|
Title: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: retromike22 on December 15, 2013, 06:23:39 PM Remember the 2008 NH primary debate, where they had the Republicans debate, and then the Democrats had their debate immediately after? But in between they brought the Democratic candidates on stage, so for a brief moment, you could see all the candidates running.
I think it would be interesting if we had a primary debate, with all the candidates in one debate. Surely, not beginning of the season, but maybe after Iowa or New Hampshire, when the field had been narrowed down. For example, in 2008 right before Florida the line up left to right could have been: Paul, Edwards, Huckabee, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Giuliani, Romney. After Florida it could have been: Paul, Huckabee, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Romney. So in 2016, should we have a debate like this? Also, would you prefer to seat them alternately, or all the Dems on one side, and the Reps on the other? Maybe we could have them face each other UK Parliament style :) Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: bedstuy on December 15, 2013, 06:29:28 PM No. Debates with more than 2 people are generally a waste of time.
Maybe instead we could do an episode of Family Feud or Double Dare, Democrats versus Republicans. Or, just an Outsiders style rumble. Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: henster on December 15, 2013, 06:53:48 PM What if Clinton is the only Dem running? It'll be a bunch of Republicans and one Democrat, I don't see how this works out well at all.
Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: IceSpear on December 15, 2013, 07:36:59 PM It would be way too cluttered. Even a single party having a clown car makes it tough to have an effective debate. Now imagine if both parties did.
Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: Indy Texas on December 15, 2013, 08:18:33 PM They actually tried this once. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5psvGa6hkaE)
Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Paul Simon, Jesse Jackson, Pete du Pont, Alexander Haig, George H. W. Bush, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and Pat Robertson. And each group of party candidates is sitting in what looks like their own little jury box, for some reason. Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: RogueBeaver on December 15, 2013, 08:21:14 PM No. Unless you move the conventions up or have the presumptive nominees debate each other earlier in a more informal way, so as to start the GE debates earlier. Especially given how crowded the GOP field looks already.
Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: BaconBacon96 on December 15, 2013, 08:32:06 PM Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Paul Simon, Jesse Jackson, Pete du Pont, Alexander Haig, George H. W. Bush, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and Pat Robertson. And each group of party candidates is sitting in what looks like their own little jury box, for some reason. Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: retromike22 on April 18, 2015, 03:31:00 AM I'm bumping this for further discussion.
Title: Re: Should we have a primary debate with all candidates? Post by: solarstorm on April 18, 2015, 03:38:46 AM 20 Republicans dashing against one woman seems like a genius idea...
|