I watched the 1st hour of the debate last night and thought everybody except Bloomberg had some good moments but since then I have been wondering what exactly does a good moment mean and what does that tell us about these candidates as a president. I have always thought that the point of a debate was to see how knowledgable a candidate is and how he thinks on his feet and how cool they are under pressure. Not really getting an answer to any of this except how cool they are under pressure and the only one who has done that consistently is Pete but that alone does not make him a good president IMO. long story short what is exactly is the purpose of these debates in 20/20? It has been proven by Trump that you don't need to have a good debate to get elected. These debates increasingly have come down to who can get off the best zingers. How does that equate to being president?
Since we are electing leaders, we want to be lead by someone who looks competent, at least most of the time.In actuality, good debater does not necessarily make good leaders.
One on one sitdowns with a intelligent interviewer who knows what questions to ask is the best way to understand a candidate and their policies and how they will govern.
You get to see who comes off as most likable. The presidency is like 90% personality contest. We talk about anyone being able to beat Trump, but they need to have some charisma to counter Trump's appeal to his base. For example, we now know that Bloomberg is probably not electable (something you wouldn't have known from his TV ads alone).
That's an opinion if Bloomberg got elected to 3 terms in NY he most certainly can be elected president. Bernie is not oozing charisma and his base is not as big as Trumps.
you can buy an election a lot easier in a city-wide race though, against weaker competition. Bloomberg probably won't be able to spend his way out of this one. Bloomberg is smart and a truly great businessman. The face of the democratic party in 2020; that he is not.
I agree he is not the face but I think his demise is a bit overblown. This whole buying an election thing is overblown and most candidate buys a election somewhat. A lot of people don't pay attention to debates or the analysis and some will feel sorry for him especially when people are saying he should not exist. We will see.
The debates are the only opportunities for the candidates to directly confront each other face to face, and challenge them on things. Otherwise, the campaigns are just basically photo ops and pre-scripted programming. They also give viewers a chance to see all the candidates side by side instead of having to hunt down info on each one, or simply get exposed to the ones with the most money and advertising budget. In terms of whether they move the needle, I think there are two elements. A few certainly have - the Kamala debate early on, Warren being put on the defensive on her healthcare stance, and Amy in NH are good examples. The debate yesterday may have been useful in exposing Bloomberg weaknesses or maybe gives Warren a boost. But beyond that, they help build longer term impressions of candidate. Pete didn't move the needle in any his debates individually, but that repeat exposure and relative competence (no major flubs outside of the race/crime stuff in NH) likely helps shape people's views of him in the long-term as to whether they think he's a credible candidate. I think the nightly horserace nonsense of who "won" a debate is ridiculous. But in the bigger picture, it's a way for candidates to get equal exposure on equal footing and to challenge each other directly. They are also more useful for casual viewers than anyone who posts on a message board about politics and is more engaged in the process already.
I think they do a disservice to casual viewers because any applause from the audience means something to them even if that person is not using facts or logic. I was surprised that the audience seemed to not really have a favorite but they seem to mainly be responding to the sick burns. Warren for example accused Bloomberg of being a harasser when nothing has been documented of him harrasing anybody. At least I am not aware of.
He does have several accusations against him (not of the physical type, but verbal abuse/harassment) but regardless, Warren could also make those accusations in a TV ad if there were no debates. The big difference would be that she can say anything, and Bloomberg has no opportunity to respond. Debates force the candidates to at least confront each other with why people shouldn't vote for someone else, and those people have an opportunity to immediately respond. There's no other time in the campaigns that can happen. I agree the clapping and cheering is stupid. I think in Presidential debates, that's not allowed. The rules seem more lax in primaries maybe?
I believe anyone who is objective about this subject understands what the debates are designed for and fully understand what they really are about. The average person does not want to take the time to learn about a candidate and what they truly are about. And the media has taken full advantage of this and turned it into a circus. Trumpism is a byproduct of this nonsense. Its a sideshow while the rest of the responsible adults take care of America. Hate or love corporate America, but they are the ones who are taking care of many of the issues. Do you remember when the Framers setup the EC because they felt the population was too incompetent to elect a leader? lets be honest with ourselves. Not much has changed.
Well, the Republican debates sure did become a shitshow the moment Trump entered the stage. So maybe you should ask the GOP this question more than anyone else. The Demoractic debates in comparison are models of civilized discourse and decorum. Even, the undressing of Bloomberg last night at the hands of Warren and company, is absolutely mild compared to the levels of trashiness Trump reached on stage next to his Republican colleagues whom he trashed relentlessly for months. If nothing else, debates provide an opportunity for candidates to make their case to a national audience and pick up supporters for their base. Obama was very successful doing so in 2008, which propelled his candidacy into a presidency. Even Sanders used the debates with Hillary in 2016 to present his "radical" ideas, normalize them by pushing the Overton window to the left, and increase his support for the next election cycle. So yeah, debates play a crucial role in maintaining healthy political discourse within a party -- unless you are the Republican Party, then it's just trashiness thanks to Trump.
Ideally, you would have an idea of what the platform of each participant and then you get to compare the candidates charisma and ability to make a concise and effective argument (something they will have to do in their capacity as a president to work with senate and present their work to the electorate). So, as a voter, if you resonate with a smooth talker of a politician instead of a straight to the point type of politician you will pick Biden, or Buttigieg instead of say Klobuchar or Bloomberg. And if you prefer dogmas and/or platitudes being screamed at you, you might go with Warren or Sanders. People respond to different communication styles, so debates let you see that. Once debate goes into 1 vs 1 format, then there is also ostensibly a chance that voters can be convinced that one platform position is better than the other OR at least ensure that the nominees know policy enough to talk legibly about it (ie prepared to take on the presidency to some degree). All of these points are in terms of ideal situation. We have people like Trump and Sanders that do best by shouting in a rally - even people who don't like Trump, will talk about his mannerisms, gaffes and zingers instead of talking about the corrupt **** he does to our country. Extreme personalities create fascination and personality cults. Biden's gaffes only open him up to ridicule, but for Trump, because he is so extreme, any TV exposure seems to be a good exposure. That's why he keeps on trying to control the media cycle (something he's been trying to do all his life.) That's why anyone moderate running against an extremist has to be cool under pressure because gaffes will hurt them, while negative press won't really effect their opponent much. I think viscerally, with the long term view, we now know that Klobuchar is in fact done for and not necessarily Bloomberg as the latter remained calm despite sh*tstorm of attacks in the first hour and more importantly recovered well afterwards.
