Not the most substantive observation, I'll admit, but watching the GOP debate it's hard to avoid the sense that ten candidates is an awful lot. Maybe they could do random lotteries to pick five out of the ten to participate in any given debate or something. Things wound up totally lacking in structure and focus.
« Telling the Difference | Main | Giuliani's Twists »
The Also-Rans
04 May 2007 01:11 am
Comments (20)
Every 4 years, everyone complains about the "debate" formats and nothing ever changes. It's about time we resign ourselves to these useless squawk sessions.
What the hell were you watching the Republican debate for? Warriors-Mavs!
Isn't the logical outcome a mash-up of presidential debates and reality television competitions wherein candidates are voted off by viewers? This would encourage the front-runners to say something interesting and give a bit more attention to the lesser-knowns. The Republicans have made their campaign a race to the lowest common denominator, so the transition should be pretty easy.
0x10=?
Round robin would be better.
The debate format sucked, no question. I especially enjoyed MSNBC going to the trouble of asking nearly ever candidate during the wrap interviews whether or not they liked the format... Were they expecting them to say "Yes, absolutely", or was Olberman trying to make a point upstairs?
At any rate, why not move this entire mess to the "internets"? Why can't some substantive online outlet (insert schlock MSM site here) host a long form debate and then the television outlets can just show edited clips and highlights? It's what they wind up doing anyway after the first run, so why not let the presidential hopefuls pontificate the first time around?
Nobody can possibly defend what went on tonight (or during the earlier Dem fiasco) - it's ridiculous. Split the screen up like the Brady Bunch and let bloggingheads.tv host it. On the Dem side, let the candidates debate for the netroots vote on HuffingtonPost, or some other quasi-major blog.
Every election cycle the candidates sit down with the major papers for wide ranging interviews on policy that then get written up as long form articles, so standardize the questions a bit - ask everyone and edit those together and offer them on the NYT website.
It's not like we're going to lose anything at all from it not being "live" from some college auditorium aside from the ability to quickly shift coverage to the "spin room" (which is always the cue to crack open beer number seven and throw bottle six at the TV screen).
Somebody has to be considering this, it seems so obvious... All it requires is the veneer of authority that an MSM outlet like a dying newspaper can lend to it. If anyone has the connections and is so inclined - debatecast.org is available ;-)
Matt... don't you mean the ten candidates are an awful lot?
Does anyone ever remember a debate that "worked" with more than 3 people involved? So why not just invite the top 3? If one declines, invite the next one? Etc.? The loss of Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore and Paul wouldn't be so devastating.
Where did Gilmore come from anyway? I don't remember hearing he was even in the race.
This is what we get instead of actual reporting. Imagine a world where every one of these ten candidates got an hour in-depth on multiple news shows over the course of the next three months, as a public service. Quel domage!
right..look at the survey pie chart on Kevin Drum's page. Hunter and Gilmore came in 4, 5. They'll hang around. I think this race will be determined by the order in which wingnut candidates drop out. Who gets Sam Brownback? Or Tom Tancredo? The undecideds and whackjobs all have a place to go now. What happens when they have to make a choice between a baby killer, a traitor and worst of all a Mormon?
Forgot in thing....eat it Mark Cuban. Eat it raw
What a freak show that was!
The format made each one of them cut right to what they do best. It exposed their craziness because they didn't time to dance around the question.
Mabye it was good idea.
I would like to know where the outrage is at Tommy Thompson's answer on the workplace discrimination question. Thompson, who had a deer in the headlight look to the question of if it is okay to fire people because they are gay, eventually responded, after a few seconds of scared silence, that, yeah, it's okay to fire them because they are gay. Sullivan, who one expects to fire up the outrage, mentions it, but seems to think it is par for the course, which is true in a Republican primary, but that seems to be why we should be outraged--neither the New York Times or the Post mentions that the former governor of Wisconsin and Secretary of Health and Human Services thinks firing people because the boss doesn't like their sexual orientation is fine. Obviously Thompson thought it was what he needed to say--lucky for him he wasn't asked his thoughts on the Jews.
complain about the format all you want. but if you watched it, nobody has any reason to change anything - everyone who watched contributed to the ratings, and if the ratings are good enough, the advertisers will be there, and, etc..
I am 99.9% assured of voting for a Democrat for Pres., but I swear watching these GOP freaks gave me HOPE, because I would vote for any one of those guys right now to replace what we've got. It's all an upgrade in 2008.
I'm rooting for someone to try to put on a debate featuring all 18 candidates at once, both Democrat and Republican.
How can it work? Three hours. Two topics (I'd start with the Iraq war and immigration). Eighteen candidates. The moderator doesn't ask questions, just makes sure that no one hogs the time giving long speeches, and that no more than one or two candidates are speaking at the same time. At least it would make for compelling television.
The problem with these things are that all eighteen candidates have had just enough experience to serve as President. They are all current or former cabinet members, governors, Senators, congressmen, and/or big city mayors. Guiliani, probably the Republcan frontrunner, actually has the least relevant experience of the group.
So you can't use experience to filter anyone else (by the way, I thought Sharpton being included last time was a travesty). Polls this early are pretty much meaningless. So what criteria do you use? Fundraising? Do you really want to make it that blantant? Why not just have the networks auction off the debate slots then?
btonf cjfz avqfi lxknfr ldeofr deylspu lpuzbf
Comments closed May 18, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The arrangement of these debates is awful. The overabundance of candidates prevents anyone from saying very much of merit and the cowardly rules do much to disabuse one of the notion that this is really a rhetorical contest. I would recommend a more direct method with fewer candidates and that they could freely engage one and other at length, but I don't know that they would bear that and who would have the patience to hear them out?
Posted by Paludicola | May 4, 2007 1:29 AM