Last Night's Presidential Debate

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Ach. That all by itself is an excellent reason not to mention any candidate by name here!

As I understand it, the ads mean money is taken out of their account and put into the cofers that keep MR running. At least something good can come out of this...

I guess, like HarryT, what intrigues me is that the debates and interviews in US elections seem so gentlemanly, yet the adverts (or the few I've seen picked up over here) seem the opposite.

But then the language of adverts in the UK is very different from the US. Until recently it was very rare to see and add say something like "Buy X, because our competitor Y is awful." So perhaps that is why.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

spending on election campaigns in the UK is strictly limited, see

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...snpc-03413.pdf

for details, but essentially any candidate standing for election to the House of Commons can only spend up to £11,000 - about $19,000.

Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..

So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations.

I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).

But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

As I understand it, the ads mean money is taken out of their account and put into the cofers that keep MR running. At least something good can come out of this...

I guess, like HarryT, what intrigues me is that the debates and interviews in US elections seem so gentlemanly, yet the adverts (or the few I've seen picked up over here) seem the opposite.

But then the language of adverts in the UK is very different from the US. Until recently it was very rare to see and add say something like "Buy X, because our competitor Y is awful." So perhaps that is why.



I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).

But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.

I can remember when that was "just not done" here either. Back in the days when the ads always compared their product to "Brand X".

But then someone out there decided it was perfectly alright to do ... and ads have never been the same since.

Of course, I don't watch most of the ads for the same reason I don't watch the debates. I make my decisions based on other forms of research. What they attempt to "feed" to me via the television is mine to (1) mute, (2) mute and walk away from (very important for bathroom breaks) or (3) turn off the set and do something else entirely.

In fact, I honestly cannot think of a single TV ad that actually made me go out and purchase the product. Even the Apple vs. PC ads (from either side) aren't going to make me decide I don't like my PC, or like it more.

Probably 80 percent of everything I purchase is based on actually wandering around a physical store and looking at stuff. The other 20 percent is based on wandering around the interwebs and reading reviews about stuff I can't find in a physical store (or where the physical store is too far away).

Nope ... ads, for products, political campaigns, for anything really, are a complete waste of money on someone like me. Even when they are super cute and funny .... most of the time I can remember the joke ... but not which company paid for the ad, or why I would want to buy it in the first place.

[pdurrant]

Having the limits is a lot better than having no limits - it means that trying to work around the limits can be caught. Rather like the Labour Party was caught trying to work around the rules on party funding disclosur. (The ones that they introduced!)

I completely agree that state funding of political parties is unacceptable. I also detest the European election "Party Lists". Bah.

but I think this is straying off-topic. :-)

Paul

Originally Posted by LazyScot

I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).

But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I also detest the European election "Party Lists". Bah.

That's the fundamental difference between our current "first past the post" system, and PR. In our system, you vote for the person; in PR you vote for the party.

Eg, where I live, we used to have an absolutely excellent MP who was superb in supporting local issues. I always used to vote for him, because I respected him as a person even though I strongly disagreed with the policies of the party that he represented. Now he's retired, though, I've changed my vote, because his replacement is just a party "yes man" without a mind of his own.

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Eg, where I live, we used to have an absolutely excellent MP who was superb in supporting local issues. I always used to vote for him, because I respected him as a person even though I strongly disagreed with the policies of the party that he represented. Now he's retired, though, I've changed my vote, because his replacement is just a party "yes man" without a mind of his own.

Sadly, I think that makes you fairly unique, both in the UK and US -- you thought about who to vote for on the basis of how well they would (in your opinion) do the job. It seems most people vote on a "tribal" basis most of the time. This gives the parties the ability to ignore, or marginalise, their views and opinions. All of a sudden the swing minorities are the only ones voting. I'd love to know how to solve that one.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I had rather a sleepless night last night, and in desperation I finally turned my bedroom TV on about 3am and saw the final portion of the live broadcast of the debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

Although I realise that different countries do things in different ways, I was very surprised to see the approach taken by both gentlemen: whenever they were asked by a member of the audience something like "can you tell me how X is going to affect me", rather than explaining their own policy (ie answering the question that had been asked) they'd typically say something like "that's a very good question, and let me tell you why the other candidate's approach to X is going to be bad for you).

Politicians in the UK don't do that - they spend the very limited TV time they have in, generally speaking at least, laying out their own policies and tell people why they should vote for them, rather than denigrating the "opposition".

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were. All that I seemed to have learned is why each was going to do bad things.

It doesn't seem a terribly constructive way of doing things to me but, there again, I was watching as an outside observer.

I would love to share with you my opinions of absolute disgust and outrage over the Presidential Campaign from both parties and our current sitting President, but for decency's sake I will not go there.

I'm also in the middle of eating my breakfast.

Don

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

Sadly, I think that makes you fairly unique, both in the UK and US -- you thought about who to vote for on the basis of how well they would (in your opinion) do the job. It seems most people vote on a "tribal" basis most of the time. This gives the parties the ability to ignore, or marginalise, their views and opinions. All of a sudden the swing minorities are the only ones voting. I'd love to know how to solve that one.

Unfortunately, where I live, if they put a turnip up as the candidate for the party that holds the seat, it would still win by a landslide. Actually the typical turnip probably has more independence of thought than our current MP .

[Dr. Drib]

....and therein lies the dilemma (and perhaps a new joke for this year):

"What is the difference between a turnip and a Presidential Candidate?"

And no, I don't mean that one is edible.

Don

Disclaimer: These are my thoughts. You may not share my opinions. So be it. These are my thoughts.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately, where I live, if they put a turnip up as the candidate for the party that holds the seat, it would still win by a landslide. Actually the typical turnip probably has more independence of thought than our current MP .

Given the way Crash Gordon has been mismanaging Britain some of those rock solid Labour heartland seats could fall.

If i were a Labour MP that had less than a 40k majority i'd make sure i campaign heavily; knocking on lots of doors, kissing babies and making sure everyone knows what you're doing for them.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately, where I live, if they put a turnip up as the candidate for the party that holds the seat, it would still win by a landslide. Actually the typical turnip probably has more independence of thought than our current MP .

This concept has been around in Texas so long that we have a term for it - "Yellow Dog" Democrats ("Blue Dog" for Republicans), which mean that those people would vote for a "Yellow (Blue) Dog" for an office if the party nominated it.

[vivaldirules]

The one and only good thing about politics here is the entertainment value it brings. If you can keep from getting angry or sick (a very difficult task), it carries a great deal of humor with it, providing the late night television comedians a great deal to work with. The skits on Saturday Night Live have been particularly hilarious this year (you can see many of them at http://www.snl.com) and the Jib-Jab video this year is modestly funny, too: http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were.

I believe it is a common trend in politics. If you can talk for 1 hour explaining your policies and fail not to explain them then you cannot be a politician, can you?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

The one and only good thing about politics here is the entertainment value it brings. If you can keep from getting angry or sick (a very difficult task), it carries a great deal of humor with it, providing the late night television comedians a great deal to work with. The skits on Saturday Night Live have been particularly hilarious this year (you can see many of them at http://www.snl.com) and the Jib-Jab video this year is modestly funny, too: http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

Not to mention John Stewart and the Daily Show.

I don't even watch TV, but if someone else in the family has him on when I'm passing through the living room, I'll stop and watch.