I just got the time and inclination at once (rare) to respond more fully to your thoughts, above.

You said:

“Not all of us are that stupid.”

YESSS! I hope?

“Some of us are just lazy,…”

Wait…..

“…and most of us aren’t in a position to back a candidate into a corner and demand a straight answer.”

True! However, you are in a position to start making noise about how candidates don’t answer the questions given them. I mean, if voting for a can’t-possibly-win third party might make a difference, how much more might an internet i’m-pissed-and-you-should-be-too meme?

d

Keep writing, dear! You make me think, laugh, and check things out. I think all of us need people like you in our lives.

I agree, which is why I think they probably weren’t told. But the point I was trying to make is that some people - journalists, savvy voters, even party operatives on both sides - should know that a candidate will try to dodge, and be on the lookout for it.

Whether that makes a difference in the outcome of an election or not, I can’t say. Probably not. But if dodging is as common as the NPR article indicates, I’d expect somebody in the media to speak up when it happens.

Dave

d

I think the Rogers study is interesting, and the results do suggest how politicians can get away with dodging questions. But I’d like to see more on the methodology in that study. Did the test subjects know they were being tested on their ability to detect a dodge? My guess is they did not. If that’s the case then the results only apply to a hypothetical “average” viewer, one who isn’t so much concerned with the details of issues and is only trying to decide who they “like” more. (Politics is a popularity contest sometimes, you know.)

A professional journalist or a highly engaged viewer should already know that dodging may occur, and be able to see it when it happens. It doesn’t seem to me to be that hard; you just need to be able to tell if the candidate answered the question that was asked.

But another possibility occurs to me. Since most viewers aren’t asking the questions directly, they have to try to glean answers to their own concerns from the answers given to other questions. So to use the example from the NPR article, if I’m more concerned about health care than about drug abuse, I may feel like the candidate answered my question, even if he didn’t answer the question that was posed to him. If the candidate knows the majority of viewers are more concerned about health care than drug abuse, it may be worth blowing off the drug abuse question to speak to them.

Dave

And yeah, I think a lot of people blame the president for everything they think is wrong, and that isn’t fair (regardless of the president). It’s a display of their ignorance; not of his shortcomings.

If y’all get a chance, read the link I posted about why politicians don’t answer questions. I’m interested in hearing y’all’s thoughts on that.

d

Diana,

Not all of us are that stupid. Some of us are just lazy, and most of us aren’t in a position to back a candidate into a corner and demand a straight answer. Those who are - journalists who have access to a candidate - are more interested in their own ratings and keeping their access to the politicians. Truth isn’t the commodity they’re dealing with; story is.

Lorraine makes an interesting point about bullying and politics. What I imagine most high schoolers don’t realize is that in politics, that kind of behavior is theatre. Anyone who takes it personally doesn’t last long in that business. Again, it’s about the story, not the truth.

Dave