Would Your Candidate Benefit From Smaller Debates?

[DrFunkenstein]

I wonder how many people here think that the debates should be broken up into smaller groups to allow more interaction and longer responses?

Conversely, who do you think benefits from a crowded stage?

If you are really ambitious, rank the Dems according to their debating prowess.

<>

[Bombtrack]

1. both of my top too would

Edwards and Kerry have proven debate skills, and it's too bad some of the other the other candidates are exploiting the rediculous soudbite debate series

[spooky3]

2. I'd like to see smaller groups. I don't think anyone benefits

from a crowded stage and short sound bites.

[bryant69]

3. The problem

Is how do you handicap smaller debates? I mean three on three, yeah, but if you put three together, then how do you judge the final performance. "Kerry looked good, but he only had to contened with Mosley Braun and Lieberman. Dean wasn't as polished but he had one of the tougher debates against Kucinich and Clark." It would be very difficult to set up I think.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[spooky3]

6. IMHO, it doesn't matter who "wins" since these aren't really debates.

Instead, they are an opportunity for candidates to get media time to get their messages out. You could randomly choose participants in each subgroup.

[bryant69]

8. Yeah, but

that's how the media will frame them. It's the Horse Race. And if I were a campaign manager, I don't think i'd forget that.

[LSdemocrat]

4. I think LONGER debates are the answer

but no network other than C-Span would show them.

These debates should be about 3 hours long to force candidates to move beyond soundbites and get really into the issues.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. I'm A Political Junkie And That Sounds Torturous

And it still doesn't get the interaction you get with smaller groups. That's where they reveal themselves.

[Bombtrack]

5. Dean already pussied out from a NH debate with Kerry

I guess that shows his confidence in his debate skills

[dsc]

7. No it shows his respect for the other candidates

Unlike Kerry, who evidently has some sense of entitlement, Dean thinks all the candidates should be heard.

[salinen]

9. the real debate

just how will mcflightsuit get out of debating demoX. thug think tanks are working overtime to find ways out. since media is corpthink, they could make rules so tight that bush will appear almost average. obviously all question will be known beforehand and handed off as if candidate were hearing for the first time. i'm getting used to having more than one butt plug shoved up my hole.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Um, Dean Challenged Kerry Then Backed Out

"I wish he'd say to my face what he says behind my back," Dean said before disappearing behind the door.

"I just wish he had given me a chance to respond to all that stuff - the zero experience on foreign affairs, the NRA stuff, the tax cut stuff," Dean said.

"I would have liked to have responded to that in person," Dean said, relishing the thought of getting mouthy with Kerry.

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0903/101470.html

Kerry took those remarks as a dare.

"Let's have a debate. And let's talk about the real issues for the country and show people the differences between us," Kerry said on CBS television.

"I welcome Governor Dean's challenge. If he wants a challenge and he wants us to go face-to-face, I accept," the Massachusetts Democrat said.

"We could do it in Iowa. We could do it in New Hampshire," he suggested, naming two pivotal states holding the earliest presidential primary election contests next year.

"I think people would love to see the differences between us. And there are many," said Kerry who has taken the gloves off in recent days and is stepping up his attacks on Dean.

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dd/Qus-politics-democrats.R3rV_DSE.html

<>

[dsc]

13. Kerry took them as a dare which makes him an idiot

they were said after Kerry was too chicken to bring that stuff up at a debate but instead hid behind faxes. People who aren't dishonest or idiotic know what Dean meant. He meant bring it up at the next debate.

[spooky3]

14. or "talk to me personally about it."

[DrFunkenstein]

12. I Think Smaller Debates Would Reveal More About Character

It is hard to get a sense of anyone in the bigger groups, and it would give the lesser known candidates like Kucinich a chance to shine.

[Lady President]

15. Of course

I'm a Kerry supporter, so I definitely think smaller debates would help. All the candidates can recite some bullet points, but longer answers would show the depth of Kerry's knowledge.

[lysergik]

16. It won't benefit the candidates..

..It will however benefit the voter. Its time for some of the dead weight to drop off the ol' election train and get down to some real debating so we can get a real feel for whom we want to cast our votes on!

[gottaB]

17. Perhaps, but be careful what you wish for

Carol owned the Planned Parenthood forum (the transcript is kind of flaky, but the webcast from cspan is fine). Her every response was solid. Quite a few were golden. Was it because only six candidates took part? Perhaps that played a part, but it was a well managed debate, with guaranteed equal time, some decent questions, a moderator who was congenial yet firm, and a pervasive mood of conviviality--despite the best efforts of some candidates to get their digs in.

It seemed to me at moments that candidate Kerry wasn't there to debate anybody besides candidate Dean. Maybe that's a good campaign strategy considering Dean's lead in New Hampshire and how vital that race is to Kerry, or Dean's stature in the press and lead over Kerry in the nation as a whole. Then again, maybe it's not such a good strategy. For sure as a way of presenting oneself on a national stage, it doesn't say much for Kerry's debating prowess.

You know what I'm talking about, don't you? Like Kerry was given 30 seconds to respond to Braun's statement about funding health care, and he chose instead to criticize Dean's statement about tax cuts. Oh, well Dean did likewise, talking past Kucinich to launch an attack on Kerry. But that's so juvenile. It's not even an excuse, it's just self-defeating. Why do you suppose Braun came out smelling like a rose? Because nobody attacked her, or because instead of attacking others she answered questions with a combination of her best boilerplate and a genuine attempt to address the issues raised? It's all about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Carol respected her host, her fellow Democrats, and the audience, and it made her come off as deserving of respect in return.

Like the debate over Saudi Arabia. I rather agree with John Kerry's views on the matter, but the way he phrased them didn't directly confront the original question of promoting women's rights in the international arena, and the moderator was already a piqued about not getting a straight answer to the question the first go-round. So was that an example of Kerry's debating prowess, or what?

To cite yet another example, was "no moms, and no wives" such a difficult caveat to understand? This is like big league softball, not some company picnic.

Despite my criticism of Kerry's comportment at the Planned Parenthood forum, I do think in general he conveyed a genuine sense of humor and spoke intelligently to the issues. I'll repeat that. He conveyed a genuine sense of humor and spoke intelligently to the issues. Those winning qualities, inasmuch as he brings them to every debate and public appearance, set him apart and establish his public image as presidential material.

As clear as Kerry's leadership quality appear to me, it seems equally clear that certain debate formats encourage intelligent discussion and conviviality, regardless of how many candidates participate.

If the question is whether a crowded stage hurts the process, the answer is negative. Absolutely. Lousy moderators hurt the process, lousy questions, lousy interrogators, lousy formats, lousy crowd control, and lousy responses from the candidates. But the candidates themselves, which ones are you going to call lousy? Once you ask the question, you better have some answers about who exactly you mean.

I'm critical of Kerry here not because you support Kerry, but because this idea of the too-crowded stage is eminating most noticably from the Kerry campaign. If one campaign is going to undermine the debates that way, that makes me wonder about whether their candidate repsects the debates, the moderators, the audience, the voters, the primary process, democracy itself. That's not a matter of prowess. If you want a metaphor to describe what I'm talking about, think "nurturing." The candidates I want to see on the stage are the ones that nurture democratic participation. The others (* for instance) can go fly a kite.