Ok, I admit it, I voted for Alan Alda's character as the debate winner....

what is it Vinick? I thought Alda was a little smoother, I liked his poise and he put many of his arguments in an appealing, articulate way. Sure, I didn't agree with him much, but I could see how others may come away wanting to vote for that character.

Of course, in real life, few Rs are as articulate as Alan Alda. Certainly not the rube we have in the WH. All in all, I thought both candidates were impressive, and the debate was well done. Forrest Sawyer did a great job! I was impressed that he held his own in an environment like that. Live shows, I mean, that has to be some serious pressure for anyone let alone someone who really isn't an actor.

I tell you, I was impressed with that show. Very well done and very sensitive to both conservative and liberal povs.

:)

Which is great because the post debate bump will have to reflect the fake poll. :D Interactive TV is a cool idea!

It was great watching a real debate between two canidates. Nothing like last year. Kerry easily wipped Bush's ass with his "it's hard work" nonsense. :eyes: I really am impressed with Alan Alda this season. I personally voted for Santos because, to me, with him it was more like he was just talking to you. With Vinick it was like he was "preaching" to you and scolding etc. about the government instead of just debating his philosophy and views. He was a bit more tightened and Santos was really loose and cool. They both did really well though. I liked Santos' ways though of letting his message get across.

yeah, you just know what they'll say before they even say it.

I've been reading it and see what its about.

And I have to say, I agree with you.

I don't care how well spoken and articulate someone sounds. And I don't care how convincing they sound.

I just don't think that someone should be considered a "winner" if their entire argument is based on bullshit and lies.

And, if his entire statement was about tax cuts solving everything, then of course he won the audience, because he was telling them what they wanted to hear.

those debates got ugly. It was like a pro boxer beating a child.

Santos did put his message across well. In real life, I'd never have voted for the Republican, because I wouldn't believe in their narrow philosophy. But, for this, I tried to imagine that I was a relatively apolitical voter, who wasn't overly informed, but was still a relatively intelligent person. A true undecided and I just looked at it like that.

We got a view of what debates should be. Not bogged down by rules.

Vinick made some really great points and I agreed with some of what he said, but there were two points where I knew I would never vote for the man.

Head Start -- I think he lost a lot of mom's with that one. :)

ANWR -- Drill it because people don't see it? That logic totally escapes me.

Overall, really good and I hope they do another on foreign policy.

:)

but only just this once :D

I thought they both did a good job. The issues were like K-B all over again - kind of strange...

2 any of the issues in WW debate - Enviroment?....what environment? Health care....I have it don't you? Not once was abortion mention NOT once! Nobody even said GAY let alone marriage. It wasn't even close to ANY debate last year

And I didn't see anyone w/ a transmitter pack on his back!

:shrug:

I mean they are actors and Alan Alda I believe has way more broadway
experience than Jimmy Smits.

What bugs me is how we have a TV show which everyone wishes was the real
West Wing and real campaign.

It's like some sort of fantasy that we have a real government.

That said, I hope they keep both Smits and Alda as the stars, which could happen with Santos Win and Reb. Senate, Alda strong and Senate
Majority Leader.

I think this has to be the best season of them all.

The only time I can feel good about our government is on TV. It's a shame because we shouldn't have to look to fantasy to get what we're supposed to have in real life.

Given how bad things are in the real world it's no wonder we look to a show like West Wing and know that's what we're supposed to have. People with integrity, professional and know how to do their jobs.

Instead, we've got thugs and criminals.

I agree. This is one of their finest seasons. :)

But i was trying to be impartial and decide "who won" not based on substantive issues (Santos would be my man there) but we all know debates are percieved by the general public and i think that VInnick did the job better, even if his policies were shit. The thing about the markets was something Santos should have hit him with.

Frankly, I thought that the debate
was rather weak from the left.

If we are going to counter all the right wing and libertarian bullshit about how well the market works and makes decisions, we have to base our aguments about the failures of the marketplace and the fact that that simple minded theory doesn't work so well when we don't have the presumed conditions for real competition and are left with oligopoly or monopoly powers.

We have to base our arguments on a cohesive economic/political philosophy that people can understand. Not a simple statement about how badly Enron has failed----that can be dismissed as the "few bad apples" argument.


We need to emphasize that market forces led to the great depression. The whole economy was on the rocks and the only thing that saved this country turning to socialism/communism was the reform agenda of FDR. Now these jerks want to go back to the days of McKinley or before with there misplaced reverence of "free markets"

Most people who take economics courses never get past the few basics they learn about supply and demand. They never understand the subtleties of imperfect markets, or the problems of the tragedy of the commons, or (except for smoking) the problems of externalities and public goods, the importance of income distribution, or the many ways the playing field is tilted governments already in the thrall of corporations.

We need to work with these kinds of arguments--explaining why these "free markets" that the right and libertarians adore are not free and if left unregulated turn us all into slaves.

Frankly, I think the WW debate failed to provide such a substantial kind of argument for the left--although it certainly honed in on the perennial argument about free markets for the right.

I didn't like Santo's free market answers either. It's tough to counter such a simplified jingoistic answer. And, the Enron thing is effective to a point, as you said. Got to go beyond just that.

It was a great show, I really enjoyed it.

Alda was better, Smits had the best script for the audience.

Vinnick seemed flippant in calling for tax cuts as a solution to everything. His avoidance in answering how he would pay for them did not help.
I also loved the speech by Santos on being a liberal and what great things liberals have brought about in this country.

As we've seen in the past, style often trumps substance.

Candidates should watch this debate as a training tool to see how Alda was able to use rhetoric and personality to push a relatively weak agenda.

Of course it could mean that Alan Alda is a better actor--or more likely more accomplished a live setting than Jimmy Smits.

He kept popping off at the mouth and interrupting too. That moment though when Vinnick said he just accused me, I have to respond while the moderator was trying to move on...that reminded me of Chumpy last year.

He conveyed the sense that he was in a real political debate. As for the actors, I agree that Vinick made a more compelling presence.