Can We Finally Agree Its Time To Limit the Televised Debates to Obama, Edwards, and Hillary?

[tritsofme]

So real issues can be discussed by the real candidates?

The just for fun candidacies of Gravel and Kucinich have as much chance of winning the nomination as I do, and Bill Richardson can take his VP tryout material to another forum.

This is long overdue, and we really need to have a real debate with the candidates that matter.

[helderheid]

1. I believe Gravel has dropped out n/t

[helderheid]

2. Just heard on the radio that neither Kucinich nor Gravel will be at the debate Saturday.

[Bad Thoughts]

26. Deleted

Deleted

[book_worm]

3. I think that will be it soon enough.

I think they will keep Richardson in though, I think he's going to go all out in Nevada which is coming up soon. I think if Richardson doesn't do well there he will be out and yes, as you say, audition for VP elsewhere.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. What debate? Those 3 pretty much agree on everything.

[TahitiNut]

8. snap!

:rofl:

[flvegan]

9. Except who's change-ier.

[skipos]

10. Your candidate got spanked too, huh?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Yeah. "Too liberal" donchya know.

So, I guess I'm "too liberal" for the 3 squabbling over the "moderate" vote.

[skipos]

17. Check out this thread/link that breaks down who voted for who

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3947519&mesg_id=3947519
It is pretty interesting, and not what a lot of DUers would expect.

18% of Dem voters describe themselves as "Very Liberal" and this is how they voted:
Obama 40%
Clinton 24%
Edwards 16%
Biden 7%
Richardson 5%
Kucinich 4%
Dodd 3%
Gravel 0%

[PVnRT]

24. Uh-huh, sure

What's life like on the planet you live on?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Uh-huh. Please explain the vast differences seperating them.

For us interplanetary types who can perceive minimal differences between politicians spouting platitudes and promises.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Yeah.

Fine with me.

[gasperc]

6. I think ABC is only allowing the four

unfair to Kucinich, the GOP debate will have 6, all the better. I think a four person debate will be quite good for us and have good rythm for each one to speak. A 6 person debate will add to the GOP's chaos and further splinter the vote. If someone on the GOP side walks out of New Hampshire with more than 30% they will be damn lucky.

[msongs]

11. it's all about supressing alternative views that the media dislikes nt

[mmonk]

7. Kucinich speaks truth to power that everyone should hear.

No, not yet.

[tritsofme]

29. He's been running for president for more than four years now.

I suppose there are not substantial amounts of people that care to listen.

[mmonk]

34. To 4 minutes of sound bites against all the other noise, they haven't

heard him speak straight up for a given period of time (the average person that watches from TV). Most people live in a fantasy world and know hardly a thing about what their nation is really doing or political maneuvers of politicians that always pretend to be on their side while screwing them over.

[Captain Angry]

12. How very democratic of you.

Seems to me that the other candidates were allowed to go to previous debates, but just didn't get any talk time.

The real candidates as chosen by the media were given the longest amount of time to speak, and the most questions. The "just for fun" candidates were ignored.

You just want to formalize it by keeping them out entirely.

That's not how it's supposed to work.

[tritsofme]

30. That's how it works in the real world.

Candidates that did markedly better than Kucinich in Iowa have already seen the writing on the wall and have dropped out.

Kucinich just seems to enjoy running for president, maybe he should get back to his day job?

[salin]

13. No.

[Individualist]

15. No

[alfredo]

16. In bike racing they had a race called "Devil Take the Hindmost." the last

person at the finish line got pulled out until it got down to three. That's when the pedal hits the metal.

[MilesColtrane]

18. 1% or more support seems to be the standard yardstick for inclusion of a candidate's results...

...in polling data.

Perhaps that is the standard being applied in the case of this debate.
I have no problem with those who didn't get at least 1% of the Iowa delegates being culled.

Sucks for them and their supporters, but c'mon.

"Uncommitted" got more delegates than Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich combined.

[butterfly77]

19. They aren't saying anything but the same thing...

they will all get their asses in a crack when they start to spell out there plans for immigration, now the media will ask the hard questions when the best candidates have dropped out of the race. I am beginning to think that I won't be voting...

[bowens43]

20. No.

[ladjf]

21. and how about a real debate rather than fast sound bites.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Agreed.

[surfermaw]

23. Please post the time and place or C for the debate

[Bad Thoughts]

27. Clinton, Edwards, Obama have not been handicapped ...

... by the presence of other debaters. Besides, the three get most of the attention at debates, whether in getting more time and questions, or by questions designed to get candidates talking about each other.

[ThomWV]

28. Hell No! Include every Democrat who will be on the next ballot. Fuck this exclusion bullshit!

[Mark Twain Girl]

31. This Edwards supporter wants as many voices there as possible -- that's better for real issues. nt

[lovuian]

32. More at a Debate the Better

NO

[tritsofme]

33. The more people at the debate, the less time for each candidate

The less likely it is for real interaction and issues to be explored.

A debate with a smaller amount of people allows more substantive work to be done.

Why waste time with the candidates that are taking up limited airtime despite knowing full well that they will never be the Democratic nominee in 2008?

[Spike89]

38. Less diversity too...

I certainly don't want a Kucinich nomination (love him, but he can't get things done in this climate). However, I'm supporting him for as long as he is willing to stay in the race and present his ideas. A nominating process should be about refining and establishing party policies/platform as much as picking an individual. "Losers" like DK bring important voices and viewpoints to the debates and keep the "winners" from going totally into focus-group blandness.

[Pastiche423]

35. No

[blondeatlast]

36. HELL, NO. But thanks for asking. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

37. The assumption of substantive discussion presupposes honest 'moderators'

There is a severe shortage of them. Most moderators are more interested in gotcha or creating an atmosphere conducive to street fighting.

The only notable exception in recent years was Olbermann in that debate he moderated (in Chicago?) (for Live Aid??)