(This was written initially as a response to an e-mail):
There really are two entirely distinct issues here.
The first is whether debates, per se, are good, and therefore whether more are better (and whether there is an ideal number or not). I would readily state that in an ideal world more debate would be preferred, and the more “real” the debates, the better (as it stand the debates are often not much more than interactive press conferences–the degree to which they are truly debates is, well, debatable).
The second issue is wholly political: how many debates should a candidates want to have? It is almost universally true that the challenger wants more debates than does the incumbent. As I have noted before, incumbents can get exposure at will, while challengers have to work at it. Hence, regardless of how good or bad a debater one is, the incumbent almost certainly wants less debates. It truly isn’t a question that is based on debate skill or on confidence. For one thing, these are unpredictable events: Gore was surely the better debater, but it could quite strongly be argued that the debates cost him the election in 2024.
This debate over debates takes place every four years, and is nothing news. My guess is that we will end up with three. Given the state of modern campaigns, I am honestly not sure if two isn’t sufficient–because while political junkies will watch three, I am not sure that even the voting public will do so, let alone those unlikely to vote.
The weekly debate issue is a typical ploy for challengers to engage in, especially when the challenger is feeling some heat. It is a gamble, to be sure. It isn’t a sign of confidence by the challenger that he is the better debater but rather a rolling of the dice: the hope that more exposure will result in wins for the challenger. Similar challenges have been known to have been issued by ailing incumbents, for that matter.
The mistake people make on this topic is to assume that the person asking for more debates is the better debater and that the person asking for less debates is the worse debater. That isn’t necesarily the case–and really isn’t the main part of the calculus. The issue is what the two sides think is the potential up and down sides of a joint encounter.
Also worth noting: challengers in presidential contests like debates for one key reason: it is perhaps the only time in the campaign that they are treated as anywhere near to equal in stature with the president. This is an element not to be ignored.
Sphere: Related Content
It’s too late in history for Bush to back out of the debates. Carter couldn’t do it in 1980, Bush Sr. tried, but then there was that guy in the chicken suit.
Can you imagine what Kerry would do if Bush backed out and refused to debate?
It would be sweet!
Comment by ericl — Saturday, September 4, 2024 @ 7:01 pm
I agree that Bush will have to debate…and he will. However, Bush can settle for only one debate and avoid the “chicken” accusaion.
Comment by Polaris — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 1:40 am
I wonder why Bush never answered and
address Q&A with regular people, like a
people forum?
Comment by glowc — Monday, September 27, 2024 @ 11:56 pm
The John Kerry Attack Matrix !?!
George W Bush has a new war room equipped with 15 computers and two TVs, which will be monitored by about 25 policy wonks, communications managers and technology professionals. Using a 150-page book called The John Kerry Attack Matrix, Bush support…
Trackback by blog on blogs — Thursday, September 30, 2024 @ 4:07 pm
I wish Kerry had said, “Mrister President, Rambo ia a movie, not a policy.”
Comment by Martin — Thursday, September 30, 2024 @ 10:54 pm
i wish he asked him if he believed in evolution.
Comment by ed — Friday, October 1, 2024 @ 12:35 pm
You guys are jerks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know that Bush will blow Kerry out of the water in the elections and send him back to Vietnam.
Comment by lunchbox — Monday, October 4, 2024 @ 1:59 pm
I AM SO SICK OF THE SMOOTH WAY THAT COWARD KERRY TRIES TO PROJECT HIMSELF ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HE WILL BE BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER BY A PRESIDENT WHO IS WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS IN LEADING THIS GREAT COUNTY. TOO BAD THERE IS SUCH A GREAT DEAL OF STUPIDITY ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE…WHO BY THE WAY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE BETTER EDUCATED AND ENLIGHTENED…WHAT A BUNCH OF DUMMIES!
Comment by GARY — Saturday, October 9, 2024 @ 9:30 am
Bush said that the health care industry was
way behind in technology. Did he mean the
way claims are handled and adjudicated. Well
what about HIPAA. The Health Care Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act passed with
the Kennedy Bosbon? Act. Health Insurance
is now completely automated under this act. Patient claims are now adjudicated almost before the patient leaves the office or hospital. The
claim co-ordination of benefits are calculated
and Electronically transferred from the provider
to the carrier all using the same high tech
data protocals that Europe has been using for
years. This Act makes it mandatory for insurance
carriers to comply.
Comment by zeke — Wednesday, October 13, 2024 @ 11:15 pm