tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post114475500630647504..comments2024-03-28T03:10:19.013-07:00Comments on Fraggmented: Lessons In Real Life, #1John Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07530526320973807452noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-1144780457150124272006-04-11T11:34:00.000-07:002006-04-11T11:34:00.000-07:00Oh, absolutely. And in general, if you have a tigh...Oh, absolutely. And in general, if you have a tight race, then the points you make are absolutely dead on. In 2000, and more especially in 2004, the race was so close and the deciding factors so fickle that both candidates had about as much to win or lose in the debates; so the Bush camp wanted fewer debates for the reasons you mention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-1144770364522041522006-04-11T08:46:00.000-07:002006-04-11T08:46:00.000-07:00Fair enough. But I'd still say the rule holds true...Fair enough. But I'd still say the rule holds true in a tight race (like, say, the 2000 and 2004 elections. It was very clear that the Bush team didn't want debates because they knew that Bush is not good at not saying unbelievably stupid things when he's not working from a script.)John Seaveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07221569513392130884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15742539.post-1144765485946735432006-04-11T07:24:00.000-07:002006-04-11T07:24:00.000-07:00Traditionally, "the guy who wants fewer debates" i...Traditionally, "the guy who wants fewer debates" is the guy who is ahead in the polls at the time they are trying to agree to debates. For the simple reason that a debate has more potential for loss for him. If nothing changes, he stays ahead. If he "wins" the debate, he stays ahead. That person is the one with something to lose.<BR/><BR/>If you look in Mexico's presidential race right now, the guy ahead is extremely good at debates, held personal daily news conferences for four years while being Mayor of Mexico City, and can run rings around the other two candidates. While he was still mayor he proposed "10 debates", but now says that one or nothing. Why? Because he is ahead, and the debates can only cost him votes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com