debate /d??be?t/
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic. strife; contention.
Has that definition changed? We ask here at Recess Monkey in part because of the laughable “analysis” by “political commentator” Iain Dalecroft where he says:
But I do think Palin edged it, simply because she didn’t make a single gaffe and surpassed everyone’s expectations.
WHAT? She won because she didn’t say anything stupid? By that logic, she would’ve won had she just stood there smiling and eating an ice-cream.
Those leaving comments are thrashing him for attempting to peddle such stupidity.
What has analysis come to?
Bonoboy
Loading ...
It’s all about managing expectation. She is sold on being an ‘everywoman’ - good at folksy things, but no politician. As such, she was slated to be woeful at the debate, she managed not to be; he was meant to demolish her, but he didn’t ie, she did alright out of the whole thing. All she had to do was survive and now she gets to carry on talking about hockey and children and killing stuff. To ‘win’ the debate, you don’t need to win the debate.
dutch said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Setting low expectations is often a good strategy - start awful and get a little better. The only prize I ever won at school was for “progress” because I was marginally less lazy than usual for one term. And you can see a similar technique for example in 4×4 advertisements “this monster’s much greener than our last model” = it still produces more emissions than Didcot power station but not quite as much as the last heap of junk we built…
Brian Hughes said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Both good arguments - I can accept it’s about relativity as a marketing exercise but I would expect a marketing expert to give a view on that.
Is it too much to ask that a political expert or commentator examine the debate on the merits of political arguments made?
These same commentators, let’s remember, were praising the “substance” of David Cameron’s speech earlier in the week. Why is substance so unimportant to them now?
Bonoboy said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Palin’s a lightweight, that much is clear. It was clear before the debate and it’s even clearer now. Expectations of Palin’s performance were low, and she scored a bullseye.
But she’s far from unique: George W, who can’t even hold a book the right way up but who got voter approval for not being able to say words of more than two syllables without tripping over his tongue. (Not to mention reams of material for comedians on both sides of the Pond.)
There are two contests going on in the American Presidential election: the one to show competence and the one for votes. There’s obviously crossover between the two, but winning the former doesn’t guarantee winning the latter, just as winning the latter is no guarantee of competence. Remember Dan Quayle, anyone? Living proof that being an illiterate as well as ignorant puffball is no bar to being “a heartbeat away from the presidency”.
Gore Vidal summed it up pretty well when he expressed the hope that the half of Americans who have never read a newspaper were the same half of Americans who had never voted for President. Sadly, I think that was something said with more hope than conviction.
Bonoboy, because the UK system of government is Parliamentarily rather than executively based, our elections are not - yet - the same kind of contest. But starting with Thatcher, continuing with Blair and developing rapidly with executive mayors like Livingstone, Johnson and other directly elected civic leaders, we’re certainly heading in that direction. Remember that next time your hear a Tory bleating for “debates” - really, just an opportunity to assemble some soundbites -between the party leaders come a general election.
Dan J said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Perhaps because they were commenting on two different things. (One of) Cameron’s problem(s) was that he was perceived as light and wishy washy and so needed to portray substance, and was graded on that. Palin just needed to make it through the night -Presidential debates certainly aren’t about policy - and she gets marked on how well she did that.
This is politics, if you can’t keep up, the perhaps you commentary skills need a little work?
dutch said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
“This is politics, if you can’t keep up, the perhaps you commentary skills need a little work?”
Come on now chaps - I didn’t say I didn’t understand. I’m drawing a comparison. They are commenting about two different people - not two different things - and the approach is inconsistent. Substance is either inportant to a candidate or it isn’t.
Yes - it’s politics, but it is also hypocrisy.
Dan J - I completely agree about the direction of these personality contests. I would say debates themselves do not undermine the process - the bollocks that’s talked following debates does. Look at Ireland for example, they have a Parliamentary system and they also have leaders’ debates on television before elections. Substantive, policy debates where smiling and winking and appearing “folksy” and “Country” would be laughed out the door. As it would in a French parliamentary (or Presidential) race or Canadian, German, Japanese etc etc.
For that reason, Dutch, these debates are only nonsense if we allow them to be so. If the political “analysts” stuck to analysing politics rather than marketing - we’d have proper debates.
That’s all I’m lamenting.
Bonoboy said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Please forgive my typos, and also perhaps my impulsiveness. What I mean is that politics is not the same as policy; a political problem is very different from a policy problem. Earnest debates and statistics and to a certain extent, ideologies are fine for the wonks (of which I am one), but politics is somewhat more pragmatic. Both Palin and Cameron had political problems - they were percieved as not being what they needed to be - and both, just about, addressed the problems.
dutch said this on October 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm