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 so, that is probably a smart move. Beto has always been nothing more than an empty suit prop used by the Democrat left mass media. He is not cut out for this. And he is not a realistic candidate to compete against John Cornyn, either.
If so, that is probably a smart move. Beto has always been nothing more than an empty suit prop used by the Democrat left mass media. He is not cut out for this. And he is not a realistic candidate to compete against John Cornyn, either.
I don't think so. It's more likely Beto wants to stay in his hometown and grieve for a little longer. Most folks do that after people they know die- no one gets over such deaths quickly.
Beto may drop out though. He's dedicated to his people, his town, and his state, and in such distress, Beto may decide he's better off staying home and helping his people instead of continuing his campaign.
I don't think so. It's more likely Beto wants to stay in his hometown and grieve for a little longer. Most folks do that after people they know die- no one gets over such deaths quickly.
Beto may drop out though. He's dedicated to his people, his town, and his state, and in such distress, Beto may decide he's better off staying home and helping his people instead of continuing his campaign.
"Help his people?"
How is Beto going to "Help his people?" What does that consist of?
How is Beto going to "Help his people?" What does that consist of?
I will field this one, Bob.
It means he doesn't have snowballs chance, he knows it and he wants to withdrawal in a way that makes him feel like he is some big hero instead of the empty suit loser that he really is.
He's an interesting candidate. Some boxes get checked... others are red flags for me, although I'm a registered republican. The medical, insurance and pharma industry likes him.
Tech entrepreneur and political novice Andrew Yang became the ninth candidate to qualify for the September Democratic presidential primary debate on Thursday, ensuring his spot while many governors and senators in the crowded presidential field appear unlikely to make the stage.
Candidates need at least 130,000 donors and 2% or more support in at least four Democratic National Committee approved polls by Aug. 28 to make the debates scheduled for Sept. 12 and 13, much higher qualification standards than the June and July debates.
Here are the nine candidates that have qualified so far:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang
There are five more that appear to be possibly in range of qualifying:
Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
Billionaire investor Tom Steyer
This compares with 20 candidates over two debates last time around. If there are only 10 candidates that qualify, that will create the same format problems as before, just limited to only a single debate.
The debate as a system of candidate selection is a wreck beyond repair.
I think it should be dropped completely and substituted with a better format. There are several alternatives that would work better.
I totally agree. This format - used for both Democrats and Republicans alike - appears to be designed to generate one liners and to stimulate interpersonal conflict between the candidates, which is what the networks want.
It is not a good format for informing the public about the candidates, which is what I think the public wants, or at least what they should want. But they are not getting that from this format. It should be changed.
I totally agree. This format - used for both Democrats and Republicans alike - appears to be designed to generate one liners and to stimulate interpersonal conflict between the candidates, which is what the networks want.
It is not a good format for informing the public about the candidates, which is what I think the public wants, or at least what they should want. But they are not getting that from this format. It should be changed.
Exactly.
As it is now, the debates never give a fair chance to any candidate who is low on the totem pole. Who is high on the totem pole is also far too arbitrary as well.
What really bothers me the most is the possibility of this out-dated, obsolete and corrupted way of making our candidates known to the public could well cost us all our best choices for electing our next President.
As things are now, not only are voters losing some good choices, they are also losing others that could enter the race at a later (and possibly better) time.
Every news channel has the same obligation; they are all allowed their license as a service to the public good of the United States. That means that even if a different forum was to use up more valuable air time, it is an obligation, not an option, to air it.
The debate format came about in 1960, a time when there were only 3 TV networks, all broadcasting over the air only, and all ceasing broadcasting at midnight. The format may have worked well then, and for decades afterwards, but it doesn't work now.
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.
