McCain offers 10 town hall style debates between now and the conventions -- about one a week, Obama counters that he'll do 2 more before the conventions in addition to the 3 debates already planned after the conventions. Here's an article with the back and forth:

[url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Town_hall_talks_break_down.html[/url]

I thought there were waaaaay too many debates during the primary season, where it got to a point that I didn't think it was important to watch them because there'd be another a couple of days later. I'm really glad that we won't be doing one a week before we even get to the convention.

With that said, I'm kinda surprised Obama didn't offer to do more than 2 more debates, just because it gives McCain something to talk about. Of course, with [B]that [/B]said, shouldn't McCain at least accept that proposal and then continue to push for more? Then he gets the debates, which he thinks will help him, [B]and [/B]the opportunity to push the narrative that Obama is ducking him.

Thoughts?

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

yeah, i think two debates are just fine. why must there be more? I think to start, two is just fine. i think the debates should be later on, not until after the conventions. there's no point in doing it now. 10 debate? for what? it serves no purpose. less is more when more is too much (f. l. wright).

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

obama is such a pussy! jk

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

[QUOTE=shosh;613450]obama is such a pussy! jk[/QUOTE]

seriously, what do you think? People have been complaining that there's no serious discussion on this board, just people stumping, but this is the sort of thing that's easy to discuss without it degenerating into a partisan bitchfest. So, what do you think -- how many debates is ideal, and will McCain's complaints that Obama is ducking him carry any weight?

Personally, I don't think that McCain's charge will backfire on him, but I don't think it will be particularly effective, either. When you challenge your opponent to 13 debates over the course of 140 days -- that's [B]very [/B]frequently -- and insisting upon a format that everyone acknowledges suits you to a tee and plays in a very specific way to your strengths, I think people get what you're doing. I could be wrong, though.

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

i agree with you here... i too think there's been way too many debates, almost to the point that they are so ordinary that nobody gives a shit about them anymore. It might backfire a bit on Obama because that will allow McCain to say Obama's afraid or some shit like that, but I dont think anyone is going to give it much importance. Maybe after the conventions, when we get closer to the elections they can increase the frequency as the issues discussed will be more fresh in voters' minds. So I say stick to the 2 prior to the conventions and add 1-2 more after and we'll be good.

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

I'm not sure I'll watch them if its just the two of them debating but yes, 10 is just too many.

As for McCain using this as something to attack Obama with, I would fully expect it. He probably knew Obama wouldn't want that many debates and with it being obvious who is the better public speaker, this was a strategic move on McCain's part.

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

I don't care how many debates there are, because I'm not going to watch any of them. Who has the time?

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

I'm actually of the opinion that Obama should call McCain's bluff and do the town halls with him for a couple of reasons. First, like the dude above, not everybody would watch every debate, so the frequency of the debates could help get the issues (and the different stances) onto the front burner easier for those who casually pay attention. Secondly, McCain wants to do town halls because it's one of the few forums where he performs halfway decent. However, Obama on one of his bad days is just as good as McCain is in town halls, so he wouldn't be hurt unless McCain stacks the audience.

Plus, as superficial as it may be, it clearly works in Obama's favor to be seen next to McCain just to show the physical differences between the two: Obama is 25 years younger, 6-7 inches taller, and can actually lift his arms above his head. It would be another version of the Kennedy-Nixon debates with such stark differences in appearance.

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

[QUOTE=MJDub;614197]However, Obama on one of his bad days is just as good as McCain is in town halls, so he wouldn't be hurt unless McCain stacks the audience. [/QUOTE]

I'm a big Obama fan, but I think McCain wins these things 8 times out of 10. The difference between McCain giving a prepared speech and McCain just riffing with people is pretty stark. He's more or less built his candidacy upon his strength in this format, and even though Obama has gotten to be better at these sorts of things than he once was, McCain has done hundreds of those things (probably literally), and will probably beat Obama most of the time. McCain's very fast with his responses, while Obama tends to be more deliberative.

But with that said...

[QUOTE=MJDub;614197] Plus, as superficial as it may be, it clearly works in Obama's favor to be seen next to McCain just to show the physical differences between the two: Obama is 25 years younger, 6-7 inches taller, and can actually lift his arms above his head. It would be another version of the Kennedy-Nixon debates with such stark differences in appearance.[/QUOTE]

I think you're spot on here. It [B]is [/B]superficial, but lots of voters vote on that basis, so it would be silly to ignore it. It wouldn't be as apparent in a town hall because they kinda tag in and out, but when we're doing the formal debates where they are standing next to each other on stage, I wouldn't expect the comparison to be favorable to McCain.

Re: To Debate or Not to Debate

Granted, McCain deserves all the credit he gets for being good in town hall meetings, but he isn't much better than what I've watched Obama do in the same type meetings. Obama really knows how to work a crowd of 20 or 200 just as well as one of 20,000 with his banter with questioners and deftness in answering the questions directly. The best example that sticks out in my mind was a couple of weeks ago when he visited a synagogue in Florida which understandably had some pretty hostile questioners (since many were for Hillary), but he fielded them quite well. You could tell a difference in crowd reaction between the beginning and end of the town hall (more positive toward the end), which I would interpret as more people supporting him after they heard what he had to say.

The "problem" with Obama is that since his speeches are leaps and bounds above anybody else's, people think that he's a one trick animal and can't perform well with anything else. I would respectfully disagree.