Bernie suggests we have a few debates during the primary season that include Democrats AND Republicans. Good idea?
POLL: Hetero-Partisan Debates?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Oh that is what hetero-partisan means? Sounds great, but I was hoping this was going to be another porn industry thread.
I'm curious why a couple of people voted No. Can you explain your thinking?
I mean I can see how you'd want at least some of the primary debates to focus on issues that resonate strongly within the party. Especially early on. Stake out ground on the red meat issues. But what that has seemed to mean in recent cycles is that each party avoids certain topics or dumbs them down so much that there is no intelligent discussion or give-and-take on several major issues.
If you had a mixed debate, perhaps with each side getting to pose a question or 2 that's uncomfortable to the other side, don't you think that would not only be a lot more interesting, but would also give each side a better preview of how their side's candidates might fare in the general election?
I mean I can see how you'd want at least some of the primary debates to focus on issues that resonate strongly within the party. Especially early on. Stake out ground on the red meat issues. But what that has seemed to mean in recent cycles is that each party avoids certain topics or dumbs them down so much that there is no intelligent discussion or give-and-take on several major issues.
If you had a mixed debate, perhaps with each side getting to pose a question or 2 that's uncomfortable to the other side, don't you think that would not only be a lot more interesting, but would also give each side a better preview of how their side's candidates might fare in the general election?
I can understand a no vote. There already won't be enough space to allow all candidates to participate in a R debate. Adding a half dozen more isn't going to solve that.
Yes, logistically that could be a problem. But if you wait until the early intraparty debates or votes have winnowed the field, or maybe impose some polling requirement, I think that would be easy to address. After the first several primaries, I imagine there will have been some casualties. And if you impose a 10% polling requirement, that could winnow it further.
I don't really like the polling requirement, but if it's needed, I could live with it.
One possible benefit of the polling requirement is that it might force the lesser candidates to take interesting risks to stay relevant. We might, for example, get a GOP or 2 talking about raising taxes, income inequality or climate change, or maybe a Dem taking a nonstandard position on abortion or the flat tax or something.
Already too much blathering about nothing but C-R-A-P. Do I think that giving a politician another forum for lying and exaggerating would enhance the experience? HELL NO! Sorry, but this is about as dumb of a suggestion as I have ever heard.
Thanks for eliminating yourself as a serious thinker. Always helpful to the rest of us.
The logistics are a problem as noted above, you shouldn't have more than eight candidates on stage and six would be better to give them enough time to talk in depth.
The best part of the idea is that the candidates wouldn't be pandering just to the voters who religiously go to their party primaries. Elections are won by persuading people who aren't hard-core Republicans or Democrats for their votes. You might just get more honesty from some candidates.
These resurrection threads are fun. But are we posters really supposed to maintain consistent positions for months at a time?
Well, I am trying to sort through the Republican field and watching a bunch of liberal journalists asking questions about all of the leftist pet social issues would be oh-so-tiresome. I already know what the correct left-wing answers are and I simply do not care what any of the views held by Republican candidates are.
I prefer that the debates focus on growth economics and foreign policy. A mixed debate would not provide that focus.
Plus, the post-debate media analysis would not focus on these issues either. They would only talk about the Republican war-on-women, or access to free birth control. My preferred issues deserve a chance to be discussed even on MSNBC and that simply will not occur if the liberals choose the Democratic issues (a certainty) for highlighting.
No! ... No! ... No! ...
...............................................................................................
Why not switch up on the moderators? Use leading economists, (Phil Gramm, Larry Kudlow, or even Paul Krugman) or leading foreign policy experts? (John Bolton or David Petraeus?)
A great deal of the lameness of these events is due to the idiot questions coming from the media types. (Yes, even the Fox idiots ... all of that talent on that channel and they come up with Kelly, Baier, and Wallace to serve as moderators?)
Increase the level of difficulty and the complexity of the questions and you would increase the level of satisfaction for the viewer.
I prefer that the debates focus on growth economics and foreign policy. A mixed debate would not provide that focus.
Plus, the post-debate media analysis would not focus on these issues either. They would only talk about the Republican war-on-women, or access to free birth control. My preferred issues deserve a chance to be discussed even on MSNBC and that simply will not occur if the liberals choose the Democratic issues (a certainty) for highlighting.
No! ... No! ... No! ...
...............................................................................................
Why not switch up on the moderators? Use leading economists, (Phil Gramm, Larry Kudlow, or even Paul Krugman) or leading foreign policy experts? (John Bolton or David Petraeus?)
A great deal of the lameness of these events is due to the idiot questions coming from the media types. (Yes, even the Fox idiots ... all of that talent on that channel and they come up with Kelly, Baier, and Wallace to serve as moderators?)
Increase the level of difficulty and the complexity of the questions and you would increase the level of satisfaction for the viewer.
Last edited:
I'm surprised you say that. You don't care if a GOP candidate is pro-life, anti-gun, favors amnesty, like Obamacare, and believes in teaching evolution?
I like this. It would be fun to have both Kudlow and Krugman pose questions. You'd probably have to wire them for shock to keep them from arguing with each other the whole time, but once you conquered that, it could get interesting.
Or maybe let someone else pose the questions and then get K & K to grade the responses.
Similar threads
