Debates have been held between political candidates in the US since before 1858, and they have become an unavoidable part of US presidential races since 1976. Obama and McCain may have found a good excuse to back down from this general election tradition in the Congressional discussion of the economic bailout package; Senator McCain certainly indicated his priorities by suggesting the suspension of the public debate in favor of the task on Capitol Hill. Friday night, the debate proceeded as planned, but are these debates advantageous to both candidates, and was there a hidden motive behind McCain’s hesitation?
According to Trent and Frieburg, deciding whether to hold a debate is a strategic campaign decision. Debates are more likely to take place when the election is close between two major candidates who are not incumbents, who each see a political advantage to be gained in debating. While the first three criteria were met by virtue of this 2008 presidential campaign, each candidate’s advantage in the debate is not as clear. Senator Obama’s strong backing of the debate, even in the midst of financial crisis, indicates that he had much to gain: the opportunity to prove himself in public discourse, distance himself from the current administration and the opposition, articulate his positions, all while gaining invaluable media coverage. Obama thus caught the public’s attention, identified the problem, and proposed his own solutions.
Though each candidate had an opportunity to accomplish these goals, neither came out as the strong leader of the debate. Resulting commentary has critiqued the topics discussed in this “foreign policy” debate, the lack of an image or theme developed by either candidate, and the resistance of the candidates to speak candidly to each other. We will see if either campaign learns from this first round and improves its showing in the next debates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In my opinion, debates are basically a really long political ad. If you've followed the election at all, then you know the positions of the candidates. The only knowledge gained from watching is how they react to criticism and use of twisted facts. In the General Election stage, "getting to know" the candidates is pretty much on the back burner to attacking your opponent. I'll watch the debates for some comic relief, but we all know what they're going to say before the TV is even on...
I disagree with Matt. I think the debates are a worthwhile forum for the public to see real questions answered. Tim Russert did a good job at not accepting the usual stock speeches of the candidates and requested that they answer more specifically and directly. It is an opportunity to move past the vagaries of stock speeches an onward toward the meat of the matter.
I think you both have valid points. It is true that we pretty much know where the candidates stand at this point of the race (General Election). At the same time though, I do think debates are a good way for us to gain even more information about the candidate’s plans (even though nothing ever goes according to plan) and hear them back to back to be able to compare them. Another thing debates do is just flat out meet campaign expectations. I personally think debates are a good way to talk exclusively about issues that matter and not about lipstick…and I think that’s a step forward in this election.
Post a Comment