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 deplore any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who refuses to debate their opponents under any circumstances. I’m also of the belief if there are minor party candidates or independent candidates who qualified for the ballot, they should always be included too. I don’t like the idea that our choices always have to be Democrat or Republican.
It actually makes perfect sense if you consider how they each look and sound in front of the camera.
So how Hobbs expect to win if she isn't speaking in front of the cameras? You can't be governor if you don't like the cameras or doesn't like to be challenge in public.
So how Hobbs expect to win if she isn't speaking in front of the cameras? You can't be governor if you don't like the cameras or doesn't like to be challenge in public.
It's a strategy. I'm not saying it's a good one (results will be the final judgement), but it is one that's being used in other states as well and it's really bad for voters.
I picture a future where incumbents, who already have a huge advantage, don't have to face challengers because their handlers and internal pollsters say there's no upside. So they slap a label on their opponent and say they won't stoop to their level.
In this case and others around the country, the strategy has been to call your opponent a (fill in the blank) and then refuse to give them supposed credibility (as if you were the arbiter of credibility) by standing on the same stage.
I don't think this is just a local idea but the national party bosses better straighten this out before 2024.
This is what Mark Kelly did. It wasn't a slam dunk and it may have even helped Masters, but at least he had the stomach to face his opponent head on.
With Hobbs it's been a strategy from day 1. If she wins it was a good strategy, if she loses it was a bad one.
Either way, voters lose out.
No debates is a bad trend IMHO.
yep and i have recently received my ballot and kelly is the only Dem i might consider voting for. I have always liked him and dislike Masters, there is something about that guy that strikes me as being wrong. It is something i am debating since I feel the Dems Nationally need to be stopped and stopped hard so the hard left realizes most people, including most Dems, are not Far left. And perhaps allow moderate Dems to step forward. Dems who support the DREAM and not a Nightmare.
yep and i have recently received my ballot and kelly is the only Dem i might consider voting for. I have always liked him and dislike Masters, there is something about that guy that strikes me as being wrong. It is something i am debating since I feel the Dems Nationally need to be stopped and stopped hard so the hard left realizes most people, including most Dems, are not Far left. And perhaps allow moderate Dems to step forward. Dems who support the DREAM and not a Nightmare.
Voting for Mark Kelly is voting for Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. If you don't like Masters, leave it blank. But I think Masters needs to win.
Voting for Mark Kelly is voting for Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. If you don't like Masters, leave it blank. But I think Masters needs to win.
You don't get a vote here, but I do Mark Kelly is getting my vote as well as the 4 others in my family that's 5 votes for Mark Kelly.
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.