Perhaps you did not understand my focus, which is on the questions candidates are asked and to which they must respond.
The nature of the questions is determined, more than anything else, by the viewpoints of the questioners.
I believe the moderators chosen by the Democrats will elicit responses from the candidates before them which will be of interest to Democrat voters and will inform those same voters in a manner which assists them is arriving at their voting decisions going forward. Democrats, at a Democrat debate event, should be the ones choosing the topics and posing the questions. So the Democrats have this exactly right. Rush Limbaugh, for example, would be a wildly inappropriate moderator. He would have no business whatsoever putting questions to Democrat candidates. Such a thing would be ridiculous.
But Republican potentates, the people who ran that party, were quite content to invite Democrats to moderate their debates in 2016. And I found that ridiculous and completely unacceptable. It was BS.
As far as any of these events being real debates, I agree they are not. But that was not the focus of my earlier writing.
I hope Tulsi has a good showing. No candidate will meet my views 100%, but she is more to the center than some of the kooks on the far left west.
I remember doing a a series of questionnaires at a website before the 2016 election, that would match your point of view to all the candidates and recommend them based on higher percentage of agreement with them. Has anyone seen one for this election?
I was completely serious. Democrats, at least this time around, are respectful of their voters’ views and opinions. OK, perhaps that was not the case back in 2016. But I think, for the 2020 contest, Democrats are doing the best they can to allow their voters to choose their candidate. And I respect that approach. I believe Democrat voters, all across America, should be permitted to select the Democrat Party’s POTUS nominee. And I believe this should happen through the primary election process in every state. I do NOT believe party elites should be able to overrule the will of the people. Insofar as I can discern this year Mr. Perez, who is DNC chairman, is running a fair process. And I tip my cap to the Democrats in this regard.
For Republicans, on the other hand, it is always “next man up”. The Republican elites chose candidates like McCain and Romney . . both total losers. Last time they wanted Jeb so badly it hurt. And all the Republican fat cat donors contributed to Jeb’s campaign massively. Many of those same Republican elites still cannot accept President Trump, any more than they were able to accept President Reagan years ago. It’s because Republican elites are wusses whose main focus is preservation of their personal wealth . . and the country be damned.
The debates loom ever closer. There will be two sessions, each with ten candidates. Session participation was by lottery and Senator Warren came out the winner. She is the only top tier candidate in the first debate session. Night two promises to be a real slugfest with the several other top tier contenders in that session together. It was all luck of the draw. No favorites were played insofar as I’m aware. It was a fair selection process and Senator Warren won. She is up in the polls quite aside from all this debate stuff, so her star is surely on the ascent at this point.
Senator Warren, while not a young person, appears to have the energy and stamina it takes to be POTUS. Really I guess you could say the same about Bernie. Biden, on the other hand, is limiting his campaigning.
The younger Democrat candidates, it seems to me, all have the physical endurance the job of POTUS demands. But then you would anticipate that in a younger person.
ETA for information
The first debate night will be evening of June twenty-sixth, one week from this coming Wednesday. The second half of the debate will happen just one day later, the evening of Thursday, June twenty-seventh.
Again, ten candidates will participate in each session on the two consecutive nights.
Biden channels his inner de Blasio and says “there’s plenty of money to go around”, by which he means he’ll start by taking yours. Trump tax cuts on the chopping block if elected.
He’s also going the very moderate route on healthcare and offering “Medicaid for all”, which is a far cry from Medicare style benefits and a lot more plausible. This basically is just plugging a hole between the ACA and Medicaid benefits levels that happened in certain states that didn’t want to pay extra for that federal benefits expansion.
Gosh Vice President Biden is REALLY taking a beating out there now. Democrat party members more liberal than Mr. Biden are going after him hammer and tongs. Whew, what an onslaught!
Q: Up thread you expressed an opinion it was a fair process so far. Have you changed your mind?
No, not really, I’m not aware of any unfairness to the Vice President coming from within the DNC itself. He is under attack by, much as anything else, the press. It is unusual and counterintuitive to witness the American mainstream media going after any Democrat, no less a party stalwart and a respected former Vice President.
The most worrying thing I have seen, for Vice President Biden’s candidacy, is a report that 97% of Democrats believe he is too old to be their standard bearer. That is a really difficult burden for him to overcome.
Anyway, we have less than one week until the first debate. Be especially watchful on night two, the second session, when the Vice President will be on stage with several of his most outspoken detractors. Heck, I’m guessing by comparison night one, the first debate session, will be practically a lovefest!!
It is difficult to believe this thread is already six months old. First and foremost, I’m grateful to be alive and well and still able to comment here. At my age nothing whatsoever can be taken for granted.
Second, since I am still here and since this is debate week, I’m unable to contain my impulse to use this thread to rip the stupid Republicans a new one. I feel no differently now than I did the day this thread commenced. I think the Democrat POTUS race is important to all Americans, and of course to Democrats in particular. I felt exactly the same way during the runup to the 2016 election, when I eagerly sought back then to view the Republican debates. In both cases this is serious stuff. We are electing a POTUS here. Anyone on that stage could become our next President of the United States of America. Same was true back in 2016.
But the Democrats, at least for this first debate, both sessions over the two nights, are so much smarter and more responsible than were the Republicans back in 2016. Both Democrat debate sessions will be broadcast OTA on NBC. “OTA” stands for “over the air”. This means everyone who wants to will be able to view this week’s Democrat contest for free. And, darn it, that is the way it OUGHT to be. So kudos to the Democrats for properly recognizing the importance of their debate process and making it available to be viewed by ALL Americans.
I recall in 2016 contacting the RNC because I badly wanted to view the Republican debates back then. But the haughty, fat cat, Republicans only made their proceedings available on paid media . . . satellite and cable. Like millions of other Americans, I do not have either of those paid services. With the Republicans, if you do not ante up for paid TV, you can go to hell. Conversely, the Democrats include everyone!!
Acknowledgement
I realize the Democrats will be holding many debates and it is possible not all will be broadcast OTA. If the Democrats limit some of their future debates to paid media only, I will have exactly the same contempt for that approach that I have when the Republicans pull the same stunt. All POTUS debates should be broadcast OTA. Period.
I agree. Think about all the fun we would miss. Here is Steve Hayward’s (from Powerline) Democrat debate drinking rules:
—Every time Bernie says “millionaires and billionaires,” take a nice sip of Bordeaux.
—Every time Fauxchaontas Warren says “the top 1 percent,” take a sip of whisky.
Every time Joe Biden says something goofy or incoherent, take a swig of beer. (This is why you need a keg, of course. A case of beer won’t make to the end.)
—Every time any of the candidates say “free,” have a handful of popcorn.
—Every time Jay Inslee mentions climate change, turn down your thermostat by a degree to increase your carbon footprint. (Or put an extra burger or hot dog on your charcoal grill.)
Are you 100% sure this is true? Isn’t it possible that Fox News paid for the exclusivity of hosting and broadcasting some of the Republican debates? The party could have negotiated it be on Fox or gone with another network.
Says the numerous debates were hosted by a number of TV outlets/hosts. Including cable and over the air networks. And the Fox News/CNN debates still had far more viewers than any of the “free” broadcasts.
I don’t think you followed what I was saying. Obviously all networks are interested in hosting debates, so the party could choose to have them all on broadcast if the wanted to. I didn’t say whether it was a good choice or a bad choice to have debates on cable vs broadcast, just that they could choose. It’s only up to the networks to the point that they have to negotiate with the party against the other networks.
Right. But contrary to what was claimed, they had debates on numerous networks, including ABC and CBS. And the “over the air” broadcasts were among the lowest rated, dispelling the notion that viewership was intentionally restricted.
In this instance, it doesnt look like anyone really had to outbid anyone else, they pretty much debated as much as anyone cared to carry it. It doesnt seem like OTA networks were intentionally shut out (yes, that’s my interpretation of 12 debates carried by 4 different networks, not a fact.) Even if so, if other OTA networks didnt want to make a competitive bid, they still carry the blame; the ratings clearly show the RNC chose what gave them the widest audience anyways.
Tin foil hat theory wonders if the OTA networks didnt want to carry a bulk of those debates because they didnt want to help publicize the ongoing circus.
Many things influence how many people watch a debate, things other than method of distribution (pay vs. free OTA). For example, recall back in 2016 that Hillary demanded her debates with Bernie be broadcast opposite popular sports programming, in order to hold down viewership.
I maintain both political parties’ debates should be available to all Americans to view gratis. If people choose not to watch, that is on them. But no American should be forced to pay money to view a POTUS debate.
All that said, I was messed up when I posted earlier excoriating the Republicans and praising the Democrats. Have learned next month’s Democrat debate, the July debate, will be broadcast on CNN only. So they are just as bad as the Republicans. I hope I will be able to see that debate regardless via live streaming or at least be able to listen to it on the radio. We are choosing a POTUS here for goodness sake!! Are only well-heeled people invited to participate in the process?
Well, the good thing is I’m pretty sure the debates can be watched for free on youtube… you know, for those who don’t even have a TV, or have a TV without an antenna.
Since I don’t own a TV, they can buy me a 75" Sony and an antenna. Alternatively, they can come to my back yard to speak, but they better bring lots of beer.
