drove it home.
Strollen
5195
I agree, at the very least debating before a live audience make better TV. I went back and watched a bit of the Kennedy Nixon debates (beside having 8 minute opening statements, well past the attention span of the average voter now) they just seem very sterile without an audience.
There are enough debate that I think the right solution is to have mix between those with and without and audience.
Speaking of Nixon, I rather enjoyed this piece using Kissinger as a clear delineation point between Clinton and Sanders.
Here’s a fun little nugget: Cruz’s campaign accidentally cast a porn starlet in one of their ads.
Titled “Conservatives Anonymous,” the Cruz spot is set in a group therapy session, as a circle of men and women discuss their disappointment in having supported the Florida senator given his subsequent work on an immigration reform bill one calls “amnesty.”
“Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time,” softcore porn veteran Amy Lindsay tells the group before another man appears at the door in a Rubio shirt asking, “You guys have room for one more?”
A Cruz spokesman says that the actress auditioned for the part, but that the agency didn’t vet her background prior to having her play a conservative, presumably chaste, young lady.
As an aside, Amy Lindsay has done stuff other than late-nite Cinemax. She had a speaking role on an episode of Voyager and appeared in a few mainstream movies. But then she’s done a LOT of stuff like “Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps”.
Trump is going hard after Cruz for being… I dunno, more of an asshat than Trump, maybe?
Anyway, he’s calling Cruz’s evangelical credentials into question - which is fair since I’m really not sure that Cruz has any evangelical credentials. Tweetith Trump:
My answer to that would be: “With great aplomb.” But I’m not Ted Cruz, and I guess he’ll have his own response.
But wait, there is more! Trump is apparently sick and tired of Cruz being all scuzzy and mean, and if Cruz doesn’t cut it out right now, Trump is going to sue his ass! Specifically, he’s going to sue him for being Canadian and Cuban and generally not a natural American.
