Multicandidate Democratic Debate Format Prevents Clear Winners and Losers

[ddeclue]

Regarding an email sent to me by Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo regarding last night's debate which erroneously claimed that either Biden or Richardson were the clear winners, I would have to say that no one "won" last night because of an unworkable debate format. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am an ardent supporter and a local grassroots organizer for Edwards.)

I found no one's performance (including Mr. Fenyo's favorites - Biden or Richardson) particularly outstanding nor did I really expect to do so. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to expect much from such a multi-candidate 8 on 8 format with no ability for the candidates to question each other.

It would be much better to have the various Democratic candidates (or even perhaps the various Democratic vs. the various Republican candidates) debate each other one on one at a variety of smaller forums around the country during the primary season.

This however this will never happen because the better polling candidates never want to legitimize the lesser polling candidates by appearing on the same stage with them.

Indeed such a circuit of wide spread one on one debates would really help to take control of the election out of the hands of those with money and put it into the hands of those with good ideas and popular support.

I envision a primary debating season something like a college basketball season with playoffs at the end where every team takes turns playing games with the other teams in one on one games during the regular season.

Better yet if these could be "town hall" type debates where the members of the audience rather than just professional journalists got to ask questions that were not "pre-screened" then this would go a long way towards providing spontaneity in the debate process and requiring the candidates to demonstrate that they can think quickly, intelligently, and creatively about the questions and respond in an articulate manner to them. It would help us break free of the sound bites.

If this type of one on one town hall style debating could be set up then the results of each one on one debate would be much clearer and winners and losers of each debate would be much more obvious.

It would also serve to bring back public interest in politics by resulting in many more debates with public participation at local civic centers or campus colleges around the country rather than just the few that normally take place in which very little actual debating occurs.


Respectfully,

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[annabanana]

1. Cher De Clue,

I urge you to read this post, and evaluate the "debate" with attention to the prism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3236971

[ddeclue]

2. What's your point??? I still say no-one won...

because it was a joint press conference, not a real debate and because too many people were "debating" too many other people. It's much easier to compare the candidates one on one and especially when each candidate gets to question the other candidates.


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[MADem]

4. It's only the first debate. It's an introduction, fachrissake.

If you look at the link the other poster offered, you'd see the goals of the sponsors, is what the point is.

You aren't going to SEE vociferous debate until the field narrows. This is "Getting To Know You" time for the candidates. The only way you'll get debate at this stage is if you run over half of the field with a bus.

[ddeclue]

5. I don't think that the sponsors were trying so much to control

the direction of the debate as that piece claimed.

I just think that the format is a very bad one and my suggestion would immediately narrow the debates to a point where they WOULD be meaningful.

Doug D.

[MADem]

7. Go do a little research on General Electric, Top 100 Pentagon Contractor

Their wussy little cable "tee vee news" subsidiary is a useful tool, not a big money maker (they recently fired 700 people, shut down a studio, and essentially are making NBC news and Dan Abrahms RUN MSNBC). It's a propaganda machine to further their ability to suck at the taxpayer trough. "GE, we bring good wars to life!"

The piece is correct. Follow the money.

As for the debate, the format was the best I've seen so far. You aren't going to change the "opener" because it IS a beauty contest. When the field narrows, you may well see "sit downs" and "town halls" and all manner of audience participation, and maybe even contests where a candidate asks a question of another candidate. But this is the opening salvo.

Not everyone has had a chance to SEE each candidate yet. That's why this event was valuable. There actually are Democrats in America who never saw Mike Gravel before last night, and who have no idea who Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich are.

That's the "meaning" behind this opener--to introduce the field to America. There will be more. Patience.

[ddeclue]

8. Duh..so what? I work for a defense contractor too..that piece is overblown.

It is a post hoc ergo prompter hoc argument.

The debate sucked. I want a debate not a beauty contest. You could IMMEDIATELY narrow the debate if you wanted to by agreeing that each candidate gets to debate every other candidate twice in a one on one town hall format and you could satisfy all your demands for exposure for lesser polling candidates by agreeing to such debates. There is no value in a "beauty contest".

Not interested in being "patient".

Doug D.

[MADem]

10. You're missing the point. GE does not CARE what "you" want, see?

You are going to get what they give you, because they control the corporate media and you have nothing to say about it. You can yell all you want, and they'll ignore you.

They don't care about "profit" at MSNBC, if they did, they wouldn't have gotten rid of their problematic cash cow, Imus. MSNBC is the propaganda arm of GE--it's used to draw in disaffected Democrats, mainly, who cannot bear Faux or CNN (their big piece of cheese in the rat trap is Olbermann). It makes them feel, falsely, as though they have a home in the corporate media maelstrom.

In the case of GE, one thing DOES follow another. They control the venue. They control what goes over the air. Their very choice of moderator (Brian Williams, touted by none other than GOP pollster whore Frank Luntz as the "GOP go-to guy" for his "almost INDETECTABLE ideological bias") shows you what the real deal is. What came first was the chicken, GE, and the egg here is what you get when they put on a debate. They run the show. They're not interested in input. And frankly, neither are the candidates. They like the limited exposure. It's "enough" as far as they are concerned.

You might not want to be patient. That's fine. They just don't care what you think, though.

[MADem]

3. I agree with the GE DEBATE concept, frankly. That said, this was the just the

"Swimsuit phase" of the "long beauty contest."

You get a look at the herd, you get a chance to see them perambulate a bit in scanty costume, to tell us "Why do you want to be Miss America?" and you decide if, or how much, you like the cut of their jib.

It was, despite the corporate and prowar sponsorship of the debate, a good opening run. I will say that I thought the venue was VERY good. That school put on a great welcome, and the production values showed superb attention to detail. The sound was excellent, whoever did both the LIGHTING and the MAKEUP (not sure if they all brought their own, but every one of them looked quite polished) was totally on their game, and they kept the show on the road, with very little flagging moments.

The only annoying bits, if they could be called that, might be the interviews in the gym afterwards--they don't have microphones that can eliminate all that background noise, and that gets irritating. Maybe they could set up a little acoustic tile "half booth" to mitigate some of that noise, while still being able to take advantage of the background so the venue is seen--or maybe they could spring for some acoustical matting to put on the floor to dampen down some of that noise.

[ddeclue]

6. Well I stopped watching Ms. America many years ago...

I don't need to see these people in their "swimsuits" (yikes... Senator Biden in speedos...) and I'd rather have a real one on one debate every week between different candidates somewhere.

Doug D.

[MADem]

9. It is not in the candidate's interest. THEY won't agree to it.

The idea is to limit national exposure to what is "necessary" and nothing more than that. The best way to expose yourself nationally is via media buys--commercials, that are carefully made, airbrushed, perfect in every way.

The candidates HAVE to do debates, but they'll do the minimum. They know in this YOUTUBE age that one fuckup means the end of the line for them. They aren't going to risk 'exposure' with weekly debates. Also, each candidate has strongholds and weak spots. They want to be busy campaigning in their weak spots and shoring up their strongholds, not having to prance off to a debate venue every week, to say nothing of PREPARING for a debate every week. It gets old.

They need their time to press the flesh one-on-one, grow their networks, raise money, and raise more money. Like it or not, that's politics in the USA today.