Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Romney and Perry want to winnow the field of candidates they should stop agreeing to do so many televised debates. Frequent televised debates help the candidates stay in the race that don't have a lot of money raised because the debates reach a large audience. In order for candidates to reach that large of an audience without TV debates, they would have to spend money --- money that some of them don't have. I bet if it wasn't for so many TV debates, more of the under 10 percenters would have dropped out by now. But why drop out when they can get the free publicity of so many frequent televised debates? Romney and Perry should say "no" to more TV debates after this next one to get some of those people on the stage to drop out from lack of sufficient campaign contributions.
If Romney and Perry want to winnow the field of candidates they should stop agreeing to do so many televised debates. Frequent televised debates help the candidates stay in the race that don't have a lot of money raised because the debates reach a large audience. In order for candidates to reach that large of an audience without TV debates, they would have to spend money --- money that some of them don't have. I bet if it wasn't for so many TV debates, more of the under 10 percenters would have dropped out by now. But why drop out when they can get the free publicity of so many frequent televised debates? Romney and Perry should say "no" to more TV debates after this next one to get some of those people on the stage to drop out from lack of sufficient campaign contributions.
I don't agree that they should although I agree this could narrow the field. Someone could be fabulous but not as well known and the debates give them exposure. I wish elections weren't about who can raise the most money. The best candidate could be the one with the least amount of money.
I also think the debates are good for getting more information about a candidate. Although I am not planning on voting for any of them right now, I like to see who is running and what they stand for in case I DO think about voting for someone different. I know he isn't a favorite of the republican crowd but of those running currently, I like Huntsman.
I don't really agree either. I think it's good to have many different perspectives in the race. Competition makes the candidates stronger and makes them work harder at having to answer the difficult questions. Also, some candidates have supporters that really need to know more about them before they make up their minds. I fear that some have just jumped on a bandwagon because they think a candidate is this or that and maybe in reality they are not. We see how that works out with Obama.
I was just speaking from a strategic perspective of the candidates who are leading. They are contributing to keeping some of the very low polling candidates in the race by agreeing to do so many televised debates and giving those low polling candidates free publicity that they would normally have to pay for. I can't believe Romney's, Perry's or Pauls's respective campaign staffs haven't thought of this so it must be that one or two of them benefit by keeping so many low polling candidates in the race because if those low polling candidates dropped out, the supporters of the low polling candidates would probably go to their opponents. For example, it's probably worth it to Romney to keep Bachmann in the race if Romney thinks Bachmann's supporters would go to Perry and not Romney, so if Bachmann can get the free publicity the televised debates bring her, meaning she can afford to stay in the race longer because she won't need to spend campaign money for people to see and hear her, it's worth it to Romney to keep doing frequent TV debates just to keep her in and prevent her voters from going to Perry. Ditto Santorum.
The solution is to prevent candidates will less than X% of the vote from participating in the debates. That is how the kept Al Sharpton from the Democratic debates last time around. He was actually ARRESTED for attempting to crash the debate.
If Romney and Perry want to winnow the field of candidates they should stop agreeing to do so many televised debates. Frequent televised debates help the candidates stay in the race that don't have a lot of money raised because the debates reach a large audience. In order for candidates to reach that large of an audience without TV debates, they would have to spend money --- money that some of them don't have. I bet if it wasn't for so many TV debates, more of the under 10 percenters would have dropped out by now. But why drop out when they can get the free publicity of so many frequent televised debates? Romney and Perry should say "no" to more TV debates after this next one to get some of those people on the stage to drop out from lack of sufficient campaign contributions.
This is ridiculous. Just because Perry and Romney are in the pockets of the mega corporations they should be put up on a pedestal and considered "better" then other candidates just because they have more corporate sell out funds?
I was just speaking from a strategic perspective of the candidates who are leading. They are contributing to keeping some of the very low polling candidates in the race by agreeing to do so many televised debates and giving those low polling candidates free publicity that they would normally have to pay for. I can't believe Romney's, Perry's or Pauls's respective campaign staffs haven't thought of this so it must be that one or two of them benefit by keeping so many low polling candidates in the race because if those low polling candidates dropped out, the supporters of the low polling candidates would probably go to their opponents. For example, it's probably worth it to Romney to keep Bachmann in the race if Romney thinks Bachmann's supporters would go to Perry and not Romney, so if Bachmann can get the free publicity the televised debates bring her, meaning she can afford to stay in the race longer because she won't need to spend campaign money for people to see and hear her, it's worth it to Romney to keep doing frequent TV debates just to keep her in and prevent her voters from going to Perry. Ditto Santorum.
It is definitely to Romney's benefit to have Bachmann stay in. That is why Jeb Bush and Rove wanted Paul Ryan to enter the race to begin with. It dilutes the votes in a certain direction. Last election, they kept Huckabee chugging along much longer than he had funds for to help McCain get the nomination. Guilianni and Thompson were there to begin with for the same reason. They had no serious intention of running for president. If Sarah Palin enters the race it will be for the same reason. The GOP just like the Democrats can manipulate the race to some extent, but it doesn't always work. They will do their best to get the person nominated that they think has the best chance of winning.
The debates help Romney, so I definitely don't expect him to want fewer of them. They have helped him seperate from the pack, because they keep featuring the debates as Perry vs. Romney. And he does well in that environment. To the extent that it makes Romney a better candidate (makes him look actually passionate about something), it's probably fine to have so many of them.
I still think Romney's chances for the GOP nom are slim. The problem for Romney is everything else, not the debates. And the reverse is true for Perry.
The debates are also not so good for Perry, because he is weakest in an environment where he has to defend his positions. He doesn't handle that well by bristling and becoming defensive. He also has a bad habit of eye rolling and pulling faces when other candidates are speaking and that doesn't play well. I can see why he likes to skip out on debates...it's just not his strength. You really can't not do these debates though. The more he does them, he will either get better at them or he will start to fall in the polls. However, the core group supporting him seems unwaivered so far by his negatives. A CBS poll that came out yesterday still has him leading at 22%, but a full 22% of Republican voters were undecided still so there is a lot of leeway for someone to move ahead. This is definitely far from over.
The debates are also not so good for Perry, because he is weakest in an environment where he has to defend his positions. He doesn't handle that well by bristling and becoming defensive. He also has a bad habit of eye rolling and pulling faces when other candidates are speaking and that doesn't play well. I can see why he likes to skip out on debates...it's just not his strength. You really can't not do these debates though. The more he does them, he will either get better at them or he will start to fall in the polls. However, the core group supporting him seems unwaivered so far by his negatives. A CBS poll that came out yesterday still has him leading at 22%, but a full 22% of Republican voters were undecided still so there is a lot of leeway for someone to move ahead. This is definitely far from over.
Well said! Totally Agree! Perry is not pleasant...to one's eye! How he behaves in debates....IS VERY REVEALING. >>Arrogant, defensive...like we said, a clone of his TEXAS pal, Dubya Bush
I think you are right, people will 'wise-up' and not be deceived by this Texan...like they were by Bush II
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
