The Debate Poll

[Pliablemoose]

See poll & give a bump

Third-Party Candidates and Platforms

 

[Infohawk]

Your third question is loaded. Fix it.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Your third question is loaded. Fix it.

Nope, anyone that thinks these are "real" debates are welcome to post their opinion though...

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

I answered Unsure, No, Yes.

Reason I said I was unsure depends on if we have more debates or more time is given to debates. I can't imagine how little information the American people will get from each candidate if there were 4 guys in the debates and still being 90 minutes. If more time and more debates are created I would fully support 3rd party candidates. I hope that made sense.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
I answered Unsure, No, Yes.

Reason I said I was unsure depends on if we have more debates or more time is given to debates. I can't imagine how little information the American people will get from each candidate if there were 4 guys in the debates and still being 90 minutes. If more time and more debates are created I would fully support 3rd party candidates. I hope that made sense.

Agreed, if they added all 4 major 3rd party candidates it would cut down on the time for answere by each candidate.

I really liked Perot's contribution when they allowed him to participate though, he refocused the election.

 

[conjur]

Yes, No, Yes.

 

[nageov3t]

third party canidates... yes, but only if they're viable canidates. there hasn't been a viable third party canidate since Ross Perot, though.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, No, Yes.

What do you have against a townhall style meeting?

It's good because it exposes people to real criticisms and prevents orchestrators like Rove and Bush and Cheney from coreographing their responses.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, No, Yes.

What do you have against a townhall style meeting?

It's good because it exposes people to real criticisms and prevents orchestrators like Rove and Bush and Cheney from coreographing their responses.

I think townhall debates are great.

However, in this case:

* The crowd has been dwindled down to 150 people from an original 4,000
* The crowd is hand-picked by the Gallup organization from "soft" supporters of each candidate, not undecideds.
* The questions are pre-screened

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, No, Yes.

The reason I added the corporate sponsorship issue is that the corporations have tents, pavilions, displays outside the debate locations that the viewing public doesn't get to see & because of my own personal bias that corporations have entirely too much to do with US politics.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, No, Yes.

What do you have against a townhall style meeting?

It's good because it exposes people to real criticisms and prevents orchestrators like Rove and Bush and Cheney from coreographing their responses.

I think townhall debates are great.

However, in this case:

* The crowd has been dwindled down to 150 people from an original 4,000
* The crowd is hand-picked by the Gallup organization from "soft" supporters of each candidate, not undecideds.
* The questions are pre-screened

Actually I was listening to Tim Russert on IMUS and he said the Commision hand picked the crowd and that it's going to be 100 undecided voters. Could be wrong but that's what he said.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, No, Yes.

What do you have against a townhall style meeting?

It's good because it exposes people to real criticisms and prevents orchestrators like Rove and Bush and Cheney from coreographing their responses.

I think townhall debates are great.

However, in this case:

* The crowd has been dwindled down to 150 people from an original 4,000
* The crowd is hand-picked by the Gallup organization from "soft" supporters of each candidate, not undecideds.
* The questions are pre-screened

Actually I was listening to Tim Russert on IMUS and he said the Commision hand picked the crowd and that it's going to be 100 undecided voters. Could be wrong but that's what he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...nal/AP-Debate-Rdp.html

The debate format calls for moderator Charles Gibson of ABC to ask any question submitted in advance from the audience of about 150 undecided voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. The campaigns will not know the topics.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: conjur


However, in this case:

* The crowd has been dwindled down to 150 people from an original 4,000
* The crowd is hand-picked by the Gallup organization from "soft" supporters of each candidate, not undecideds.
* The questions are pre-screened

Oh. That sucks about the questions being pre-screened. Is that what Pliablemoose meant by "real" debate. I thought he was getting in a huff because people would actually be able to confront Bush.

But I heard a gallup guy on NPR today saying they have undecideds (hard to find according to him) and soft supporters. Are you sure there's no undecideds?

 

[conjur]

There may be a few undecideds but it won't be many.