Fight Night (The Debates): C-SPAN: CO GOV LIVE, HI GOV, IL GOV, NH SEN + AK SEN

[tpfkaw]

I do think it's bizarre how the most interesting Senate debate thus far has been between the candidates in Connecticut, of all places.

[memphis]

I didn't watch the debate, but the Vegas paper gives a Cliffs Notes version:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/14/harry-reid-sharron-angle-debate-under-way/

[Marokai Backbeat]

The irritating thing is that, really, since McCain/Palin debate performances and the tidal wave of crazy things Republican candidates have said and done in the last year, debates have become nearly impossible to lose anymore if you're a Republican as far out there as Angle.

Unless you approach Jan Brewer-levels of complete insanity, the standards have been set so pitifully low for Republicans in debate-style settings that anything short of a complete and utter breakdown on camera is considered a "win."

[cinyc]

The irritating thing is that, really, since McCain/Palin debate performances and the tidal wave of crazy things Republican candidates have said and done in the last year, debates have become nearly impossible to lose anymore if you're a Republican as far out there as Angle.

Unless you approach Jan Brewer-levels of complete insanity, the standards have been set so pitifully low for Republicans in debate-style settings that anything short of a complete and utter breakdown on camera is considered a "win."

Perhaps the lesson is that Democratic candidates should stop lowering expectations for candidates who are supposedly "far out there" by incessantly calling (or having their surrogates call) them things like nuts, crazy, unhinged and extreme.  You can't win the expectations game if you set expectations extremely low.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The irritating thing is that, really, since McCain/Palin debate performances and the tidal wave of crazy things Republican candidates have said and done in the last year, debates have become nearly impossible to lose anymore if you're a Republican as far out there as Angle.

Unless you approach Jan Brewer-levels of complete insanity, the standards have been set so pitifully low for Republicans in debate-style settings that anything short of a complete and utter breakdown on camera is considered a "win."

Perhaps the lesson is that Democratic candidates should stop lowering expectations for candidates who are supposedly "far out there" by incessantly calling (or having their surrogates call) them things like nuts, crazy, unhinged and extreme.  You can't win the expectations game if you set expectations extremely low.

They should stop making it so easy, then.

You do raise an interesting point, though. Is it a good electoral strategy to act like a complete basket case and then perform semi-competently in a debate? Perhaps we've found the new Republican electoral tactic.

[Ronnie]

I guess it's a shame that I missed this.

But looking at the comments on this thread, I don't think I missed much.

[Eraserhead]

More C-SPAN stuff tonight including debates in two Senate races that the Democrats have already lost and the Vermont Gubernatorial debate (which is the most interesting to me out of the three).

[cinyc]

More C-SPAN stuff tonight including debates in two Senate races that the Democrats have already lost and the Vermont Gubernatorial debate (which is the most interesting to me out of the three).

The NY Senate (Special) debate between Gillibrand and DioGuardi is being livestreamed on 7online.com at 2PM and taped for air on WABC Sunday morning when nobody will watch.

[Eraserhead]

More C-SPAN stuff tonight including debates in two Senate races that the Democrats have already lost and the Vermont Gubernatorial debate (which is the most interesting to me out of the three).

The NY Senate (Special) debate between Gillibrand and DioGuardi is being livestreamed on 7online.com at 2PM and taped for air on WABC Sunday morning when nobody will watch.

Thanks, added that to the title.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The irritating thing is that, really, since McCain/Palin debate performances and the tidal wave of crazy things Republican candidates have said and done in the last year, debates have become nearly impossible to lose anymore if you're a Republican as far out there as Angle.

Unless you approach Jan Brewer-levels of complete insanity, the standards have been set so pitifully low for Republicans in debate-style settings that anything short of a complete and utter breakdown on camera is considered a "win."

Perhaps the lesson is that Democratic candidates should stop lowering expectations for candidates who are supposedly "far out there" by incessantly calling (or having their surrogates call) them things like nuts, crazy, unhinged and extreme.  You can't win the expectations game if you set expectations extremely low.

Excuse me but what exactly should Angle have done to "persuade" the voters that she is a lunatic?
Start frothing from the mouth and speaking in tongues?

These two candidates are so well known and completely defined that only a huge gaffe could possibly change something. After all, you admitted that Blumenthal did poorly at his debates, yet his numbers didn't budge at all.

Also, it'd be much more interesting to have a snap poll of people who watched the debate. I still remember how the pundits declared almost unanimously that McCain won his third debate with Obama but the polls and target groups had a very different opinion.

[Holmes]

She didn't say anything crazy/stupid, so she won? That's what everyone said about Palin in 2008... Of course the crazy candidates won't say anything ridiculous in a debate. They're coached, and they want to win.

[cinyc]

The irritating thing is that, really, since McCain/Palin debate performances and the tidal wave of crazy things Republican candidates have said and done in the last year, debates have become nearly impossible to lose anymore if you're a Republican as far out there as Angle.

Unless you approach Jan Brewer-levels of complete insanity, the standards have been set so pitifully low for Republicans in debate-style settings that anything short of a complete and utter breakdown on camera is considered a "win."

Perhaps the lesson is that Democratic candidates should stop lowering expectations for candidates who are supposedly "far out there" by incessantly calling (or having their surrogates call) them things like nuts, crazy, unhinged and extreme.  You can't win the expectations game if you set expectations extremely low.

Excuse me but what exactly should Angle have done to "persuade" the voters that she is a lunatic?
Start frothing from the mouth and speaking in tongues?

These two candidates are so well known and completely defined that only a huge gaffe could possibly change something. After all, you admitted that Blumenthal did poorly at his debates, yet his numbers didn't budge at all.

Also, it'd be much more interesting to have a snap poll of people who watched the debate. I still remember how the pundits declared almost unanimously that McCain won his third debate with Obama but the polls and target groups had a very different opinion.

I said nothing of the sort about Blumenthal's debate performances.  I've consistently said that while his speech patterns may have come across as halting and boring to those not used to him, Connecticut residents in the Hartford market have seen a lot of similar performances from him and still like him a lot.  I personally don't find Blumenthal all that impressive, but the Connecticut debates were still Lincoln-Douglas affairs when compared to Nevada.

Politicians make a huge mistake when they demean their opponents by calling them nuts, insane or unhinged.  If they do, they should duck debates.  Otherwise, they have set the bar so low that almost anyone will surpass it.   Expectations Management 101.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I said nothing of the sort about Blumenthal's debate performances.  I've consistently said that while his speech patterns may have come across as halting and boring to those not used to him, Connecticut residents in the Hartford market have seen a lot of similar performances from him and still like him a lot.  I personally don't find Blumenthal all that impressive, but the Connecticut debates were still Lincoln-Douglas affairs when compared to Nevada.

Politicians make a huge mistake when they demean their opponents by calling them nuts, insane or unhinged.  If they do, they should duck debates.  Otherwise, they have set the bar so low that almost anyone will surpass it.   Expectations Management 101.

Besides the fact that I don't remember Reid calling Angle "nuts" or "insane", having extreme ideas doesn't necessarily means that you can't be personable or even charming.

Angle has been a politician for more than ten years so I don't see why anybody would be surprised that she managed to hold herself in a debate. And of course she had the "advantage" that if Reid attacked her the same way he attacked Ensign 12 years ago, he would be labeled a bully.

Anyway, I still believe that an instant poll would have been the best way to see what if any impact this debate had.
 

[Lief 🗽]

Anyone know if there's going to be a debate for Alaska senate? That would be entertaining.

[Vepres]

The irritating thing is that, really, since McCain/Palin debate performances and the tidal wave of crazy things Republican candidates have said and done in the last year, debates have become nearly impossible to lose anymore if you're a Republican as far out there as Angle.

Unless you approach Jan Brewer-levels of complete insanity, the standards have been set so pitifully low for Republicans in debate-style settings that anything short of a complete and utter breakdown on camera is considered a "win."

I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are many debates that don't make news where the Republican is expected to do well and then does. Buck has performed very well in debates, for example.

You only hear about the debates with crazy candidates.

[Vepres]

I'll put this question out again. Because Angle had a relatively good performance, perhaps even beating Reid, from what I've heard (I didn't see enough to have a clear opinion in that regard). If so, because Nevadans really really  don't like Reid, could we start to see Angle pull away (in relative terms, of course)?

[cinyc]

Anyone know if there's going to be a debate for Alaska senate? That would be entertaining.

Various groups have held a few candidates forums with some or all of the candidates in Alaska, which are smaller, but much like debates.  I haven't heard if KTUU or another TV station is sponsoring one.

[Lief 🗽]

I'll put this question out again. Because Angle had a relatively good performance, perhaps even beating Reid, from what I've heard (I didn't see enough to have a clear opinion in that regard). If so, because Nevadans really really  don't like Reid, could we start to see Angle pull away (in relative terms, of course)?

People don't like Angle either.

[cinyc]

I'll put this question out again. Because Angle had a relatively good performance, perhaps even beating Reid, from what I've heard (I didn't see enough to have a clear opinion in that regard). If so, because Nevadans really really  don't like Reid, could we start to see Angle pull away (in relative terms, of course)?

Reid had a couple very bad moments in the debate - not answering two simple yes or no questions with a yes or no, and for one of the answers, copping out by claiming something that's simply not true, and shuffling papers at the end of the debate to find his closing remarks.  He also at one point told Angle didn't understand what was going on in Washington - which I think Angle would agree with and think is the main problem with Washington - the people don't understand what the heck is going on there.  That could be turned into a commercial.

Harry Reid was very monotone and sleepy - but so was Angle for most of the debate (she picked it up a little near the end, after she told Harry to man up and admit Social Security has a funding issue).   Angle hit her low point when she asked the moderator to repeat a question, albeit after Reid had gone off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the original question.

By the way, I actually caught a bit of the New York debate over lunch.  In contrast to Nevada's debate, it was actually pretty lively and fast-paced, with the moderator trying to get the candidates to actually answer the questions.

[cinyc]

Besides the fact that I don't remember Reid calling Angle "nuts" or "insane", having extreme ideas doesn't necessarily means that you can't be personable or even charming.

Crazy juice, anyone?

http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/harry-reids-new-ad-painting-sharron-angle-as-a-nutball-crazy-juice/

[RRusso1982]

Here are my feelings about the Nevada Senate Debate. There were no knockout punches.  However, Angle won by default.  The bar for her was set very low.  All she needed to do was not appear crazy, come out with some good answers, and not say anything nutty.  She met that challenge.  I think she will get momentum coming out of this.  In all the polls, there were a lot of people that don't like Reid but still were voting for him, because they thought Angle was crazy.  After the debate, I think a fair amount of these voters will give Angle a second look.  The dynamics are very similar to Carter/Reagan in 1980.  Angle is no Ronald Reagan, of course, but the dynamics were similiar.  In 1980, Reagan was the Republican Carter most wanted to face off against.  He would be too easy to portray as a right wing nut.  However, in the end, the voters were just too eager to vote Carter out.  The bar for Reagan was quite low.  All he had to do in the debate was show some warmth and competence, which he did.  I believe the same thing happened here.  Time will tell if I am right.

[Ronnie]

Besides the fact that I don't remember Reid calling Angle "nuts" or "insane", having extreme ideas doesn't necessarily means that you can't be personable or even charming.

Crazy juice, anyone?

http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/harry-reids-new-ad-painting-sharron-angle-as-a-nutball-crazy-juice/

I got a really good laugh out of that ad.  I would be utterly dumbfounded if it convinced one person to vote for Reid instead of Angle.

[Vepres]

I'll put this question out again. Because Angle had a relatively good performance, perhaps even beating Reid, from what I've heard (I didn't see enough to have a clear opinion in that regard). If so, because Nevadans really really  don't like Reid, could we start to see Angle pull away (in relative terms, of course)?

People don't like Angle either.

That's not the point. As long as voters in Nevada view Angle as acceptable (which is what I think many will think after the debate), they'll vote for her just to throw Reid out.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Besides the fact that I don't remember Reid calling Angle "nuts" or "insane", having extreme ideas doesn't necessarily means that you can't be personable or even charming.

Crazy juice, anyone?

http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/harry-reids-new-ad-painting-sharron-angle-as-a-nutball-crazy-juice/

That's an ad. I meant Reid himself saying anything of the kind.

And to be honest, Angle's Republicans opponents didn't exactly shower her with praise during primary season.

[cinyc]

Besides the fact that I don't remember Reid calling Angle "nuts" or "insane", having extreme ideas doesn't necessarily means that you can't be personable or even charming.

Crazy juice, anyone?

http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/harry-reids-new-ad-painting-sharron-angle-as-a-nutball-crazy-juice/

That's an ad. I meant Reid himself saying anything of the kind.

And to be honest, Angle's Republicans opponents didn't exactly shower her with praise during primary season.

It's Reid's ad.  It does not matter if Reid tries to paint Angle as "nuts" "crazy", etc. directly by saying it himself, through his ads or indirectly through his Democratic surrogates.  All have the effect of painting his opponent as something that, once she opens her mouth in something like a debate, cannot live up to the negative hype.