babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Formats: Town Hall vs Debate

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Formats: Town Hall vs Debate
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 16 June 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was disgusted with the format of the debate. The questions were poor, there was no questions from ordinary Canadians, the journalists attending were unprofessional, especially Craig Oliver, the was no question on the enivorment, no question on child poverty, and there were other question that recieve no attention at all, and questions the recieved to little attention. The questions were unspecific, the debate was designed to be a cat fight, instead of being informitive, there wasn't enough time for leaders to expound on the details of their platforms, which not only lead to the debate being less informitive, but it also forced the leaders to talk over each other to get their ideas out. it also gave a rushed quality to the debate. The Moderator wasn't very good either. It all just caused farther cnysism in the public.

On the other hand, CBC's Town Halls were by far better. Most of the questions were from ordinary Canadians, the questions were more specific, with follow up questions, more areas were covered. You got more info and less barbs. It gave the leaders more time to go into detail. Most people who watched the debate didn't find it a positive experience, while those in the audience at the Town Hall, not to mention the views at home, found the Town Hall experience more positive and up lifting. Oh and there was no Craig Oliver in the Town Halls.

The Town Hall is a vast improvement over the debate format and my biggest complaint was that there wasn't enough on them. Each network should of had one, plus special ones on key issues.

IMO the Town Hall should replace the Debate as the main feature of elections, maybe we should get toss the national debate altogether.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 16 June 2004 01:06 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's wrong with a no-holds-barred all out combat zone? It could have an electrified floor and everything. Should be good for ratings.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 16 June 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it actual got violent, aka electric floor, Jack is the most fit, engeretic, he would've kicked everyones ass.

Fun aside, the town hall rocked, while the debate was waste of time before it began. Jack won it, but I'm not sure it was worth winning.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 16 June 2004 01:23 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even myself, political junkie I am, I found my interest in the debate waning sometime after the hour mark. I expect most of the people who had tuned in at the start had channel-surfed on to other things by then.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 16 June 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rev. Phoenix:
I was disgusted with the format of the debate.


No kidding?!?! It's a joke, isn't it. The networks knew that to keep it a two party race they had to trick "say-anything" Jack Layton into going into attack dog mode. It worked brilliantly.

The most dangerous moment of the evening, really, was when Paul Martin asked Layton "Did your handlers tell you to talk all the time?" If Layton wasn't real stupid, this question might have tipped him off to how bloody badly he was blowing it, but no chance. He just accelerated his inane interruptions and the plan kept on succeeding beyond anyone's expectations.

Was the debate format useful for the voters? Of course not, but it worked well for the Liberals and to a lesser extent the Conservatives are OKay out of this thing too. I hate to admit it, but Harper looked cool. This will engergize the Liberal vote as the NDP collapses in the final two weeks.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 16 June 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Even myself, political junkie I am, I found my interest in the debate waning sometime after the hour mark. I expect most of the people who had tuned in at the start had channel-surfed on to other things by then.

I agree. I also think that those people who watched Jack during the Town Hall meeting had the opposite response.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 June 2004 01:51 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Same here. I tuned out after the first hour.
The debates are a media invention. They set up for maximum conflict hoping to get that Kennedy vs. Nixon or Mulroney vs. Turner moment that will sells ads for days. It really isn't about informing. In my view, we are left no better equipped to cast a ballot had we watched a wrestling match.

I too found the town hall formats much more informative and useful.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401

posted 16 June 2004 02:01 PM      Profile for Olly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with everyone. And Craig Oliver needs to be put to pasture. I always think he's having a stroke when he talks. And the lunacy he says just confirms it. His analysis after the debate last night was the Stephen Harper is going to start winning over seats in Quebec. How he ever got that from the two debates is beyond me.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 June 2004 02:04 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think debates are one of the worst features of political campaigns. They emphasize the superficial, the media give them too much attention, the candidates put too high a premium on them, and they derail the flow of the campaign. But perhaps worst of all, people are given the impression by the media that they should make their decision based on the debates. Which in turn creates a sort of passivity among many voters. For anyone who makes the effort to familiarize themselves with the issues, debates are a waste of time.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 16 June 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To sumerize Craig opion of the debate, Jack mopped the floor with Martin so Harper won. That's like saying The Raider kicked the Cowboys ass, so the giant won the game. Doesn't man any sense. What an ass.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 16 June 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't Craig Oliver try and join in the debate when he didn't like Jack's response to his question?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 16 June 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oliver did and the only one in the media so far to pick up on Craig's deplorable behavior is Micheal Coren, who by the way believes Jack won the debate.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 16 June 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:
The most dangerous moment of the evening, really, was when Paul Martin asked Layton "Did your handlers tell you to talk all the time?"

Yes, it was dangerous. It was dangerous for Paul Martin. The remark was abusive and an attempt to be intimidating. He just disqualified himself as someone who can handle the stress of office.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 16 June 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the mask dropped there and we saw something of the real Paul Martin. He's not the nice guy he's made out to be. People who run billion-dollar businesses and slash programs never are, they can't be. I get the feeling that underneath it all, he's quite the bastard.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 16 June 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:

He just disqualified himself as someone who can handle the stress of office.


Well, we don't agree, do we. I thought it was a risky thing in that it might have wakened Layton up, he might have realized that he had to get himself under some kind of control. But not to worry, "Say Anything Jack" just kept on ranting even after he had been called on it. It says it all.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 16 June 2004 02:44 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Erik, do you get all your talking points faxed in from Liberal HQ? 'Say Anything' Jack? They really tried to push that nickname, but it didn't stick. I'm sorry you can't deal with your party's implosion, and the fact that your leader cannot handle the pressure. I bet Jean Chretien looks pretty good now, doesn't he?

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 16 June 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I'm sorry you can't deal with your party's implosion, and the fact that your leader cannot handle the pressure. I bet Jean Chretien looks pretty good now, doesn't he?

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


I am a BC and Canada Liberal, that's true, I say so in my profile. What I write here is entirely my own.

Does Chretien look good now? His populist personality might sell more easily than Martin's, but I am sorry he let this sponsorship thing get this far. Martin has bravely weathered the storm and I predict that in the next two weeks he'll be taking back at least 5% of the vote from a truly collapsing NDP. Layton blew it big-time, and you're going to start hearing angry cries from NDP staffers that "It should have been Blaikie". And they're right, it should have been Blaikie.

Blaikie never would have made the really stupid mistakes on the Clarity Act and homeless people or inheritance taxes that Layton did, and he never would have acted like a kid just off a skateboard in the debate.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 16 June 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:

Martin has bravely weathered the storm and I predict that in the next two weeks he'll be taking back at least 5% of the vote from a truly collapsing NDP. Layton blew it big-time, and you're going to start hearing angry cries from NDP staffers that "It should have been Blaikie". And they're right, it should have been Blaikie.
.


LOL! Which debate were you watching? Martin let the mask slip with his snide little snap at Layton. I predict Paul Martin will go down in history as one of the most complete disasters in Canadian Political History. As much as I like Bill Blaikie, he couldn't have done what Jack has done for the party.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 16 June 2004 02:59 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:

Yes, it was dangerous. It was dangerous for Paul Martin. The remark was abusive and an attempt to be intimidating. He just disqualified himself as someone who can handle the stress of office.


I agree. I also think it will be the key exchange during the debate that people will rebember for years.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 16 June 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:
Well, we don't agree, do we. I thought it was a risky thing in that it might have wakened Layton up, he might have realized that he had to get himself under some kind of control.

Very nice of you to gloss over the abusiveness of your man, isn't it Erik? Layton had himself under control. He turned the conversation back to the matter at hand, setting aside Martin's attempt at intimidation.

Frankly it's stunning that the head of a Canadian political party would resort to such tactics. As was said above, perhaps former Prime Minister Martin is showing truer colours.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 16 June 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:

Blaikie never would have made the really stupid mistakes on the Clarity Act and homeless people or inheritance taxes that Layton did, and he never would have acted like a kid just off a skateboard in the debate.


I really don't understand those who have criticism of Layton's comments on homeless people. What he said was simply that actions have consequences, and in this case, the action of not supporting affordable housing (as well cutting funds for other supports) created the consequence of more people without homes dying. Very simple and very true.


From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 16 June 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nam:

I really don't understand those who have criticism of Layton's comments on homeless people.



I notice you're not coming to Layton's defence on the Clarity Act or inheritance taxes. Should readers conclude anything based on that, or did you just run out of time?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 June 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Does Chretien look good now? His populist personality might sell more easily than Martin's, but I am sorry he let this sponsorship thing get this far.

You see, that is why the Liberals will lose this election and could possibly saddle us with something worse: Harper.

The Martin team has made every effort to cast aside Chretien and Red Liberals. They have been so succesful, they tossed away the election in the process.

The Martin team are the biggest collection of political idiots this country has ever seen on a federal level even surpassing the Joe Clark Conservatives Ver. 1.

You do not, that is NOT dis the guy who managed to hold office for a decade. You do not NOT shove away succesful candidates who could hold on to their seats even if it could be proved your party was allied with Satan himself. You do not, NOT alienate an entire wing of your party because with them goes half your volunteers, half your organizers, a big chunk of your riding level funding, and the people who will work on election day to get your vote out.

I will admit, in the last federal election I held my nose and voted Liberal due to the threat of the Alliance.

This time I am proudly voting NDP. Martin has made voting Liberal, even while holding my nose, a betryal of everything I do believe in from inclusiveness to health care to integrity.

Team Martin might still be convincing yourselves you did the right thing purging the left and loyal liberal stalwarts in favour of party hacks, but the proof is in the pudding. I just drove throughout Southwestern Ontario and I can tell you this:

Fontana, Gone.
Ur, Gone.
O'Brien, Endangered (depending how Mazilli does).
Barnes, Re-elected but by a tight margin.
Knutson, Endangered, probaly gone.
Every liberal in the Windsor area is Gone.

Good work.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 17 June 2004 12:03 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am convinced Craig Oliver changed at least the wording of his question.
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 17 June 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The clarity act is a liberal phony issue, someone asked Jack for his is option on the Clarity act, he said it was bad idea, that it was a red flag for Quebecers, he never said he'd toss the Clarity act, in fact he said he won't and this issue is a red herring for party with nothing honest to say the liberal party. Their the ones responsible for the Bloc resurgence, they're responsible for making the Clarity act in issue in their attempt to smear Jack, Jack has never, never been the one to bring it up.

As for the inheritance tax, there are many threads explaining it, so I won't repeat it again.

Jack's not the one who lied about day care spaces and blamed it on the provinces, Jack's not the one who lied about rebuilding, and fixing health care, he's not the one who lied about not hurting the health care system, he's not the one who stole from EI fund, and cut many people who deserved it off, he's not the one who stood by while health care was privatized, he'd not the one who stood by and lied about stopping growing levels of pollusion, he's not the one promised to clean up and Sydney tar ponds and never deliver, and Jack's not the one who "didn't" see anything during the sponsorship scandal, he's not the one who called an election before the we got to the bottom of the Scandals, such as Arar and sponsorgate, he's not the one who didn't have the courage to pass a bill giving gays the right to marry across country. You bring up your pathetic smear attempts, but it was Martin who has broken his word time and time again, not Jack.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 17 June 2004 12:37 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rev. Phoenix:

As for the inheritance tax, there are many threads explaining it, so I won't repeat it again.


I guess I must have missed those threads. Are any of them still open?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 June 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It looks like there was discussion about it in various threads, which are tricky to find. The best place to continue the discussion would be in this thread.

[Edited to add:] Here is another current thread on inheritance taxes.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 17 June 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doesn't the very fact that there were so many different threads from core supporters demonstrate it was poorly communicated?

Rev Phoenix, of course we all agree with (most) of what you said. The problem some people have noted is in the messaging, not the message.

And Eric, who gives a crap what NDP staffers will say? What laurels have they earned to rest on? They've lost every debate for about 16 years now.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: Tackaberry ]


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 18 June 2004 03:16 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chess clocks. If you run on like Martin did over and over again your time runs out and it comes out of your last statement allottment. If you interupt the subtraction is double.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johan Boyden
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4661

posted 18 June 2004 12:18 PM      Profile for Johan Boyden   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
There is a bigger issue that the format of the debate -- the lenght of the election, which is undemocratically way too short.
From: the working class | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 18 June 2004 01:11 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Johan Boyden:
There is a bigger issue that the format of the debate -- the lenght of the election, which is undemocratically way too short.

Kim Campbell "Elections are not the time to discuss health care".

I see your point but the work involved in maintaining a campaign is staggering. I couldn't see doing much more.

What's more is that while it is great to have the eye of the populace giving consideration to issues they usually avoid, it is also necessary to find ways to continue the discussion between elections.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 18 June 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are structural problems in our democratic systems, that neither format can fix or nullify. Neither format will change anything.
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca