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.
I'm not a hard core supporter of either party, it just depends on who the candidates are. I've voted for both parties in the past. I plan to watch nearly all the debates unless some of them become too boring for some reason. Kind of an interesting article at Politico yesterday. Partial excerpt:
"Democratic bigwigs fear debates will devolve into horror show"
"Interviews with nearly 20 Democratic elected officials, party chiefs, labor leaders and operatives the past week revealed an air of foreboding verging on alarm that the debates will degenerate into a two-night, bare-knuckle brawl. With the divisive 2016 Democratic primary fresh in their minds and the current presidential candidates starting to take swipes at one another, the fear is that voters will be left with the impression of a bickering, small-minded opposition party."
“I’m worried it’s going to be a scrum — a lot of people trying to score points on each other and looking like scoring points was more important than communicating with the American people,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers and a member of the Democratic National Committee. “That circular firing squad is not going to help save our democracy or help working families.”
It's a catch 22. They need poll numbers to get on the stage, but there's not much to poll until people see them debate. I don't remember half the names on the list yet.
One thing about these debates is there is no tiers in them. Both will be a mix of the lesser known candidates and the candidates who are currently leading the pack.
That's good in my view. If a viewer tunes in to see Joe Biden, for example, they'll get to see someone like Andy Yang too.
In theory that could work- in reality, Warren is the only person with any traction on night one. So the question is does that become a freebie for her or a detriment. I also think that particular draw was unfortunate since Warren and Sanders seem to be fighting for much of the same ground. Having those two head to head would be preferable.
I'm fairly certain a large portion of night 2 will be other candidates trying to take down Biden.
In theory that could work- in reality, Warren is the only person with any traction on night one. So the question is does that become a freebie for her or a detriment. I also think that particular draw was unfortunate since Warren and Sanders seem to be fighting for much of the same ground. Having those two head to head would be preferable.
I'm fairly certain a large portion of night 2 will be other candidates trying to take down Biden.
You could be right, but I tend to think that these debates will be used by the unknowns to introduce themselves more than to go after the current leaders. I'm pretty sure the attacks against each other will happen later on, after Iowa.
The Iowa caucuses are schedules for February 3, so there is still a lot of time left for them all to continue on for a while, but these debates will be the beginning of the first winnowing.
There are going to be some candidates who are going to be so similar that one is going to fail after the debates, others who may get a sudden funding boost but won't get any greater numbers of supporters, and a few who will emerge from their obscurity and begin to rise.
That's the normal way it works. With 23 in the race, it's to be expected at least 12 of them will drop out over the rest of this year, and half of the 12 or so that remain will drop out after Iowa. By New Hampshire, the debates will be down to a more manageable size of candidates.
I expect we'll have a lot more debates than in the past. They seem to be the bigger decision makers for voters than poll numbers and all the rest of the stuff voters use to make their decisions.
It's an enormous field right now, for sure. I can't remember ever seeing one as large as this in my life in either party.
You could be right, but I tend to think that these debates will be used by the unknowns to introduce themselves more than to go after the current leaders. I'm pretty sure the attacks against each other will happen later on, after Iowa.
The Iowa caucuses are schedules for February 3, so there is still a lot of time left for them all to continue on for a while, but these debates will be the beginning of the first winnowing.
There are going to be some candidates who are going to be so similar that one is going to fail after the debates, others who may get a sudden funding boost but won't get any greater numbers of supporters, and a few who will emerge from their obscurity and begin to rise.
That's the normal way it works. With 23 in the race, it's to be expected at least 12 of them will drop out over the rest of this year, and half of the 12 or so that remain will drop out after Iowa. By New Hampshire, the debates will be down to a more manageable size of candidates.
I expect we'll have a lot more debates than in the past. They seem to be the bigger decision makers for voters than poll numbers and all the rest of the stuff voters use to make their decisions.
It's an enormous field right now, for sure. I can't remember ever seeing one as large as this in my life in either party.
That's what I am hoping for. Especially with Bullock being in the 2nd debate. Hoping Bennett can stand out tomorrow in the debates.
The poll left out the portion for Independents to vote on.
Either way, I'm an Independent and I'm going to be watching to see the candidate who's policy is going to give out the most free stuffs....lol!
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.