How does this have any possibility of energizing the stay at home faction? Getting an independant vote or a Trump vote?
Every day a leading candidate seems to do something to lose possible votes. Even the ones who have no chance (I’m looking at you Beto) do stuff that hurts the overall party.
At least it seems that way to me…and slightly related: I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump refuses to debate at all before the election. In Trumpland (his head) theres no way to get an impartial moderator. And who knows…the Dem nominee will probably get the Q’s fed to them early, and at the end of the day…99% of the media will spin whatever Trump says or does anyway.
I dont understand the perception that Trump won’t debate. Modern political debate is not a classical Oxford-style duel of ideas. It’s a contest of who can get their sound bites out there fastest and clearest, and it’s a test of who won’t back down. All of which seems like it would appeal to Trump.
If you like, use the metaphor I heard, that described the ‘debate’ between Ted Cruz and Alyssa Milano. Debating Alyssa Milano is like playing chess with a flock of pigeons. The pigeon is just going to ignore the pieces, strut back and forth over the board knocking them over, and shit on everything. All to coos from the rest of the flock.
Trump’s going to do exactly the same thing. He gets off on it. His base expects it. Why wouldn’t he take the opportunity to insult, e.g., Elizabeth Warren in person?
I know. While it shouldn’t have to be this way, why can’t the democrats dig up a tall, charismatic white male* who’s young enough to still be decent looking. Someone who’s a military veteran with a clean record and no scandals, who’s still married to his first wife and known to be faithful.
Who has been seen on video shooting firearms and isn’t for taking them away. Basically, a candidate with the maximum chance of getting votes, especially from elderly people who might otherwise vote for Trump because they would rather vote for a white con-man than a black lady.
Surely the Democrats have someone inoffensive they can dig up from their stable?
Hell, wouldn’t Tom Hanks fit most of these criteria?
*again, before the inevitable accusations of racism/sexism: it isn’t right but I think it would be better for the country to have a “conventional” President than 4 more years of the cheeto.
At least not until the field gets reduced down to the top candidates only.
Three hours is far too long and frankly it’s about soundbites. Who can emerge with a talking point for the talking heads to reverberate for the next week?
Huh. A Hanks/Warren ticket might be just the thing. Immediately following the inauguration, Tom could make a speech acknowledging that the presidency is NOT a job for amateurs, and resign in favor of Elizabeth.
Remember the debate where the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they’d provide coverage to undocumented immigrants, and if they think it shouldn’t be a crime to cross the border without documentation? You may or may not, today; but I sure do expect to see it getting shown plenty of times if one of those hand-raisers winds up running against Trump — and I expect that visual to matter plenty, too.
That kind of candidate will get no media exposure in today’s age.
Steve Bullock and Michael Bennet are probably the closest to being the inoffensive, mild-mannered, middle of the road candidate who can appeal to less urban areas but they have no traction because there’s nothing about them that sparks publicity.
You think that politicians care about party, the people, and the nation? Well… they don’t. Why do you think politicians constantly and knowingly advocate for destructive policies?
To be honest I’d forgotten all about that which shows how much debates mean to me!
That kind of hands up question to be honest was a hiding to nothing. Anyone who didn’t would get destroyed by the vocal and more urban liberals who dominate social media. You only need to see the reaction to anyone who doesn’t go as far as supporting Medicare For All (but do support a public option) now getting compared to republicans despite the fact republicans don’t want either.
In other words, you want the Democrats to field a stereotypical Republican candidate and convince Democrats to vote for him?
No women, minorities, or unconventional people need apply, let’s get back to 1950’s America when white Christian men were in charge and everyone else knew their place, STFU, and got with the program.
Have you any idea how offensive your suggestion is on so many levels?
In other words, you want Mike Pence as the Democratic candidate. No thanks - four years of him as governor was more than enough.
Basically, your post comes down to “why can’t Democrats be Republicans”? Also, screw women and minorities getting into politics.
No thanks.
You know, aside from having a husband instead of a wife Buttigieg might fit your description.
This early on, the point isn’t for people to watch the debates, but the candidates to get their messaging straight, and get a handle on their opponents. It is to get some of their ideas out there among those who will watch the debates and report on them at a later date, when the majority are paying attention.
I’m not watching, and I don’t really care right now. But I will care later when I’m looking up a compilation of what each candidate’s message is and choosing who I want to vote for in the primaries.
It may seem weird, given what happened in 2015, but this is what a normal political primary season feels like. It’s weird to be watching it so closely, and most people aren’t.
What’a a fallacy about it? The most *electable *president may not be very “diverse” and they may need to hold positions that are not very palatable to some democrats. (such as leaving gun rights alone)
The fallacy is that you implied it is only one or the other - Trump or your vision of an electable Democrat. That may be your opinion, but that is all it is.
Even assuming your view of what characteristics make someone most electable is correct( and I’m not sure I agree ), most electable does not equal the only one capable of being elected in opposition to Trump.
IMHO one of the problems is the long cycle of campaigning leading up to the first caucus or primary vote being cast. I would be all for knocking off at least 6 months of this nonsense. All these debates really serve to do is introduce the candidates to the small interested audience. By having such a long period of time and multiple debates we fall into the old trap of “familiarity breeds contempt”. We end up micro-critiqueing and looking for “Oh snap!” garbage reality TV moments.
Almost all (but not all) of the early declared candidates are just fine, generally conventional choices, and in any normal election season could rise to the top in the primaries. But we are in Trump’s universe now, so there are no more rules.
There are definitely too many of them, it would be nice if the national party put up greater hurdles to winnow the numbers - but again that would work better if it all didn’t start so early. It would be unfair to tell someone they aren’t worthy before one primary vote has been cast.
I’m not seeing a fallacy. I see a clear and logical decision.
Say you have cancer. You could elect for no treatment, surgery, or surgery + chemo + radiation.
You *may *survive cancer regardless of your choice. “No treatment” would be equivalent to running Hillary again in 2020, “surgery” would be running a diverse candidate who has some views that most of America disagree with (such a gun control), and the 3 treatment option is running a generic white guy with nothing offensive.
Data (past election results in this case, or medical data) says the 3 treatment option has the best chance of success.
It’d be great if a “clear and logical” approach lay before us for choosing a Democratic nominee. But it doesn’t.
If we focus on appealing to elderly, pro-gun-rights voters who need a white male nominee, we risk losing turnout from the rest of the Democratic tent.
Many of them - especially the young - will not vote unless something about the nominee’s background or policy positions suggests “change.” Even if the alternative is Trump!
“Past election results” don’t prove much. Gore lost in 2000, Kerry lost in 2004, and Obama won in 2008 and 2012. And in any case, the electorate is changing - not only demographically but also in its political positions and its attitudes about race and gender.
You’re asking for a custom-made candidate - but it’s an off-the-rack world.