From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Third Battle ... er, Talk Show ... of October
Summary: Richmond "Debates" of Oct 15 1992
Keywords: Richmond, Bush, Perot, Clinton, Presidential debates
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:45:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Background of listening to debate: point-by-point transcript again, this
time in a friend's room after we finished some homework. Again I
concentrated mostly on audio, so I missed anything that Bush did (e.g.,
looking at his watch all the time) or Clinton (kept his Mona Lisa-like
smile when everyone was chuckling at a few one-liners Perot was throwing
out). I listened a bit to CSPAN, but not for as long as I wanted.

I also read these people's comments:
	isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
	mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)

I also am going to remark that my analysis so far has been limited to
debating styles and techniques. This was particularly obvious, I hope
with the Second Battle of October (i.e., VP debates).

I. What is a debate. This was not a debate. This was a talk show. The
real winners were the audience and the voters because the answers were
not directed at each other (as it would be in a real debate) but at the
audience. As was pointed out by Richard Mulac, Carole Simpson was in
essence a second-rate Oprah. Sorry, Carole, I like you a lot, but I got
the idea that we were on Oprah, just no bumper music or commercials. As
a result, the candidates all were placed in a "good light" and weren't
seriously challenged on their positions. Simple declamation of their
positions with some criticism of the opponents' positions... that's all.
The audience won to me because they made it clear they wanted specifics
(which Clinton gave a bit more than Bush or Perot) and not critiques.
They controlled the mood of the "debate" more than really any candidate
or the moderator; I think this is why there was a lot of positive
response to this discussion.

II. Perot's candor was still there but this format (and the lack of a
real time limit in responses) made Perot ramble. [Boy, I was born a
Ramblin' Man...] For some reason, his personality didn't seem to connect
as well in this debate; one-liner zingers were still there but his
content melted away as his responses were too long and did not seem to
contain enough real substance/specifics that would have pleased the
audience. I don't know.

III. Bush. Mixed feelings about how he did. The "looking at his watch"
comments everyone seems to make gives the appearance he was nervous. I
think I heard ABC comment that he didn't really have anything else on
the schedule and that there were no time cues. Honestly with the
responses Perot gave, I would've looked at my watch as often as I think
the President did!
	Finally comes forth and pushes a Balanced Budget Amendment and a
Line Item Veto, and properly mentioned Clinton's having balanced the
budget of Arkansas so many times (12 in a row) because he was mandated
by the state constitution to do that.
	However there was no shift in the election dynamics tonight.
That means Bush really has one more chance to make a case for himself.
	Regarding how the deficit has affected him individually (not how
this bad economy has affected him, the subject of the sentence was the
deficit), Bush did not do well as I thought he could have. Charles
Isbell's comments agreed with mine to an extent; his answer didn't come
off that he did care about the problems of the economy.

IV. This was Clinton's "home-court advantage" much like the first debate
was Bush's. He suggested this format and has been used to this style of
town-meeting for about a year. When enumerating his solutions, it did
sound less rehearsed and more "genuine." He let his opponents go last
all the time, which was tactically advantageous with regards to this
debate. Pausing in this format is acceptable because this is
conversation, not debate. The CSPAN callers verified it:
Clinton really won stylistically, which to me in this
format meant he did the best of the three candidates.

V. This debate has given me mixed feelings. One, people say they want
their candidates to talk about the issues, but the issues are already
out there in print. On this network I have a lot of speeches that no
less than 90% of the American populace has ever heard. I could probably
have answered conceptually what Clinton and Bush's positions are, based
on the texts that I've read and kept on this network. Two, this "debate"
caps a year of very strange ways of reaching the people from Larry King
Live (Ross Perot) to Morning News Shows and even Donahue and Arsenio and
MTV. People are now connecting to the Geraldos and Sallys and Montels
and Entertainment Tonights to get news. This is blurring what is
important to America with regards to news and what is pretty much "junk
food" for thought. The three candidates did not debate each other on why
their plan was better and show me their thought processes and what items
were really important to them. In terms of getting messages across, this
debate was excellent; with regards to debating, this format was not
ideal. And I hope for the Fourth Battle of October: Thank Goodness! that
I'll be able to give a better analysis.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush