The New York Times and CNN will co-host the next Democratic debate, which will take place at Otterbein University in Ohio on October 15 and possibly an additional night.
Another dumbed down corporate kabuki show.
It is not yet clear if the debate will stretch into two nights, though that has been the standard with each so far that exceeded 10 candidates.
I propose:
Everybody wins.
They should stage the debate in the Columbus strip club that was the site of the targeted arrest and selective prosecution of Stormy Daniels.
Oh god, please not another stage with 10 candidates on it. The discussion just gets worse and worse with so many people either talking over each other or just getting ignored for long stretches.
Disaster. Are there no other networks?
This time, no 30 second time limit. Instead, free association. The moderators say a word and the candidates respond with the first word or short 2-3 word phrase that comes into their minds.
At the kiddie table.
With folding chairs.
Near the laundry room.
add Castro to night 2 and you’ve got a deal
That might actually be an improvement on some of the questions the CNN moderators asked previously.
For the love of Zeus, can it be pared down from 3 hrs. to say 2?
The event will be moderated by CNN anchors Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett, and Times national editor Marc Lacey.
“Hello USA Popcorn, I’d like to order seventy barrels of your lightly buttered caramel flavor. Eighty dollars is fine, just send it to this address.”
Question: why don’t they use more recent polls than the ones used for the third debate and therefore (hopefully) have fewer candidates on stage?
While I like news orgs sponsoring 2-3 hour Democratic policy advertisements for people to compare to the barren wasteland that is GOP policy, 10 people on stage is too much to get any meaningful insight into the differences between the major candidates and their policies. I hope they put more strict access on the next round so the serious candidates can debate and we’re not wasting time with gimmicks (Yang) and ageist mudslinging (Castro).
Oh, goodie. Two of the most upstanding, most disinterested, uncompromised media outlets in the country who just happen to fall all over themselves promoting Trump in every way. They might as well wear MAGA hats.
It would be really interesting to hear the rationale (if that is the right word) for expanding the debate field. Does anyone really think that somebody who only commands 2% of the polling at this point is suddenly going to do a massive surge that sweeps them into the nomination?
It doesn’t look as if the Dems are doing themselves any favors by expanding the field.
10 candidates is still too damn many on one stage. It’s time to cull it down to the top 5 or 6, even if it means a second undercard debate.
This can’t go on until the first primary as a way to sort them out. There are too many conflicting messages about what the party stands for, and too many candidates that are still running more for self-promotion than as a realistic chance at the gold ring.
Better yet, increase the qualifications incrementally. Like 200,000 unique donors and polling at 3%.
Or even higher. Why keep it the same?
They got burned by the whining from the BernieBros last time.
So they’re being extra-super-specially-inclusive.
Maybe they change the thresholds for every two debates since the dates are close (IIRC the first two took place in two consecutive months and then there was no debate in August). But I wonder how many more debates will we have?