Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Too many candidates

Recommended Posts

If we're going to have 12 candidates on stage, why not just add Marianne Williamson too for good measure? The DNC could call it the 'Baker's dozen' rule for presidential candidates.

What we need is a debate between just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Yang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

If we're going to have 12 candidates on stage, why not just add Marianne Williamson too for good measure? The DNC could call it the 'Baker's dozen' rule for presidential candidates.

What we need is a debate between just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Yang.

Libertarians memed it perfectly

> Saying 3 candidates for a national debate is too difficult for voters

> Having 15 democratic candidates on stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, admin_270 said:

If we're going to have 12 candidates on stage, why not just add Marianne Williamson too for good measure? The DNC could call it the 'Baker's dozen' rule for presidential candidates.

What we need is a debate between just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Yang.

I'd add Booker, but otherwise that's a good list.  

With fewer candidates, we could also shorten it to two hours.  I don't think I've stayed awake for a full debate yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, admin_270 said:

If we're going to have 12 candidates on stage, why not just add Marianne Williamson too for good measure? The DNC could call it the 'Baker's dozen' rule for presidential candidates.

What we need is a debate between just Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Yang.

 

3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I'd add Booker, but otherwise that's a good list.  

With fewer candidates, we could also shorten it to two hours.  I don't think I've stayed awake for a full debate yet.

Yeah, it was just too many people for one stage. I'm not sure how the networks can't figure out a better alternative to this. I also agree that Booker should make a 7th candidate for a debate. 

I also think half the questions aren't important or at least urgent. Had I been a candidate on the stage and Anderson Cooper asked us to respond to Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with GW Bush, I would have said, "Anderson?! Seriously? I'm not going to waste the voters's time on stupid questions. I'll ask myself a question I get from a lot of people I meet that has not yet been discussed, and then I will answer it." Then I'd answer that question. A lot of my debate strategy would be about taking the questions away from the moderators. I'd also ask a lot of questions to other candidates and force the debate to become organic rather than scripted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Next debate will likely be only 8 candidates.

Ya, and hopefully if it expands beyond that the network will divide it into upper and lower tier debates. 8 is still too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

A lot of my debate strategy would be about taking the questions away from the moderators.

Ya, I'd be happy to see candidates do this more if it led to genuine engagement between candidates on important issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

Yeah, it was just too many people for one stage. I'm not sure how the networks can't figure out a better alternative to this. I also agree that Booker should make a 7th candidate for a debate. 

I also think half the questions aren't important or at least urgent. Had I been a candidate on the stage and Anderson Cooper asked us to respond to Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with GW Bush, I would have said, "Anderson?! Seriously? I'm not going to waste the voters's time on stupid questions. I'll ask myself a question I get from a lot of people I meet that has not yet been discussed, and then I will answer it." Then I'd answer that question. A lot of my debate strategy would be about taking the questions away from the moderators. I'd also ask a lot of questions to other candidates and force the debate to become organic rather than scripted. 

Depending on execution, you might get mocked a bit for not being able to stray from your canned responses even for a softball question like that.

Someone...De Blasio, I think...started asking the other candidates questions in one of the previous debates -- for all the good it did him, given that his campaign never amounted to much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't mind a softball question now and then -- show a little humanity in the candidates, and also give them something they probably didn't rehearse.

The 2016 Republican debate, candidates were asked what woman they'd recommend be on the $20 bill.  It was really funny watch some of them panic and name the first "safe" woman they could think of.

Did Rosa Parks really earn a spot on the $20 bill, over any other woman in American history?

My gut reaction when I heard the question was "Harriett Tubman" being a good, safe answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I actually don't mind a softball question now and then -- show a little humanity in the candidates, and also give them something they probably didn't rehearse.

The 2016 Republican debate, candidates were asked what woman they'd recommend be on the $20 bill.  It was really funny watch some of them panic and name the first "safe" woman they could think of.

Did Rosa Parks really earn a spot on the $20 bill, over any other woman in American history?

My gut reaction when I heard the question was "Harriett Tubman" being a good, safe answer.

Who was it that said their wife? Was it Ted? I also remember Trump saying Ivanka but I don't think that's right...maybe he said his wife...

 

Time to google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Who was it that said their wife? Was it Ted? I also remember Trump saying Ivanka but I don't think that's right...maybe he said his wife...

 

Time to google.

It was the 10.

 

Huckabee said his wife. Ted said Rosa. Trump did say Ivanka.

 

(Quick edit: I like Fiorina's answer the best.)

20191016_115832.jpg

Edited by SilentLiberty
Note about Fiorina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

It was the 10.

 

Huckabee said his wife. Ted said Rosa. Trump did say Ivanka.

 

(Quick edit: I like Fiorina's answer the best.)

20191016_115832.jpg

I’m sure he meant Abigail, but I’m choosing to believe Christie was referring to Wednesday.

;c)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I’m sure he meant Abigail, but I’m choosing to believe Christie was referring to Wednesday.

;c)

Imagine an actual debate where it's between Ivanka Trump and Wednesday Addams for being on the 10 dollar bill...cringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie had a best night.Warren did great,i dont like Mayor Pete anymore since tonight but nobody can deny this was good debate performance.Biden was the worst,Tulsi just came off as a lunatic asking Warren questions like she is the moderator not a candidate.Others did ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I'd add Booker, but otherwise that's a good list.  

With fewer candidates, we could also shorten it to two hours.  I don't think I've stayed awake for a full debate yet.

Remove Booker and Yang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Remove Booker and Yang

Honestly, that's fair too.  I like Booker, but he's not going to be President this time.  Frankly, you could remove Kamala and maybe even Bernie on the same grounds.  (Yes, Bernie landed some big endorsements yesterday -- but the kinds of people who would be deeply influenced by AOC are probably the same people who were already backing Bernie).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Honestly, that's fair too.  I like Booker, but he's not going to be President this time.  Frankly, you could remove Kamala and maybe even Bernie on the same grounds.  (Yes, Bernie landed some big endorsements yesterday -- but the kinds of people who would be deeply influenced by AOC are probably the same people who were already backing Bernie).

The idea of keeping Buttigieg in the debates (who has no room to grow with Biden in the race) over someone who is consistently in the top 3 is laughable... I would keep Yang in the race before Buttigieg. Yang is at least a unique voice (like Sanders and unlike Buttigieg).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jnewt said:

The idea of keeping Buttigieg in the debates (who has no room to grow with Biden in the race) over someone who is consistently in the top 3 is laughable... I would keep Yang in the race before Buttigieg. Yang is at least a unique voice (like Sanders and unlike Buttigieg).

I think the bigger issue is the want to cut so many voices out of the race. A lot of people might just be tuning into the race and trying to figure out who to vote for and who best fits their stances on things. 

 

Maybe 12 is a bit much for one debate stage, but there is still time before the primaries. It's nobodies fault but the candidates themselves that the race has been as long as it already has, but that doesn't change how long they have yet to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jnewt said:

The idea of keeping Buttigieg in the debates (who has no room to grow with Biden in the race) over someone who is consistently in the top 3 is laughable... I would keep Yang in the race before Buttigieg. Yang is at least a unique voice (like Sanders and unlike Buttigieg).

Buttigieg's support is growing (especially in the early states, where he is in the double digits).  Bernie's isn't.  

You either love Bernie or you've ruled him out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Buttigieg's support is growing 

No it's not. Buttigieg's support on April 30 was 8.4%. It's now 5.6%. Sanders's numbers have fallen too, but he's always been close to being within striking distance pretty much everywhere. Buttigieg is nowhere close to winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I think the bigger issue is the want to cut so many voices out of the race. A lot of people might just be tuning into the race and trying to figure out who to vote for and who best fits their stances on things.

Ya, I think this is a fair point.

My problem isn't with having 12 candidates (or 18, or 24, or ...) who are debating. My problem is with trying to put them all on the stage for the same debate.

12 candidates? No problem, have upper-tier and lower-tier debates. 18? No problem, upper-, mid-, and lower-tier debates.

In fact, I would *rather this with lower criteria to make the debates* than the setup in the October debate. I would rather 2 November debates with two tiers and lower criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jnewt said:

No it's not. Buttigieg's support on April 30 was 8.4%. It's now 5.6%. Sanders's numbers have fallen too, but he's always been close to being within striking distance pretty much everywhere. Buttigieg is nowhere close to winning.

 Nationally, yes, but primaries aren’t national.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, Pete is in double digits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

 Nationally, yes, but primaries aren’t national.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, Pete is in double digits.

And still remains far behind Sanders in those states. So again, it makes no sense to say Sanders is out of it and not Buttigieg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jnewt said:

And still remains far behind Sanders in those states. So again, it makes no sense to say Sanders is out of it and not Buttigieg.

He's just pushing endlessly for Buttigieg because he's a likely proponent of more military interventionism, and we know what a great fan he is on one of the greatest policy stains on American history in the last century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...