i think he just doesn't have it anymore or he is just more stubborn and thin skinned than I thought. If he continues to be defensive he is done.
At least, he held it together (barely) at the incessant "pass the torch" chants on stage. Nobody is more thin skinned than POTUS, so his "I am the best choice to beat Trump" holds for now (till he loses support in polls due to black vote abandoning him..)
To be fair to the candidates, this format sucks - badly. The media wants to try to generate sound bites and the way the answering opportunities are structured, there is no real opportunity for debate or to allow the candidates to reveal any substance beyond a sound bite length answer. If the candidates knew what was good for them, they would band together and insist that debates be smaller panels, with someone other than partisan grandstanding hacks asking the questions. Maybe four candidates at a time, six at the very most. and then have a discussion about a single topic for at least a half an hour. But how much of this sort of an exchange would large audiences of people watch? I am not so sure and I suspect that the TV channels are not willing to dedicate the prime time bandwidth necessary to make this work.
It would be interesting to see more numerous, smaller paneled "debates" where candidates could take more time to explain their policy positions and hopefully avoid more cliched anecdotes. Though I don't think those are going away. Q: What kind of policy proposals on gun control would you bring to bear as President? A: Well, let me tell you, I have a 4 year old niece and when she looks into my eyes... etc.. etc... Me: Just answer the question please.
Those seem to be best covered in townhalls. Let voters ask the questions and let the candidate have enough time to communicate a clear and complete answer. Until the number of candidates gets whittled down substantially the traditional debate format doesn't seem to work for much except the rare direct bazinga moment.
I don't see why you can't have a series of televised debates/discussions/town halls with a smaller panel of candidates. That would give a huge audience a chance to hear the candidates discuss specific policy positions. The 24 hour news cycle needs to be fed. Seems like it would give the networks some good content which they desperately need. I don't see much value in the "debates" as currently formatted.
Unless he taps the microphone (a natural reaction) in front of him, it is not an inscrutable proof.. People do this thing where they just mouth the words instead of saying them. But I will go look up his platform now. Lol
Whatever you do, someone's going to complain of unfairness. If you put the top tier candidates together, the lower tier ones will complain about being 2nd-rate and not having equal opportunity. If you mix up top tier ones with lower tier ones, the top tier ones have no incentive to participate and just be crapped on by lower-tier people gunning for them - they could just host their own individual town halls. If you just put all the lower tier ones together, no one's going to watch and no one's going to want to televise it. The system right now is simple: The first stage of the campaign (January to now) was to let candidates develop their support on their own Anyone who met a basic threshold was given national airtime - its up to them to then stand out and grow. People like the Montana governor complaining about the unfairness is ludicrous. It's not the DNC's job to make him viable - it's his own job to get his message out there. But these debates were an "introduce these people to the world" debate more than a substantive policy discussion (which is overrated in debates in general, frankly - even with 2 candidates, it's usually about soundbites). From here, the candidates that stood out will get more attention/googling/etc, and if people like what they see, they'll rise in the polls. Those that couldn't stand out or sucked will fall. Then each successive set of debates sets the bar a little higher so each remaining candidate gets more attention and more substance. Is it a great system? No. But it's about as good as you can get when you start with 25ish candidates. The DNC is trying to avoid what the RNC dealt with last time, when every debate was a trainwreck. I suspect by October, they want no more than about 6 people involved.
I agree that the debates as designed are unwiledy. They did have higher than expected ratings, but suspect those ratings drop until the number of candidates reduces. But there were complaints that candidates didn't get to debate other candidates even with two separate debates. I can only imagine the complaints if there were five or six different smaller debates. If you grouped Biden, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, and Warren in one small debate then all the tier two candidates (or backers) would complain they were put in a lower tier candidate debate. And if you grouped them differently, you'd get complaints that Biden and Harris weren't on the same stage, or Warren and Gabbert, etc. I just think the debates won't really work in standard debate format until the number of candidates gets whittled down.
While we're fixing the debate format --- how about this. Get rid of the audience. It's like having a laugh track in a sitcom. It's annoying at best and at worst it colors people's perceptions.
How about an actual laugh track instead, along with a "whoop whoop!" track, pending which button a candidate pushes under their podium. Then Biden could get all old and confused and keep pushing the wrong button.
One of my two smart sons pointed out to me that MSNBC badly framed the question regarding insurance as neither Sanders or Warren proposed on paper the elimination of private insurance.
Don't really see the black vote leaving him. For who? Harris comes off as Bougie and a little cold, she does not have the personal touch and charm of Obama.
