I find it irritating that the question about "would you help relocate people because of climate change" wasn't addressed to Yang. He's one of the only people on stage who's declared that it's not...
I find it irritating that the question about "would you help relocate people because of climate change" wasn't addressed to Yang. He's one of the only people on stage who's declared that it's not only a good idea, but it's going to be inescapable.
Honestly, I don't watch much of the debates, but stuff like this is starting to feel like a running trend. Seems that nearly every debate so far, some question has been thrown that – despite being...
Honestly, I don't watch much of the debates, but stuff like this is starting to feel like a running trend. Seems that nearly every debate so far, some question has been thrown that – despite being perfect for Yang to answer – was given instead to somebody who'd never much talked about the subject matter at all prior to the debate.
EDIT: In retrospect, this isn't all bad. If we already know candidate A's stance on X, hearing it again isn't very useful when we could hear from candidate B who otherwise may never talk about it. That said, it's still good for A to be able to make their unique stance clear to those who don't know them well on things that are central to their campaign.
Why would I want to hear something that's commonly known? Debates are for learning new things about the candidates. Does x candidate agree with defined policy from y candidate? If we can't get to...
Why would I want to hear something that's commonly known?
Debates are for learning new things about the candidates. Does x candidate agree with defined policy from y candidate?
If we can't get to comparing candidates and their views on different policy issues, what's the point of having all the candidates on the same stage? They can repeat all their campaign spiels on the campaign trails and in other media.
Because for the majority of people, the debates are the only moment they actually get to see these candidates. This affects lesser known candidates more. But I also agree with you that you want to...
Because for the majority of people, the debates are the only moment they actually get to see these candidates. This affects lesser known candidates more.
But I also agree with you that you want to compare the different views on a single issue for all candidates.
Your point is totally valid, and I think that's a fine way to conduct a debate. However if the moderator is going to not ask someone a question because their opinion on the topic is already clear,...
Your point is totally valid, and I think that's a fine way to conduct a debate. However if the moderator is going to not ask someone a question because their opinion on the topic is already clear, then I feel that should be mentioned. eg "This next question is about bananas. Candidate monkey, your position on bananas is already well known, so I'd instead like to start with candidate llama. Candidate llama, do you agree with candidate monkey's opinion that our main crop should be bananas?"
Axios has an article here that they're live-updating: An issue-by-issue recap of the Democratic debate It should serve as a pretty good quick summary afterwards, or for anyone that comes in late.
The DNC announced the requirements for the next debate today. Currently 5 people are qualified, and it seems questionable whether any others will be able to reach the requirements by Jan 10...
Warren could've pushed back harder on the question about if her taxes would slow the economy - with everyone onstage saying growth and GDP are flawed measures of well-being, I'd have liked to see...
Warren could've pushed back harder on the question about if her taxes would slow the economy - with everyone onstage saying growth and GDP are flawed measures of well-being, I'd have liked to see her build on that rhetoric by asking who benefits from saying GDP is the measure to use, instead of how she said "well that'd be fine too."
This is in line with how I hope the candidates will spend more time attacking the premises, framing, and questions themselves, but it hasn't happened. Nobody commented on how "African American unemployment rates" is both a republican and somewhat racist talking point.
To be fair to them, it's really hard to do that on the fly and on stage. They come into these debates with only very general ideas about what topics the questions will address. They get prepared...
This is in line with how I hope the candidates will spend more time attacking the premises, framing, and questions themselves, but it hasn't happened.
To be fair to them, it's really hard to do that on the fly and on stage. They come into these debates with only very general ideas about what topics the questions will address. They get prepared notes to talk about their campaign themes within the lines of the question as framed. It's hard to pre-script a way to challenge premises or frames because you have limited ability to see that coming ahead of time the way you can anticipate topics.
That's fair, I definitely have the benefit of not being in the spotlight and not having to react immediately, and it's definitely much safer to deliver those rehearsed points than to chance trying...
That's fair, I definitely have the benefit of not being in the spotlight and not having to react immediately, and it's definitely much safer to deliver those rehearsed points than to chance trying to come up with something on the fly. Any screw up will be clipped and shared everywhere.
I'd still like to see someone try, and I think the best moments in past debates weren't rehearsed. At the very least, candidates could have prepared responses to a few republican talking points. The debate isn't over yet, though, so maybe I'll get to see that.
Hillary Clinton was actually really good at this. It's why she was one of the all time great Presidential debaters. She got less good by 2016, I think at some point age just dulls you. But back...
I'd still like to see someone try
Hillary Clinton was actually really good at this. It's why she was one of the all time great Presidential debaters. She got less good by 2016, I think at some point age just dulls you. But back when she was First Lady and then Senator and especially in the 2008 primary she was sharp.
As expected, first question was about impeachment. No real surprises in there. Edit: thanks to whoever fixed my backward parenthesis in the title, I didn't notice it until later
As expected, first question was about impeachment. No real surprises in there.
Edit: thanks to whoever fixed my backward parenthesis in the title, I didn't notice it until later
I find it irritating that the question about "would you help relocate people because of climate change" wasn't addressed to Yang. He's one of the only people on stage who's declared that it's not only a good idea, but it's going to be inescapable.
Honestly, I don't watch much of the debates, but stuff like this is starting to feel like a running trend. Seems that nearly every debate so far, some question has been thrown that – despite being perfect for Yang to answer – was given instead to somebody who'd never much talked about the subject matter at all prior to the debate.
EDIT: In retrospect, this isn't all bad. If we already know candidate A's stance on X, hearing it again isn't very useful when we could hear from candidate B who otherwise may never talk about it. That said, it's still good for A to be able to make their unique stance clear to those who don't know them well on things that are central to their campaign.
Why would I want to hear something that's commonly known?
Debates are for learning new things about the candidates. Does x candidate agree with defined policy from y candidate?
If we can't get to comparing candidates and their views on different policy issues, what's the point of having all the candidates on the same stage? They can repeat all their campaign spiels on the campaign trails and in other media.
I'd say what's going on is good journalism.
Because for the majority of people, the debates are the only moment they actually get to see these candidates. This affects lesser known candidates more.
But I also agree with you that you want to compare the different views on a single issue for all candidates.
Your point is totally valid, and I think that's a fine way to conduct a debate. However if the moderator is going to not ask someone a question because their opinion on the topic is already clear, then I feel that should be mentioned. eg "This next question is about bananas. Candidate monkey, your position on bananas is already well known, so I'd instead like to start with candidate llama. Candidate llama, do you agree with candidate monkey's opinion that our main crop should be bananas?"
Axios has an article here that they're live-updating: An issue-by-issue recap of the Democratic debate
It should serve as a pretty good quick summary afterwards, or for anyone that comes in late.
The DNC announced the requirements for the next debate today. Currently 5 people are qualified, and it seems questionable whether any others will be able to reach the requirements by Jan 10 because of the holidays: https://www.axios.com/january-democratic-debate-who-qualified-e81a2299-bb33-46cd-b7bf-e5567053c3e4.html
Warren could've pushed back harder on the question about if her taxes would slow the economy - with everyone onstage saying growth and GDP are flawed measures of well-being, I'd have liked to see her build on that rhetoric by asking who benefits from saying GDP is the measure to use, instead of how she said "well that'd be fine too."
This is in line with how I hope the candidates will spend more time attacking the premises, framing, and questions themselves, but it hasn't happened. Nobody commented on how "African American unemployment rates" is both a republican and somewhat racist talking point.
To be fair to them, it's really hard to do that on the fly and on stage. They come into these debates with only very general ideas about what topics the questions will address. They get prepared notes to talk about their campaign themes within the lines of the question as framed. It's hard to pre-script a way to challenge premises or frames because you have limited ability to see that coming ahead of time the way you can anticipate topics.
That's fair, I definitely have the benefit of not being in the spotlight and not having to react immediately, and it's definitely much safer to deliver those rehearsed points than to chance trying to come up with something on the fly. Any screw up will be clipped and shared everywhere.
I'd still like to see someone try, and I think the best moments in past debates weren't rehearsed. At the very least, candidates could have prepared responses to a few republican talking points. The debate isn't over yet, though, so maybe I'll get to see that.
Hillary Clinton was actually really good at this. It's why she was one of the all time great Presidential debaters. She got less good by 2016, I think at some point age just dulls you. But back when she was First Lady and then Senator and especially in the 2008 primary she was sharp.
As expected, first question was about impeachment. No real surprises in there.
Edit: thanks to whoever fixed my backward parenthesis in the title, I didn't notice it until later