The first Presidential debate (1 of 3) is on October 3rd.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
Here are the topics broken down by time allotted of the 90 minute debate:
Economy – 45 minutes
Health Care – 15 minutes
Role of Government – 15 minutes
Governing - 15 minutes
Any predictions on how this will turn out ? Sounds pretty lame to me. This whole election /campaigning proces seems lame.We get bombarded with sleazy TV ads for months. Filled with lies and half truths from both sides. And only a couple of hours total, of the candidates standing side by side actually debating one another on the topics all Americans are concerned about. Even then,it is very rehearsed.
There has got to be a better way.
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Originally posted by utherpendragonExpand the debates to include the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Problem solved.
The first Presidential debate (1 of 3) is on October 3rd.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
Here are the topics broken down by time allotted of the 90 minute debate:
Economy – 45 minutes
Health Care – 15 minutes
Role of Government – 15 minutes
Governing - 15 minutes
Any predictions on how this will turn out ? Sounds pre ...[text shortened]... p://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Originally posted by utherpendragonDo you think that the debates will be any better than the lame ads?
The first Presidential debate (1 of 3) is on October 3rd.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
Here are the topics broken down by time allotted of the 90 minute debate:
Economy – 45 minutes
Health Care – 15 minutes
Role of Government – 15 minutes
Governing - 15 minutes
Any predictions on how this will turn out ? Sounds pre ...[text shortened]... p://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Really the only thing I'm looking forward to are the VP debates to see what the gaffe machine Biden will say. My guess is that debate will have the largest viewing audiance.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't expect gaffes from Biden in that format. This isn't his first rodeo.
Do you think that the debates will be any better than the lame ads?
Really the only thing I'm looking forward to are the VP debates to see what the gaffe machine Biden will say. My guess is that debate will have the largest viewing audiance.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's going to be yet again the two candidates trying to get their talking points out there that are loosely related to the questions asked and hope that they can either deliver a zinger that will make the other guy look bad or the other guy says something wrong.
The first Presidential debate (1 of 3) is on October 3rd.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
Here are the topics broken down by time allotted of the 90 minute debate:
Economy – 45 minutes
Health Care – 15 minutes
Role of Government – 15 minutes
Governing - 15 minutes
Any predictions on how this will turn out ? Sounds pre ...[text shortened]... p://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
Afterwards the media will largely focus on some triviality like whether one of the candidates made eye contact or not and pretend that it is somehow an actual issue.
I think Obama will play it safe and simply try to not lose. Romney seems to be sliding so needs to have a good showing so I think there might be a chance that he takes a couple chances but I doubt he'll do much damage.
All in all, I think I have better things to do that night.
To improve this the other candidates need to be allowed in, the agreement the campaigns came up with for the debates needs to be published publicly.
Personally I think there needs to be a moderator that can give either candidate a big electric shock when they fail to actually answer a question asked.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by PsychoPawnCommentator Jim Fallows says we should look at the debate to see how the candidate operates as a person, because that's all the debate really gives us. So, lower our expectations.
It's going to be yet again the two candidates trying to get their talking points out there that are loosely related to the questions asked and hope that they can either deliver a zinger that will make the other guy look bad or the other guy says something wrong.
Afterwards the media will largely focus on some triviality like whether one of the candida ...[text shortened]... give either candidate a big electric shock when they fail to actually answer a question asked.
As far as the "winner" goes, says you can see who the winner is with the sound off, as well as with the sound on.
I will look to see who does a better job of acting presidential.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199141
Originally posted by utherpendragonI like Jim Lehrer, but he's so boring for something like this. I'd like to see them do something interesting. How about a debate where Rachel Maddow asks questions of Romney and Greta Van Sustern asks questions of Obama? THAT would be interesting, and maybe even illuminating.
The first Presidential debate (1 of 3) is on October 3rd.
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
Here are the topics broken down by time allotted of the 90 minute debate:
Economy – 45 minutes
Health Care – 15 minutes
Role of Government – 15 minutes
Governing - 15 minutes
Any predictions on how this will turn out ? Sounds pre ...[text shortened]... p://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/
We don't have debates anymore. What we have are simultaneous press conferences.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
Originally posted by PsychoPawnA friend from Dublin tells me that television stations there are not allowed to accept political advertising monies and that the result is that candidates who don't answer questions get worked over.
Personally I think there needs to be a moderator that can give either candidate a big electric shock when they fail to actually answer a question asked.[/b]
Originally posted by stevemccI like that idea, but I believe that would be against the first amendment here.
A friend from Dublin tells me that television stations there are not allowed to accept political advertising monies and that the result is that candidates who don't answer questions get worked over.
I believe Canada allows for equal time on the media outlets l, but Canada has publicly funded elections.
I imagine that in Canada and Ireland the media outlets aren't as beholden to the political establishment and that might just make all the difference.
Originally posted by KunsooYou make a great point, but given that no current political leader even vaguely attempts to answer the question other than sidestep the issue and work in a talking point/blame the opposition moment, how well either performs under these conditions, still makes for interesting television. Call it grace under pressure( or deliberate opportunistic lying one upmanship, if you like)....but...
I like Jim Lehrer, but he's so boring for something like this. I'd like to see them do something interesting. How about a debate where Rachel Maddow asks questions of Romney and Greta Van Sustern asks questions of Obama? THAT would be interesting, and maybe even illuminating.
We don't have debates anymore. What we have are simultaneous press conferences.
They should let Whodey be the moderator.
I would defy them to challenge these notions in how Romney and Obama are alike.
1. Both support the NDAA and Patriot Act to expand the tyrannical police state.
2. Both claim to want to balance the budget but won't do it.
3. Both support increasing deficit spending.
4. Both supported the economic stimulus.
5. Both have been pro-cholce, although Romney now claims to have changed his mind.
6. Both are self identified progressives.
7. Both support fair trade (Romney calims to support free trade but supports using the government to actively implement it, which is fair trade)
8. Both support the EPA.
9. Both support the Fed and don't wish to audit them.
10. Both support increasing military spending.
11. Both support interventionalist foreign policies in regards to the Middle East.
12. Both support legalizing of illegal immigrants
13. Both support the failed war on drugs.
14. Both support corporate welfare.
15. Both are funded by the same large banks and corporations.
16. Both support CFR policies to impement a one world government.
I could go on but why?