DNC debate favoritism

[Shiranui117]

I have to say, I'm even more disappointed with this round of debates than I am with the first one. Gillibrand, Gabbard and Yang are seriously getting the shaft as far as speaking time goes. I timed a full 20-minute gap where Gabbard and Yang didn't get the chance to speak even once. When Gillibrand was called on to respond to something, she was flustered for a minute, probably because she wasn't even expecting to be receiving the chance to talk.

I'd like to see a news outlet who isn't in bed with the DNC and who doesn't play favorites give candidates like these the chance to speak. Have on the candidates who have been left out and disinvite the media darlings like Harris, Biden, Booker, Sanders, O'Rourke, Buttigieg and Warren. We the American people have given money to candidates with the expectation that we would have the opportunity to hear them speak on the national stage. That hasn't happened.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Agreed. It's a scam. I'd like to hear more of what Andrew Yang has to say.

 

[Terry Sampson]

IMO, televised candidate debates are non-informative. For the literate consumer, each candidate either does or does not express their position on a variety of relevant issues on their website. For the written-word averse consumer, a televised single-person hour or so interview with a reputable interviewer could enable each candidate to get their position made public ... without the annoying "jousting" and crowd applause and cheering.

Or maybe each candidate should be invited or obliged to become an RF member where they could run our gauntlet for a couple of months.

 

[siti]

Or maybe each candidate should be invited or obliged to become an RF member where they could run our gauntlet for a couple of months.

Well I think that should've occurred to them before now - its such an obvious solution. I'm definitely voting Terry Sampson for President - who's your running mate? We should have a thread on that...hang on...

 

[Left Coast]

I have to say, I'm even more disappointed with this round of debates than I am with the first one. Gillibrand, Gabbard and Yang are seriously getting the shaft as far as speaking time goes. I timed a full 20-minute gap where Gabbard and Yang didn't get the chance to speak even once. When Gillibrand was called on to respond to something, she was flustered for a minute, probably because she wasn't even expecting to be receiving the chance to talk.

I'd like to see a news outlet who isn't in bed with the DNC and who doesn't play favorites give candidates like these the chance to speak. Have on the candidates who have been left out and disinvite the media darlings like Harris, Biden, Booker, Sanders, O'Rourke, Buttigieg and Warren. We the American people have given money to candidates with the expectation that we would have the opportunity to hear them speak on the national stage. That hasn't happened.

I LOLed at the notion that Sanders is a media darling, but I overall sympathize with your point.

The reason the people you listed get more speaking time is because they're doing better in the polls. So on one hand, what is the point of giving more time to Marianne Williamson when we all know it is statistically unthinkable that she will be President? At the same time, I do think lesser known candidates should be given more time so they can have the chance to climb higher in the polls.

Do you have any thoughts for a better debate format? The only thing I can imagine is smaller groups of 4 or 5 candidates, stretched out over a week. That still has downsides, but it would give the opportunity for greater exposure to all candidates.

 

[Left Coast]

IMO, televised candidate debates are non-informative. For the literate consumer, each candidate either does or does not express their position on a variety of relevant issues on their website. For the written-word averse consumer, a televised single-person hour or so interview with a reputable interviewer could enable each candidate to get their position made public ... without the annoying "jousting" and crowd applause and cheering.

Or maybe each candidate should be invited or obliged to become an RF member where they could run our gauntlet for a couple of months.

I think debates are valuable because they allow people's talking points to be challenged in a way that wouldn't happen if we let Dana Bash interview each of 20 people for an hour a piece.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I'm curious about Kamala Harris. She seems the only one with much to say. A woman president? She'll have an uphill battle.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I think debates are valuable because they allow people's talking points to be challenged

I agree that a candidate's "talking point" that merits a challenge ought to be challenged.
10 candidates, two-hour "debate". 120 minutes/10 = 12 minutes per candidate (more or less) to state your position, challenge an opponent, respond to all challenges doesn't satisfy me.
You're not excited by a 1 to 1.5 or 2 hr. opportunityto respond to a single interviewer's questions (on T.V.)??? Okay, who says some of that time can't be given to responding to call-in/texted/email challenges from other candidates?

A two-hour, 10 candidate "debate" is convenient for folks who don't have or don't want to spend 10 to 20 hours over, say, 10 weeks. Maybe it's just me and my age, ... but IMO, before I let someone screw me for four years, I'd kinda like to get some sense of whether or not there's a chance I'll respect them in the morning after a 1 or 2 hour one-night stand.

 

[Left Coast]

I agree that a candidate's "talking point" that merits a challenge ought to be challenged.
10 candidates, two-hour "debate". 120 minutes/10 = 12 minutes per candidate (more or less) to state your position, challenge an opponent, respond to all challenges doesn't satisfy me.
You're not excited by a 1 to 1.5 or 2 hr. opportunityto respond to a single interviewer's questions (on T.V.)???

Definitely not anyone from cable news, God no. Do you watch that stuff?

Okay, who says some of that time can't be given to responding to call-in/texted/email challenges from other candidates?

I'd rather just see them debate directly. Candidates can message each other on Twitter any time they want.

A two-hour, 10 candidate "debate" is convenient for folks who don't have or don't want to spend 10 to 20 hours over, say, 10 weeks. Maybe it's just me and my age, ... but IMO, before I let someone screw me for four years, I'd kinda like to get some sense of whether or not there's a chance I'll respect them in the morning after a 1 or 2 hour one-night stand.

To be clear, I hate the debate format we've had thus far. Not defending it at all. Doesn't allow for substantive discussion of policy. I honestly think the most direct solution is to shrink the field by raising the bar of who can be in these things (and fortunately that will start happening in debate round #3). I'm sorry, no one in the lower half of the field (in terms of polling) is going to be President. Not gonna happen. So, why waste our time giving them space on a debate stage?