The Rumble in Columbus: Veeps Attack!

[Barrister]

Sheilbh, all things considered, I value your opinion and insight the most on this forum, but you have this romantic attachment to populist politicking which clearly shows you haven't encountered it in it's full force yet.

If you want rational decisions, you must have rational debates, no tribal shit-flinging contests. Yes, that means technocrats discussing numbers.

Thanks.  I'm not talking populism - which is a style of politics which I think is essential.  I just think democracy is better when you have sides with differing opinions that are sharply and engagingly argued in such a way that it engages people.

As I say I like a Westminster system which isn't terribly respectful, is confrontational and loud.  It works here without leading to populist Balkanisation.  It also works in Australia and New Zealand (David Lange ).  I think the Canadians are too polite for it

You've clearly never seen a Canadian Question Period.

[Valmy]

I don't like the bits of the Scottish Parliament I've seen (semi-circular, no heckling, regular applause)

I figured the Scottish parliament would be debating whether or not to exterminate Clan Douglas and things like that.

[Count]

Biden's main goal was to rile up the liberal base, and he definitely succeeded. Not sure how the rest of the country viewed it but I loved it.

[Martinus]

He often seems to prefer drama and spectacle regardless of whether or not that leads to good governance.

That's Sheilbh's approach to religion, I noticed, too.

[Martinus]

I gotta say I kinda agree with Sheilbh, though. I think public debates (and public speeches, in general) are not the best medium to present a complex, nuanced view of some issue - written word is a much better medium for that, while live oral communication is a better medium for condensed emotional messages.

The problem is that I think we are regressing from the culture of the written word towards the new oral tradition, where even things in writing begin to resemble conversations rather than a structured written document (tabloids, blogs, tweets, facebook updates etc. are all examples of this).

[Caliga]

I tried to pay attention during this debate but got bored and eventually fell asleep.

Am I: Obama? 

[DGuller]

I tried to pay attention during this debate but got bored and eventually fell asleep.

Am I: Obama? 

How could you get bored during that debate?  You could be excited enough just looking at Joe's face for the whole 1.5 hours with your TV on mute.

[MadImmortalMan]

Biden's main goal was to rile up the liberal base, and he definitely succeeded. Not sure how the rest of the country viewed it but I loved it.

Yeah. It was this exactly. I don't even know what Ryan said out there. Biden just distracted all attention to himself. I couldn't focus on Ryan at all. FWIW, my wife and my mom both thought Biden was a big awful mean bully. But guess what. Obama's already got the female vote by a large margin. This wasn't for them.

[The Brain]

the female vote

[Sheilbh]

I gotta say I kinda agree with Sheilbh, though. I think public debates (and public speeches, in general) are not the best medium to present a complex, nuanced view of some issue - written word is a much better medium for that, while live oral communication is a better medium for condensed emotional messages.

I kind of agree.  The written policy paper is useful complex, nuanced views and for footnoted, academic policy positions - not that any major party will ever do that.  But public speeches are important because they're about engaging with the electorate and trying to persuade.  Policies may be best described in documents, but the argument behind them needs to be made directly and verbally.  It's like my view on most policy positions, they're really for the media who look over them and decide whether a candidate is 'serious' or not which is necessary to get a hearing.

Really great politicians are able to do that - Reagan and Clinton springs to mind.  If you read Clinton's DNC speech it's dull and it's a bit heavy on policy details.  Then, go and watch it.  The only reason it works is his charisma.  And I think it's always been so.  Our great historic PMs like Disraeli and Gladstone were known for making hours of speeches in the Commons were their policy was explained, made relevant and argued for - not just laid out.  The most famous off the top of my head is Gladstone's four hour budget when he was Chancellor - but similarly he re-launched his career, despite being a deeply literary man, with a barn-storming series of speeches on Bulgaria and Dizzy's weakness.

Personally I prefer debates and Westminster style because I think it clarifies issues, it forces politicians to deal with the other side's arguments and favoured facts - if nothing else I think it sharpens arguments.  In addition I think it's fun (Julia Gillard's brilliant evisceration of 'sexist, misogynist' Tony Abbot most recently).  I also think it allows for a different mood when necessary - Enda Kenny's speech on child abuse ('the swish of the soutane...this is a Republic of laws') or David Cameron's speech on the report into Bloody Sunday were brilliant because their bearpit style of the Commons and Dail became hushed and reverential.  If the norm is that each member gets to go an stand and give a speech, in the way they wish, without anyone directly challenging them and they're heard in respectful silence then that shift of mood is lost.

In my view of the US debates the best ones are were they all act like jerks and are assertive and aggressive about their positions and the problems of their opponent's.  Last night was great for that reason.

But to return to that clip of Biden I think he's entirely right and it was demonstrated during healthcare reform.  The Democrats buried themselves under reams of position papers and thinktank reports.  They stopped talking to the public.  They stopped arguing the 'why' of healthcare reform and their opponents (rightly) took advantage.  That's what well done speeches and debates are for, not calmly and rationally discussing all the options but for making an argument and it was entirely absent in the first two years of this Administration.

[Phillip V]

The debate was a draw in that it did not seem as any decisive event or moment that will shift the election, keeping in line with the inconsequence of past VP debates.

But as for determining winners and losers:
-The first third goes to Ryan due to Biden's distracting/self-defeating interruptions and guffaws. The old man has passion, but he overdid it. His performance probably energized the base, though. Ryan managed to answer Biden's 47% attack with a joke that got the biggest enjoyment from the crowd. He also showed calm and the ability to answer a wide range of foreign policy questions, including valid criticism of the Administration's preparation+response to the terrorist attack at Benghazi.
-The middle third goes to neither as Biden continued his antics while Ryan did a lot of unconvincing equivocating as well as getting messed up by Biden's interruptions.
-The final third goes to Biden, as he actually relaxed with the clown behavior, thus allowing the audience to finally take in his serious and emotional messages. In contrast, like a robotic dweeb, Ryan altogether stopped directly answering questions and instead ran through generic lines about how Romney is awesome and how Obama is terrible.

Both men did well for themselves at least in preparation for 2016.

[CountDeMoney]

Both men did well for themselves at least in preparation for 2016.

I really don't see it as a realistic possibility for Biden;  sure, people are talking about it now and Biden is all about how virile he'll be in 4 years when he's 74, but if Romney wins, there's no way a one-term veep would be considered a real candidate, and if they do win election, he'll happily retire to the countryside as a successful two-term veep, hitting the speaking trail and writing his memoirs.

I just don't see Joe doing it in 2016 either way, win or lose this year.

[Phillip V]

'You know, you don't have to decide if you want to be president. But you do have to decide if you want the option to become president.'

[CountDeMoney]

Shame Sam Nunn and George Mitchell are dead in dog years.  They would've been great presidents.

[Sheilbh]

I think Ryan's line over the 47% was a great moment for him. But I thought Biden's 'at least I alway mean what I say' was very effective.