I don't know why people are getting fired up about the debates...

[jorno67]

They wont change anyone's vote. Is there anything, anything at all, that will convince you to vote for Romney? And do you think there is anything at all that will convince Romney supporters to vote for the President? What about the undecided voters?, you ask...Seriously, if you at this point are undecided then you most likely wont be able to find where you are supposed to vote.
It's just a time for us to feel good about our guy and them to feel good about theirs - no matter what.

[justiceischeap]

1. The undecideds usually use the debates to make their decisions

they don't pay attention to politics until the debates.

That is why people are getting fired up about the debates.

[jorno67]

2. But at this point and with the candidates being so vastly different...

If you are undecided - you live under a rock.

[emulatorloo]

4. It is what it is. They want to see the debates before they decide.

[justiceischeap]

8. There are still people who don't pay attention to politics

there ARE people out there that aren't aware of the whole train wreck that is RMoney because they just don't follow politics. As I said in my earlier comment, they'll watch the debates and make their decision. That said, I'd venture to guess there are fewer undecided's out there this time around than there were in 2008. I also think that some folks always tell pollsters they are undecided because they don't think it's anyone's business who they vote for.

[valerief]

26. When I was young and there was no internet, I lived under that rock. I understand

last minute consideration of who to vote for. Life gets in the way of politics.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. I'm a political junkie, and for it, it's entertainment.

[geardaddy]

32. and drinking games

[woo me with science]

5. They will be vapid theater, again.

Does anyone expect a discussion of the secret meetings going on in Congress now for a new Grand Bargain?

A substantive discussion of war policies?

Any mention whatsoever of the growing police state?

No, we will get 30-second platitudes from the candidates, followed by fevered discussion from the "news and analysis" shows of who had the most empathetic facial expressions and who had the best "zingers."

We are bought and sold. What a fucking travesty our electoral system has become.


"A Fraud on the American Voter"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125191869#post1

[emulatorloo]

13. blah blah Obama evil blah "secret plan" !!1!!

Glad to see the talking point machine is still in working order.

[woo me with science]

28. And there we have it.

Defense of what passes for "debate" in this country. And not just defense. Nasty, snarking denial that there is even a problem with what is presented as "debate."

Too many Americans so blinded and dumbed down by the MSM's lowest common denominator, shiny object propaganda, that they can't even tell the difference between a substantive debate and a pageant anymore.

We are in such deep trouble.

[emulatorloo]

39. You ought to get the Outrage Function re-calibrated

because it appears to be stuck in over-the-top mode.

[dionysus]

34. he's upset obama is not going to lose. let him stew. i enjoy the gnashing and wailing...

[woo me with science]

35. Oh, dionysus. Pretty silly to say that I'm the one who's stewing,

when I am, of the three of us in this subthread, the only one who made an actual point or argument.

Apparently it is a point that hit a nerve, because it brought out the typical empty, blithering insults and baseless accusations that seem to be the sum total of your participation here.

Have you *ever* writtten a post that had actual political content or was more than this type of juvenile snark? I certainly cannot remember ever having seen one.

This kind of behavior is really sad for DU, and embarrassing for you.

[dionysus]

36. LOL

thanks for the ongoing, free entertainment.

[woo me with science]

37. Res ipsa loquitur. nt

[emulatorloo]

40. Conspiracy theories and angry BetterBelieveIt-style rants

aren't arguments or points.

[graham4anything]

6. +a zillion. andthere are no undecided voters. It is a false meme

debates are meaningless (and they aren't even debates.)

Had Jimmy had the hostages released (whch as we know now Reagan sabatoged that and should hve been jailed for treason) he would have won.
Had the democrats come together he would have won.
It wasn't Reagan's stupid line in the debate.

And great zingers didn't help Dukakis when Bentsen won the VP against Quayle
(and Dukakis was a great well educated guy unlike the awipe Mittens who is an atrocious human being. (Wish someone could get this supposed (fill in the blanks) on tape cursing his b%^&* head off).

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. no undecided voters, aye?

I guess that makes all those folks liars.

sP

[graham4anything]

27. yup ayuh and all that

it makes them want to hog the spotlight and enforces me me me me me me me me

but those people know who they are voting for

I heard some idiot republicantealibertarian spin the debate to say any black person who avidly will watch the debate must be undecided and can change their mind

yeah, sure, and there is a bridge in brooklyn for sale, as the legendary great Al Sharpton says on msnbc all the time.

and when they talk about independents one forgets that in 2008, many independents became democrats and are democrats, leaving the ones left to be republicans or leaners

who needs the waste of space those people are anyhow. They already aren't voting for Obama so they are meaningless(unfortunately of course, the great stuff Obama has done and will do does benefit those that do not like him, unlike the 47% Herr Mittens won't even allow to shine his ugly shoes.

[earthside]

7. I'm with you.

Indeed the hype over this debate is getting so annoying that I'm almost inclined not to watch.

My prediction: nothing will change because of this debate.

The mainstream media -- wanting the horserace -- will pronounce Rmoney met expectations; it will decided that President Obama was, yup, 'presidential'.

And then we go back to Mitt's slow descent into political irrelevance.

[Lucinda]

9. Yep I agree. Unless one of them loses their mind during the debates, it won't matter much.

[pnwest]

11. i'm hoping to see Romney flail about like a trout on the riverbank. no, the debates

won't change anyone's vote, but I am waiting to see Prezizzle go in for one kill-shot to the political jugular and watch Romney deflate like the Snoopy balloon the day after Thankgiving. That one moment where Romney finally and utterly fails.

[julian09]

10. The debates are so coached and rehearsed they are focus group fed

Will Rmoney reveal more details on his jobs plan, health care after his repeal of ACA, his math on the budget, immigration reform.
Independents will know no more after the debate than they did going in. He has been campaigning for six years on nothing, no solutions other than going back to Bush policies, tax cuts. That got him nowhere in 2008 and same this time.

[emulatorloo]

14. Agreed - and the debates will have served their purpose by exposing Romney

as pretty much Bush III

[k2qb3]

12. The narrative is that this debate is Romney's last chance...

So people are fired up on both sides hoping something definitive happens.

Mitt is going to be under enormous pressure, I don't think he's good under pressure.

I think there's a reasonable chance he blows a gasket and melts down, and I don't want to miss it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. Exactly! The chances for such an event are very high. At minimum,

his "memorized zingers" will backfire in the most painfully vaudevillian manner.

[porphyrian]

15. I've already voted, so that's a moot point. I just want to watch the Romney train wreck. n/t

[Proud Public Servant]

16. Yup. No debate has ever changed a U.S. election

I've said this elsewhere: there is not a single presidential debate you can name that changed the projected outcome of the election. The best you can say is that certain debates reinforced the lead of the leading candidate; but not one has ever turned a loser into a winner or vice versa. They do not matter at all.

[gopiscrap]

22. It was before I was born, so don't really know,

but what about the Kennedy-Nixon debate? My understanding was that Nixon was slightly head before the debates.

[Proud Public Servant]

23. I may get in trouble for saying this

But I heartily believe that Nixon won in 1960, and that the Dems stole Illinois and Texas -- and therefore the election. Texas is just a feeling, but my own family was heavily involved in voter fraud in Chicago in 1960; my grandfather was a foot soldier in the Daley machine and used to regale us with stories of his shenanigans in that election, stories my parents later confirmed.

[WinkyDink]

42. 1960 would beg to differ.

[bigtree]

18. it's just awesome to see the candidates head-to-head

It's a good view of our democracy, as well. I don't see any reason at all to dismiss them. I really do think there would be a void without them.

[Voice for Peace]

20. because it's going to be fascinating to watch?

[Voice for Peace]

21. because there may be a parade of zingers that drop like a lead ball?

[Catherine Vincent]

24. Each side will state their guy won

What I laugh at is the end of each debate where both families show up on stage being cordial with each other wishing not to be there.

[AtomicKitten]

25. Um, because debates are a tradition in the presidentin' process.

[lunatica]

30. Good cartoon!

[oswaldactedalone]

29. The key thing is

Will there be a gotcha moment such as Ford's blunder about Soviet influence over Eastern Europe, Carter continuing to mention talking to his young daughter about policy issues, or Bush's looking at his watch.

There's also the right wing spin machine taking down Gore because, after totally kicking W's ass in the first debate, they trotted out the "he was condescending" meme and it worked.

That's why you watch the debates, to see if one can avoid the screw up and look so Presidential that no "after debate" memes can take him down.

[gkhouston]

31. Any opportunity for Romney to step in it on live national television is a good day. n/t

[BlueStreak]

33. The last time any of these debates made any difference was 1976

All the subsequent debates have been a waste of time with candidates just repeating talking points and never really addressing the questions. And the recent moderators seem a lot more interested in promoting themselves than in asking truly decisive, momentous questions.

[WinkyDink]

43. Ford lost when he pardoned Nixon. The country wanted to wash all Watergate away.

[treestar]

38. Yes, it's like a lot of things

It had an effect once, and then it became a custom and it seems like once something gets started, putting an end to it is near impossible.

I would like to run into the people that need to see the debates before they decide. OTOH, it could shore up support. You could have someone who thinks they might vote for Obama who is impressed enough by the debate to be more likely to actually go. Or horrified enough at Mittens to make the effort where they were maybe not going to bother before.

[WinkyDink]

41. Really? GHWB lost the election by looking at his watch! Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow cost him votes!