debate aftermath

[blueblood]

No knockout punches. I can't tell who won the debate, it looks like Harper was holding back from being mean spirited.

Dion did pretty good. Duceppe did good. Layton did alright. Harper did alright.

What the deuce was May doing there.

[Moonbox]

I really didn't like the way they did this one, or at least how it was moderated. There was FAR too much interrupting and people talking over one another. Duceppe, May and Layton wouldn't shut up when everyone else was talking.

It was pretty much a big 4v1 against Harper. I think he did alright and so did Dion. The debate really didn't do anything for me other than make me like May and Layton even less.

I liked Dion though. I felt that of everyone in the opposition he was the only other one who acted like a human being and wasn't just blowing hot air and yelling.

[kengs333]

What the deuce was May doing there.

She was invited.

Too bad that in a democracy a party that gets 660,000+ votes in an election has to put up a fuss to get invited to a leadership debate.

For someone who hates Cuba so much, you sure have a questionable attitude towards democracy.

[cybercoma]

Was it the French debate tonight?

[capricorn]

My impressions. The Anglos' French skills all good enough to be understood.

May hyperventilated a few times. She made nonsensical statements proving she didn't belong at that table.

Dion looked more like a priest than a professor. It seemed to me he changed the Liberal policy platform on the fly. At one point he addressed Layton as Mr. Duceppe.

Duceppe could barely keep his eyeballs in their socket. I felt like handing him a tissue to wipe his brow.

Layton came across as a snake oil salesman. Man he looks like the video professor.

The name Bush was uttered some 50 times, no surprise there.

Harper looked bored but he managed to lay out the party platform on the issues raised so in that sense, his time was well spent.

Ho hum, a spirited and sometimes chaotic bashing of the PM by the 4 leaders but not a vote changer in my view.

Edited October 2, 2008 by capricorn

[Bryan]

Hopefully at least this will give people an understanding of why a lot of others wanted the number of participants limited in the debate. Five is too many, no matter how legitimate a given candidate is. If you want any meaningful exchange, you have to limit the participants. Three is the absolute limit before it turns into a farce.

Perhaps there should be two different debate formats. One all party free for all, and one that's just between incumbent and the leader of the opposition.

[jdobbin]

Hopefully at least this will give people an understanding of why a lot of others wanted the number of participants limited in the debate.

Perhaps Harper will say no to the debate next time just as many of local candidates have in their ridings. It just confuses things.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I thought the format was rather unfair to Harper who was simply ganged up on and attacked, I agreed with his comments after the debate that not much constructive came out of the other leaders it was mostly criticism not constructive. To his credit he remained calm, though somewhat disengaged from the debate.

I thought although Dion seemed polite in terms of being less forceful in interupting, his words were hypocritical in that he made some very innacurate and personal accusations, which in my mind re-inforce his elitist distain for disenting opinion.

May was hysterical.

Jack didn't impress.

Duceppe, because of his limited scope, always does OK.

What I didn't like the most was there were a few things said, like Dion and may saying that the Canadain medical association had taken a particular position, Harper's attempt to rebut was interupted and he was unable to expain the Associations rebuttal of the Editorial (read opinoin) by one scientist published in its journal. It would have demonstrated the dishonesty of the accusation and the depth of manipulation by the Liberals.

The other thing I find problematic is the young offender issue, harper clearly articulated that 14 year olds were neither going to adult prisons nor to be routinely tried as adults, yet it Dion, Duceppe and Layton continued to perpetuate the lie uncorrected by the moderator.

[cybercoma]

Hopefully at least this will give people an understanding of why a lot of others wanted the number of participants limited in the debate. Five is too many, no matter how legitimate a given candidate is. If you want any meaningful exchange, you have to limit the participants. Three is the absolute limit before it turns into a farce.

Perhaps there should be two different debate formats. One all party free for all, and one that's just between incumbent and the leader of the opposition.

My suggestion would be to set a threshold of the popular vote (let's say 10%) to allow participation into the debates. This would stop fringe parties from being able to participate, but it would still allow The Greens to get in should they do well enough. We may still end up with 5 parties in the debate. However, if over 10% of the popular vote went to a party, they deserve to be there.

[blueblood]

She was invited.

Too bad that in a democracy a party that gets 660,000+ votes in an election has to put up a fuss to get invited to a leadership debate.

For someone who hates Cuba so much, you sure have a questionable attitude towards democracy.

Um, she can be there, that is her right. Her performance begs the question of what was she doing there. She was out of her league.

[unspoken]

Hated the format. I liked the way they did it last time where they did a round-robin of sorts of shorter 1 on 1 debates. It helped to cut down on the interruptions.

[blueblood]

i think it was too structured. Should have explained platform for 15 minutes then let fly for the last hour and 45 with the moderator making sure it's a one at a time thing.

[tango]

I was impressed with Elizabeth May's breadth of genuine knowledge, and grasp of the economics too. I know partisanship leads some to dismiss her, but listening to what she actually says, she sounded much less like a slick political operator than the rest of them. It's nice for once to see someone who seems more down to earth.

In democracy, challenge is a good thing. We don't EVER want a single minded approach, imo.

I think she brings a breath of fresh air, even if just by challenging the political 'norm'.

[kengs333]

I was impressed with Elizabeth May's breadth of genuine knowledge, and grasp of the economics too. I know partisanship leads some to dismiss her, but listening to what she actually says, she sounded much less like a slick political operator than the rest of them. It's nice for once to see someone who seems more down to earth.

In democracy, challenge is a good thing. We don't EVER want a single minded approach, imo.

I think she brings a breath of fresh air, even if just by challenging the political 'norm'.

Please don't tell me that you're going to vote for the Greens.

[unspoken]

Another thing I didn't like...

I know this is being kind of nitpicky, but I didn't like that they were seated. You can tell a lot by body language, which you use more when you're less relaxed.

[kengs333]

Um, she can be there, that is her right. Her performance begs the question of what was she doing there. She was out of her league.

What about her performance?

[blueblood]

What about her performance?

She got lit up and was whiny the whole time. She didn't bring anything of substance and the only thing she was missing was a tinfoil hat.

[capricorn]

She got lit up and was whiny the whole time. She didn't bring anything of substance and the only thing she was missing was a tinfoil hat.

She reminded me of one of our cherished national symbols, the beaver. With those choppers, she could do serious damage to a tree.

[blueblood]

She reminded me of one of our cherished national symbols, the beaver. With those choppers, she could do serious damage to a tree.

I didn't like the moderator interupting the few exchanges. I mean let it go like a hockey fight and lets see a winner and a loser, thats what the public is looking for in a debate. They have the entire campaign to listen to what the ideas are, the debates are about attacking and defending the ideas.

[PoliticalCitizen]

No knockout punches. I can't tell who won the debate, it looks like Harper was holding back from being mean spirited.

Dion did pretty good. Duceppe did good. Layton did alright. Harper did alright.

What the deuce was May doing there.

My personal opinions after the French round of the debates:

Harper held his ground but looked and sounded MUCH humbler than in English;

Dion proved to be quite eloquent (in French) but his behaviour was not that of a politician;

Duceppe proved a formidable opponent (in French);

May was struggling (in French) but still able to get her point across.

I think the round table was an EXCELLENT idea

(Re-post from my debate thread)

[independent]

My suggestion would be to set a threshold of the popular vote (let's say 10%) to allow participation into the debates. This would stop fringe parties from being able to participate, but it would still allow The Greens to get in should they do well enough. We may still end up with 5 parties in the debate. However, if over 10% of the popular vote went to a party, they deserve to be there.

The PQ COULD get 9% of the popular vote and get 40 seats. The green party could get 10% of the popular vote and get 0 seats.

[Wild Bill]

She was invited.

Too bad that in a democracy a party that gets 660,000+ votes in an election has to put up a fuss to get invited to a leadership debate.

For someone who hates Cuba so much, you sure have a questionable attitude towards democracy.

Invited? Wasn't this the lady who was threatening to sue if her party wasn't allowed in the debates? And what was so special about the Greens? Reform got far more votes than that in their first election and were flatly refused entry to the debates.

Tell me again there's no bias in this country.

As for Cuba, it's not a democracy. What relevance does that have for Canada?

[cybercoma]

The PQ COULD get 9% of the popular vote and get 40 seats. The green party could get 10% of the popular vote and get 0 seats.

And? Our electoral system has nothing to do with my proposal nor the televised debate. The reason you provided supports the claim that we need to change our first-past-the-post system to something a little more representative of the voting results, but that doesn't dismiss the idea that we should use popular vote and set a threshold to determine which party leaders get to enter the debates. I think 10% of the entire voting population is quite a sizeable chunk when you consider some countries that have a form of proportional representation set a threshold of 5% before a party can get seats in their houses. This isn't to say that's a good reason to set it at 10%, in fact, the number's not important. I'm just trying to get across the idea that if enough Canadians vote for a party, that party should be heard in the debates. I think enough Canadians vote for The Green Party, but I don't think enough Canadians vote for parties like Christian Heritage or Marxist-Leninist.

[betsy]

She was invited.

Too bad that in a democracy a party that gets 660,000+ votes in an election has to put up a fuss to get invited to a leadership debate.

For someone who hates Cuba so much, you sure have a questionable attitude towards democracy.

Invited? She muscled her way in.

Democracy? How is democracy served when her main purpose to be there is solely to stop Harper and to subtly fight in Dion's corner! I don't think she contributed anything in that debate at all except waste valuable time.

She is crass. What's with all that pointing and wagging the finger at an opponent?

That is very impolite to say the least.

Edited October 2, 2008 by betsy

[betsy]

I found the moderator of that show too soft on those who behaved in an undisciplined manner. He warned right from the onset that he will be cutting off the microphone of those who persists. Dion was rebuked twice, and yet allowed to finish what he was saying.

How can Harper give rebuttals to each accusations of each and eavry opponent in just 45 seconds?

Harper, in my view did very well under the circumstances. At one point all four of them were all talking at the same time and they all looked like 4 unruly children in a classroom.

A journalist had commented that Harper took the "fatherly" stance. That is very positive.