GOP Youtube Debate a No Show?

I watch all the debates I can get, no matter how stupid they are or which party is doing it. I like to watch them. They're interesting.

At the same time, I can not BELIEVE a response like "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." What a douche, I'm sorry.

I thought the CNN YouTube debates were well done, despite the small disconnect between "serious" and "lol internet."

First of all, you'd think these bad boys running for president would want their constituents to feel free asking questions. You could tell that the people submitting videos were more comfortable asking important questions from their own home, which makes me feel better about it all and I can't quite say why.

Secondly, this kind of "snowman" thing would (in my opinion) make people more likely to watch the debates. Not enough Americans give a shit about their right to vote, and I think what CNN did with the YouTube shit was genius: get people to watch.

If you're too good to take questions from a creative and important video, maybe you shouldn't be running for president.

The SERIOUS BUSINESS of the debates bores the public to tears. No wonder no one watches.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The real problem is that these aren't really debates, but an I-go-you-go-mostly the free frontrunners-go exercise in talking points.

No, they aren't really debates. For heaven's sakes, people don't even really ARGUE while up there. They just try to avoid questions and talk about their own plans - on both sides of the fence.

There's so little argument that no one really wants to watch it, I guess. Even I consider flipping the channel when watching then because everyone is so dry and predictable - which is why I LIKE the YouTube idea. It brings some much-needed fresh air to the debates.

Quote:

The Youtube format has been the closest thing to something that actually gets the candidates to think about what they're saying, since the nature of who is asking the questions allows for tougher issues.

I agree, but why does it take YouTube to accomplish this?

Quote:

Clinton earned huge Beltway Brownie points because she answered a question on presidential dynasty without breaking a sweat. I mean, I still think she's a dynastic authoritarian bitch, but it was impressive.

It just indicates that she's a really good liar. ^_^

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because they can operate under the pretext of a "town hall." Because it's Joe Blo asking the question, and not CNN appointed faces, then it's easier for CNN to dissociate themselves from the questions being asked. CNN won't lose brownie points for letting normal people ask questions, and nobody can really be targeted for asking loaded questions.

"Town hall" sorts of debates go down across the country in communities everywhere, though. Their turn-out rates are kind of shit, too.

I was thinking more along the lines of questions from the audience as opposed to questions from YouTube, but I guess I should retract that silly business since the debates weren't exclusively based on questions from the audience.

I'm still offended Romney thinks he shouldn't answer questions from snowmen. (I enjoyed that particular question. I think the candidates should pay attention to how questions are posed. Not everyone wears a suit and tie all day long in America. To me, it serves to prove the rift between Politician and Working Man....not something you'd want to highlight in your campaign.)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.