picked the clear winner in each debate? Why bother recording or watching? You won't be alone. I'm sure there are plenty who will be cheering Obama and booing Romney without even listening to what's being said.
In the latest Scientific American a interesting study was described (page 77 of the October 2012 issue, as it is distributed here). In the famous September 26, 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy, Nixon was the winner according to the people that followed the debate on the radio (because of his more presidential voice) and Kennedy was the winner according to the people who followed the debate on the TV (because of his more presidential look and behaviour).
In a 2007 research program 72% of outcomes for the Senate and 69% of the outcomes for the gubernatorial elections were predicted correctly, only based on the appearance of the candidates.
So the conclusion of the author (Michael Shermer) was that the crucial questions are: who looks more competent and who sounds more competent.
What they say is irrelevant.
If he's right, I think Romney has a handicap. But that might be a prejudice.
That article said about Nixon: had been campaigning right up to the debate and had been hospitalized for a knee infection that had left him with a 102-degree fever and looking pale and haggard, worsened by his notoriously heavy five a'clock shadow.
While Kennedy: was well rested and tan from campaigning in California and radiant "like an athlete come to receive his wreath of laurel", as noted by a journalist.
It must have been an unequal competition that night.
be done only on radio? That might not be such a bad idea. People then would actually have to listen to what they said instead of counting foot shifts, uncomfortable looks, rolling of eyes, coughs, staring pointedly at the other person, or off into the distance, removal of smirks and grins, etc.
Actually listening to them and hearing what they say. What a novel concept.
these debates are going to be quite different from previous ones....
The question will be posed...each person has two minutes to respond.....and then it is a free-for-all for the next ten minutes between the two to get in their licks and points. BO won't be able to spin off like he does with reporters into a large dialogue that eats up the clock and lets him off the hook......he'll be brought back to the topic over and over.
You're right, Josh........this is gonna be goooooodddddd..........
the debate but CNN didn't see fit to report that? Could it be that they're pushing for "their guy" ?
"Just as he was in the primaries, we expect Mitt Romney to be a prepared, disciplined and aggressive debater," Obama adviser David Axelrod wrote in a memo Friday, adding that debates "generally favor challengers."
Axelrod went on to list several other advantages Romney supposedly has -- the Republican nominee got plenty of debate practice during the primaries, and he's "unencumbered" by the responsibility of being president.
"Maybe this is why the Romney campaign has so confidently predicted for months that he will turn in a campaign-changing performance such as Ronald Reagan's in 1980," Axelrod wrote.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/28/campaigns-launch-into-expectations-game-ahead-vital-presidential-debate/#ixzz27mrvl6RU
Will it really matter how good either of them do, especially Romney, if many of the dumb stupid voters we've seen in "man on the street" type interviews over the years on various shows are out there en masse voting, instead of leaving it to those who actually have researched both candidates, beyond some tickle up the leg, etc?
and news media coverage, they'll know very little about either. I do suspect that the great majority of voters who chose Obama the first time around fully intended to vote him in for a second time from the beginning. Very few are looking at his promises versus what was delivered. While I'd never cite percentages, Romney was probably correct that there were quite a number of votes that would have been wasted effort to chase. He was being honest. Obama also has many voters that would be a dead end to try and win over but either didn't mention them or get caught doing so.
I suppose the it will be the League of Women Voters that sponsors the debates again this year. Maybe it's time to allow someone else to do the show. There actually is a League of Men Voters. An obvious choice maybe. I don't think they've done a poor job or been unfair but it does seem that, since gender issues have become so contentious again, some spreading of the wealth might be worth considering.