MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, August 29, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 65.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

Impressions of the Debate

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby rabble » Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:30 am

Huckleby wrote:Substance only matters if it is delivered clearly and coherently. Therefore, you can not separate style and substance.

No, Huck. Substance ALWAYS matters. Style is the tool with which you deliver it.

They can be separated. You just did it.

If you prefix that sentence up there with "For the inattentive short attention span sound byte demographic who can't be bothered to do any research of their own," then what you say is probably true. But not as a generality.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:46 am

rabble wrote:If you prefix that sentence up there with "For the inattentive short attention span sound byte demographic who can't be bothered to do any research of their own," then what you say is probably true. But not as a generality.



Serious question: what percent of the voting population in the US do you think falls outside the short attention span sound byte demographic?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby jjoyce » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:04 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Serious question: what percent of the voting population in the US do you think falls outside the short attention span sound byte demographic?


I'm an optimist: Ten percent.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:27 pm

jjoyce wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Serious question: what percent of the voting population in the US do you think falls outside the short attention span sound byte demographic?


I'm an optimist: Ten percent.


Huckleby wrote:Romney played fast-and-loose with truth, I agree, but that is secondary - he was an impressive, point-spewing machine.


What a sad fucking state of affairs if this is how we're going to elect a president. Huck, what I find most troubling is that you make these statements as though it is ok the system works this way.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Huckleby » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:28 pm

rabble wrote:
Huckleby wrote:Substance only matters if it is delivered clearly and coherently. Therefore, you can not separate style and substance.

No, Huck. Substance ALWAYS matters. Style is the tool with which you deliver it.

They can be separated. You just did it.

If you prefix that sentence up there with "For the inattentive short attention span sound byte demographic who can't be bothered to do any research of their own," then what you say is probably true. But not as a generality.


If somebody is mumbling their arguments incoherently, only the ALREADY CONVERTED will get the substance. They already understand the substance.

The point of a debate is to persuade. Substance does not make a difference with anybody who is persuadable if the style is weak.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6455
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Huckleby » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:30 pm

Stebben84 wrote:What a sad fucking state of affairs if this is how we're going to elect a president. Huck, what I find most troubling is that you make these statements as though it is ok the system works this way.


Human beings are fact-based, rational logicians second. They are intuitive, emotional creatures first.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6455
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Meade » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:40 pm

Huckleby wrote:Human beings are fact-based, rational logicians second. They are intuitive, emotional creatures first.

Huckleby is correct that ordinary people are a combination of rational and emotional. But he is incorrect to say that you can't separate style and substance. Of course you can - Barack Obama has been doing it his entire political career.

He is the personification of All style; No substance and people (most disturbingly for his supporters - women and young voters) are just now beginning to see through him. Thus, his radical drop in the polls.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Slick Willy » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:49 pm

Meade wrote:
Huckleby wrote:Human beings are fact-based, rational logicians second. They are intuitive, emotional creatures first.

Huckleby is correct that ordinary people are a combination of rational and emotional. But he is incorrect to say that you can't separate style and substance. Of course you can - Barack Obama has been doing it his entire political career.

He is the personification of All style; No substance and people (most disturbingly for his supporters - women and young voters) are just now beginning to see through him. Thus, his radical drop in the polls.

That's funny, because in this last debate, I would say exactly the opposite; he was all substance and no style. Unfortunately for him, style is more important than honest and consistent substance for winning debates. Afterward, he was being called Professor Obama, with 'professor' having a negative connotation in this case.
Slick Willy
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:54 am
Location: Madison, WI (Allied-Dunn's Marsh Neighborhood)

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Meade » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:27 pm

Slick Willy wrote:Afterward, he was being called Professor Obama

He was? By who? Links?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Slick Willy » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:30 pm

Uh, if you're really interested or questioning my honesty, try using Google and type in 'professor' and 'obama' and 'debate.' You'll be amazed at all of the results you'll get. I can't quote what I've heard on radio programs, but here are a few links if you really need help:
The Professor and The Prevaricator: The Obama-Romney Debate
Presidential Debate #1: Obama, The Befuddled Professor
How did 'Professor' Obama do?
Slick Willy
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:54 am
Location: Madison, WI (Allied-Dunn's Marsh Neighborhood)

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby rabble » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Huckleby wrote:If somebody is mumbling their arguments incoherently, only the ALREADY CONVERTED will get the substance. They already understand the substance.

The point of a debate is to persuade. Substance does not make a difference with anybody who is persuadable if the style is weak.

No, Huck. Not that anybody was mumbling incoherently but I'll let that one go.

The only ones who get the substance are the ones who are listening and trying to GET the substance. It's not the unconverted you're talking about - it's the lazy, stupid, and unwilling.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Meade » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:51 pm

Uh, if you're really interested or questioning my honesty

I wasn't questioning your honesty. Thanks for the links but none of those examples supports the idea that Obama was all substance and no style in the debate last week. More like: no style AND no substance. And the reason there was no substance is because his core message, that government can be trusted to fairly redistribute wealth and effectively plan economic activity, is one that is strongly rejected by most American voters.
Last edited by Meade on Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby pjbogart » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:02 pm

Huck, let me give you a specific example of why I think Obama won on substance, even if you feel he lost on style. Mitt Romney has proposed a 20% across the board cut on taxes. The CBO scored this cut and says that it will cost $5 trillion over ten years. When asked how he planned to pay for the tax cut, Romney stubbornly kept saying, "it's revenue neutral, it doesn't cost anything." Both Obama and the moderator pressed him on the issue of how he intended to pay for the cuts but he simply repeated over and over that it was revenue neutral. He refused to answer the question.

What does "revenue neutral" mean? If your wife came home with a new fur coat you might say, "Honey, that's really beautiful, but how much did it cost?" Well, it doesn't cost anything because it's revenue neutral. Oh? So you plan on cutting other expenses in order to pay for the coat, but the coat still has a cost. No it doesn't, it's revenue neutral! Yeah, but what are you going to cut to pay for it? Revenue neutral doesn't mean "free". Don't worry, honey, it's revenue neutral.

That's essentially the conversation that Mitt Romney was having with Obama and the moderator. And you're declaring him the winner. I don't see that.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6137
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby DCB » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:46 pm

pjbogart wrote:What does "revenue neutral" mean? If your wife came home with a new fur coat you might say, "Honey, that's really beautiful, but how much did it cost?" Well, it doesn't cost anything because it's revenue neutral. Oh? So you plan on cutting other expenses in order to pay for the coat, but the coat still has a cost. No it doesn't, it's revenue neutral! Yeah, but what are you going to cut to pay for it? Revenue neutral doesn't mean "free". Don't worry, honey, it's revenue neutral.
.

What she means is, the coat will pay for itself, because she will be able to charge more for her escort services. But she's not going to admit that, and why should she? if you're too stupid to ask the right questions?
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Impressions of the Debate

Postby Huckleby » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:12 pm

rabble wrote:The only ones who get the substance are the ones who are listening and trying to GET the substance. It's not the unconverted you're talking about - it's the lazy, stupid, and unwilling.

Your thesis is that the post-debate, 5% swing to Romney consisted of the lazy, stupid and unwilling.

Obama had won just about 5% in the polls in three months prior to the debate. The same lazy, stupid, and unwilling people?

I would say the common attribute of the persuadable is that they are politically disengaged. They don't have all the facts organized in their heads. They are looking for a presentation of substance that makes a side of the argument seem to make sense.

This argument about substance we're having is trite. What you substance abusers are really saying, if you are honest with yourselves, is that it was impossible for Mitt Romney to win on substance because the substance of the issues is not on his side. Can you imagine ANY debate between Mitt & Barry where you would concede that Mitt won on substance. Of course not.

Your blind spot is that you think Obama's superiority on substance is a True Fact, when this assertion is a matter of opinion.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6455
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar