CDZ Who remembers the "gotcha question" row from the 2015 GOP debate season?

[320 Years of History]

I bet more than a few of you recall all the complaining about "trick questions" that followed the first GOP debates last year. The two that come to mind as coming close to having a "gotcha" nature were:

• Who do you think is the greatest president alive today?
  • I recall Mr. Trump answering, "Ronald Reagan." How he missed Reagan's death is beyond me, but whatever...
  • The point of the question wasn't who any one of the candidates chose, but that they (1) chose a living President, and (2) chose someone, anyone. They may not have liked their choices, but then who among us is never called to from among a set of things, none of which we like choosing, but one of which we must nonetheless choose? The job of President will be filled with "best of the worst" type choices. That comes with the territory.
• Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?
  • I remember one of the candidates railing over this question. The obvious answer is "no." It's a "yes or no" question. Just say "no," look at the person who asked it and wait for them to say something else. That or, better still, say "no" and then talk, unbidden, about whatever one wants to talk about. Everyone can tell it was a dumbass question from a content perspective, but it was nonetheless the question asked. Deal with it. It was fine question from the standpoint of presenting an opportunity for the debaters to show their mettle via how they handled it.

With that somewhat laconic review of the past out of the way, let's move forward in time to this week's' Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan. Now I think two of the questions asked were close to a "gotcha" questions: (Transcript here.)

• Secretary Clinton, on the campaign trail, you are calling for an end to the era of mass incarceration, but a lot of folks in the black community blame the 1994 Crime Bill, a bill you supported for locking up a generation of black men.
  
  Given what’s happened since 1994, why should black people trust you to get it right this time? Do you think it was a mistake?
  
  Mr. Lemon essentially asked Mr. Sanders the same basic question, pointing out that he too voted for the bill.
  • Mrs. Clinton's answer (C- or C) -- a wishy-washy "yes, it was a mistake" -- didn't move me.
  • Mr. Sander's answer (C, maybe C+), IMO, was a non-answer, but insofar as it provided substantive context, it was a good answer.
• In a speech about policing, the FBI director James Comey borrowed a phrase saying, “everyone is a little bit racist.” What racial blind spot do you have?
  
  • Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton gave effectively the same answer: as white folks, they know they can't empathize with what minorities must live year in and year out. Okay. I think anyone with half a brain could have predicted that response. I know it's the one I suspected they'd give, and I have half a brain. LOL
    
    What differed was how they each handled delivering their answer:
    • Mrs. Clinton (B-; B) offered an anecdote from a third person perspective and a piece of guidance. Good guidance, but nonetheless, her reply, due to its third person vantage point, had a tone of detachment to it, and that weakened it and it gave her no means of taking the expected "white person's legit disdain for racial injustice" to an empathetic level.
    • Mr. Sanders (B+; A-) offered two first person anecdotes and a summation that drew upon and connected the pathos he engendered in listeners with the action items he would like to pursue. Very elegantly handled question on Mr. Sander's part. He deftly converted the hackneyed theme of the overall answer into something moving, convincing, and believable.
      
      His first tale resonated especially with me because it was drawn from the streets of D.C., and as a lifelong D.C. resident (not the 'burbs, D.C.), it was something I knew was 100% true, and he didn't miss any aspect of the tragedy and angst leading to, during and following event he described. I've seen the same exact thing myself, many times, and I personally experienced its opposite once. A consequence of Mr. Sanders choosing an anecdote that had first person context for me as well as for him is that his answer came across as stronger, and he, more effectively than Mrs. Clinton, communicated his sincerity to the audience.
      
      I'd be interested in learning how others -- others who can examine the answers for what they are, and not in terms of whether they agree or disagree with the remarks -- what others think of the comparative strength of the answers the two candidates gave on this question.

I didn't see the whole thing, nor had I any intent to do so. I just wanted to watch enough to get a sense of how what kind of candidates the two are, to get a sense of how seriously they are taking the race, and how well informed they are on whatever topic I saw them address.

I saw snippets of other parts and was surprised at the similarity between Mr. Sanders and what I believe are the GOP candidates' positions on guns, manufacturing/jobs, and on international trade. The biggest difference I observed was that even though there were plenty of what I'd call "empty" responses in the Flint debate, there was far more substantive, issue-focused discussion in it that I've come by in any GOP debate. That there was led me to feel as though both Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton are better candidates -- that is, persons who are making cogent cases that I should vote for them based on their thinking skills, understanding of the issues, integrity, and so on, instead of how effectively they can berate their opponents -- than are any of the GOP contenders.

I also noticed that both of them know their facts at really detailed levels; it's apparent they each are bringing the full weight of their many years of experience to bear in making their case that I should vote for one or the other of them. (Of course, I can't vote for either of them in the primary because I'm an independent.) That said, I knew each of them was factually wrong to greater and lesser degrees with some of their assertions, even though they were right on many. The area of which I knew Mr. Sanders was wrong was his representation of the effects of NAFTA. I don't recall what Mr. Clinton said that I knew was wrong, but I do remember thinking, "That's just not the whole story." They both, however, had a lot of facts and details they were able to cite at the drop of a hat, more that were correct than that were not.

Why there are such radically different approaches to campaigning between the two parties, I do not know. I know only that from watching bits of the Flint debate, I was able to tell where the two candidates stand (re: the issues I heard discussed) and where their stances are relative to my own.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I don't see how the first question is a "gotcha" question. They're being asked about the consequences of legislation that they supported. As far as the second question goes, I think it was as stupid and unanswerable a question as I have ever heard asked in a debate. What's my blind spot? How would I know, Mr. Lemon, you dweeb? It's a "blind spot". That's means I'm unaware of it. It's the same as asking someone to describe something they can't see. A gotcha question is an unfair, but clever, trap. This was flat-out dumb.

FWIW, Bernie's answer to #2 has generated a fair amount of blow-back and further damaged his reputation amongst AA voters. You might want to move your grade down a notch or two.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't see how the first question is a "gotcha" question. They're being asked about the consequences of legislation that they supported. As far as the second question goes, I think it was as stupid and unanswerable a question as I have ever heard asked in a debate. What's my blind spot? How would I know, Mr. Lemon, you dweeb? It's a "blind spot". That's means I'm unaware of it. It's the same as asking someone to describe something they can't see. A gotcha question is an unfair, but clever, trap. This was flat-out dumb.

FWIW, Bernie's answer to #2 has generated a fair amount of blow-back and further damaged his reputation amongst AA voters. You might want to move your grade down a notch or two.

The first question -- the one about the greatest living President -- is the only one I've heard in all the GOP debates that comes close to (just closer than others, not close in an absolute sense) passing muster for me as a "gotcha" question because the living Presidents are Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama and the question was asked of GOP candidates at a time when an immediate relative of the only GOP choices was also among the current crop of candidates. That meant that the only choices were to choose:

• Carter, who most folks, Dem or GOP, see as being quite a decent statesman and ex-President, but as a pretty ineffective President.
• Bush I is an easy and obvious choice, but for anyone other than Jeb Bush, citing him opens the door to questions about his and his son, Jeb's, positive comparability.
• Bush II is a President many of the then candidates had criticized. Citing him is a "can of worms" that opens the door to further inquiry about why they have derided him and yet cited him. The extent to which one cares not to address that type of "follow on" question may vary.
• Obama -- He's the sitting President from the opposing party. Choosing him closes one's door to criticizing him and his policies, or leaves it less open than one would want, at any later point in one's campaign.
• Clinton -- This choice combines the "Bush I" reason with the "Obama" reason.

Strangely, however, the response to the follow on questions, or the accompanying remark to one's initial answer to the question, is quite simple, that is if one isn't a simpleton:

I chose him because for all I don't like about him, he's still the best among five options, none of which I care for, but they are the only options I'm given. The Presidency will be filled with instances wherein I have to make hard choices I cannot duck. I didn't duck the question; I dealt with it, even though I didn't like it. That shows my readiness to assume the Presidency.
​

One can tell from some of his responses to questions in the Flint debate that Mr. Sanders "gets" that there isn't always an ideal solution or choice one must make, and that one must nonetheless make the choice. Asking men and women in the armed forces to potentially die for their country is one such choice. It's clearly a lesson he's learned from his experience as a Senator, if not from anything that preceded his job as U.S. Senator.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't see how the first question is a "gotcha" question. They're being asked about the consequences of legislation that they supported. As far as the second question goes, I think it was as stupid and unanswerable a question as I have ever heard asked in a debate. What's my blind spot? How would I know, Mr. Lemon, you dweeb? It's a "blind spot". That's means I'm unaware of it. It's the same as asking someone to describe something they can't see. A gotcha question is an unfair, but clever, trap. This was flat-out dumb.

FWIW, Bernie's answer to #2 has generated a fair amount of blow-back and further damaged his reputation amongst AA voters. You might want to move your grade down a notch or two.

I won't alter the grade I gave because I didn't grade based on how others view the answer. I graded it for how I view it. I get the optics and sound of the "poor people" words he chose, and were I aware of additional racially/economically insensitive and glib remarks he's made, I'd reconsider the grade I gave him. I'm not aware of anything, other than that one remark, that suggests Mr. Sanders word choice may have belied character defects (racism; disdain for poor folks solely because they are poor) that suggests I should do anything other than give him the benefit of the doubt.

If Mr. Sanders' insouciant word choice continues to rear its head re: racial topics, I'll grade less favorably those remarks and maybe revise the grade given to his Flint remark. (I say "maybe" because at the time of the debate in Flint, I had no indication of there being anything negative re: his stance on minorities.)

I rarely reticent to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but how many times must I need to do so? For Mr. Sanders, the answer is that the Flint debate is the first time I've found a need to do so with regard to Mr. Sanders. The Flint debate also happens to be the first time I've bothered to listen to what the man has to say.

Note:
Frankly, I had no intention of listening to what Mr. Sanders has to say, but I've arrived at the point of being so disappointed and/or dissatisfied with the other candidates that rather than write him off out of hand, I'd give him my ear and hear him out for a bit. At this point as (1) a man, a man of integrity, and (2) as a candidate, a candidate who is providing substantive content that allows me to discern how it aligns (or doesn't), and the extent to which it aligns with my views, I like more of what I've seen from Mr. Sanders than I do any of the rest of them. Truly, I didn't watch him the other night for any reason other than to gauge what I thought of his character/integrity and his candidacy, that is how he approaches asking for my vote and making the case that he deserves it. For those two dimensions, I was impressed, quite a lot, both in consideration of Mr. Sanders himself and without regard to how the other candidates are in those regards, and I was impressed with him, as go those two dimensions, on a comparative basis.

On the issues and his stance:

• Free Trade -- Strictly speaking, I disagree with Mr. Sanders; however, I grew up and began my adult life in a time when the U.S. was awash with manufacturing and there was no free trade. I've lived the remainder of my life in the free trade environment. I can and have lived just fine under both, so I'm sure I can continue to do so or do so again.
  
  I disagree with Mr. Sanders because he argues against certain existing free trade provisions on the premise that repealing or curtailing them will bring productive jobs back to the U.S. The provisions in question have nearly nothing to do with production/supply, they have to do with prices/demand. I also disagree with him because one policy/program he opposes and that does boost production/supply in the U.S. is among those he'd like to end, and his basis for ending it is that it benefits big companies, nevermind that it also benefits small companies.
  
  Mr. Sanders cites the financial benefit large companies receive from that program as his reason, and he discounts that the overwhelming majority of the program's quantity of beneficiaries are small businesses. That even as whom the program aids is a function of who asks for its help. It's absurd to think that specific financial sums that accrue to thousands of small firms would ever equal that of half a dozen billion dollar firms, each of which only does multi-billion dollar deals.
• The Gun "Issue" -- I disagree more than I agree with him, but still I can live with his position.
• Race issues -- I agree with him.

 

[320 Years of History]

Most especially what I don't see and hear is griping about the questions asked, and looking at the two I've cited above, I'd say that neither strike me as easy ones for well-off and powerful white folks to answer well and candidly.

 

[jwoodie]

So you equate Greatest President and Cartoon Candidate questions with those about Crime and Race?

 

[320 Years of History]

So you equate Greatest President and Cartoon Candidate questions with those about Crime and Race?

Ignoratio elenchi, implied

In terms of the the weight of the subject matter asked about, no.

My point has nothing to do with the question; a question in a debate is what it is, a question to be answered directly. It as to do with the candidates' answers to them.

Even the most novice of ninth grade forensic debaters knows that the easiest way to dismiss a question is to just answer it and use the rest of one's time to talk about something else if one doesn't really want to address the "meat" of the question. Are you suggesting that we should expect less intellectual, rhetorical and elocutionary adroitness from anyone wanting to be President of the United States than we should from a 9th grader?

The questions about the greatest living president and cartoon candidacies are easy to answer because they are basically "throw away" questions that given one the opportunity to say damn near anything that actually is of substance after just directly answering the question as simply as possible. The one about the greatest living president required at a minimum that one name someone who is not dead. Trump couldn't even do that much.

I mean really. The candidates were given something from one to two minutes to respond to the questions asked of them. The cartoon candidacy question was one that required a "yes" or "no" answer. It takes a second or less to deliver either of those responses. After that, the candidate had practically his entire time to say whatever he wanted that would have informed voters about something more important for them to know than the candidate's disdain for the question itself.

 

[jwoodie]

Why don't you post your rants in the Elections forum instead of seeking faux gravitas in the CDZ?