My problem with the debates

[maui902]

Based on my reading many posts on DU about the 2020 election, objective #1 for most progressives is to defeat Donald Trump. With that being the primary objective, I'm worried about what seems to me a rush by the DNC and the media giants to narrow down the field too quickly.

What triggered this post were repeated comments by commentators that those who are polling low have one shot to make a game changing impression in the debates this week, which is exceedingly difficult to do with 10 candidates on the stage at a time and limited opportunity to make such an impression. While I can't disagree with these comments, I take issue with the process that's been established to create this situation.

It's probably too late, but it would have been far better in my opinion if the DNC had been less focused on narrowing the field and more focused on a process that would be better suited to identify the best candidate to take on the incumbent.

If the DNC had focused on the latter objective, they could have insisted on every candidate being interviewed by a panel on CNN or MSNBC over a period of weeks, and then commissioned a reputable polling company to conduct a poll shortly after those panel interviews to determine those whom the general public favored over the others--before having a debate with multiple candidates on stage; or, if they wanted to increase the ratings, set up a debate bracket pitting various candidates against each other ranked by the polls (Biden #1 vs the last person in the polls; Warren #2 vs the second to last person in the polls, etc.) with a poll taken after each debate to declare a "winner."

I don't think what the DNC came up with is unfair; i just don't think it's the best process to have vetted all the candidates and I fear that there may be a Carter, Clinton, or Obama back in the pack who will be weeded out before the voters recognize him or her.

[msongs]

1. nobody is required to drop out if they are not doing what DNC says nt

[marybourg]

2. Please consider editing to break huge slab

of print into paragraphs. It looks interesting, but impossible for elderly me to read.

[maui902]

7. My problem with the debates

I took a crack at it. Hope it's easier to read now, and thank you for the comment. I'm one of those at my office who encourages the younger folks to break up their text to facilitate reading, so I should practice what I preach!

[Bradshaw3]

3. I would have preferred interviews with a select number of candidates rather than this format

The MSNBC debates were terrible as far as learning more about the candidates. Hopefully CNN will do better, but it's hard with that many on stage and limited time.

[maui902]

6. My problem with the debates

Agreed. I watched the debates, but was frustrated that each candidate had so little time to speak and, as a result, each candidate was focused less on substance and more on coming up with something that would make an impression. Just not the best format to reveal what a candidate is really all about. I've watched as many interviews as I could on a variety of shows, but I think it would have been helpful in CNN and/or MSNBC had a series of panelists interviewing each candidate before staging the debates.

[Clash City Rocker]

4. It's more an issue with the large field, IMO

It is important to narrow the field a little, I think. Democrats need more than hatred of Trump, they need to stand for something.

That said, it’s nice to see someone choosing Bullock. He was my early dark horse candidate. I think he’d be a great running mate for a few of the front runners, at the very least.

[northoftheborder]

5. One would reasonably think.....

- That a method for presenting the candidates, with their personalities and programs thoroughly reviewed in a measured manner, could be devised. This system, of several "debates" with each person getting mere minutes to speak, is ridiculous. It has been like this for decades, since television was invented.

It has been helpful to see many of them in hour long "town halls" - but scattered over various networks and times, and not well publicized ahead of time. And not all of them had such coverage.

Even with just two candidates, the existing method of timed responses to journalists haphazard questions, some good, some bad, is totally inadequate for the public to be educated. Yes, you can go online to see their issues outlined, but how many people do that?

The present plan of debates is good for one thing: it gives "pundits" hours of analysis to fill their commercial hours.

Some think tank should come up with a better method. Of course, one big problem in the past has been the candidates - not being able to agree on anything.

[maui902]

9. My problem with the debates

I have some of the same issues with Congressional hearings. I watched many hours of the Watergate hearings, and they were riveting at times. With the current format of 5 minutes with members of each party alternating their time, it's very difficult to follow, and often allows the witness being questioned to run out the clock, which I suspect is the point.

Regarding the debates, I would very much like to see a proposal from a think tank, as you've suggested, that is based on what we should be trying to accomplish--finding the best candidate by thoroughly vetting that candidate up front. I suspect and hope that we'll end up with a candidate we can all support, but the current format is not the best way to do that.

[JI7]

8. they need to change the rules to allow anyone who has served in public office

within the past x number of years to participate.

for others they should have things like fundraising and poll numbers to qualify.

[Thekaspervote]

10. Agree.. I much prefer to judge a candidate on past deeds, not by some I gotcha moment that's

Been planned and practiced. Glitz and showmanship is just that... and very shallow