by Willie71 wrote:Wilbur wrote:purplerat wrote:What's wrong with three debates? The primary debates are pretty much all side show spectacles anyways and it's patently ridiculous how many there've been in recent elections and how early they start.
The debates aren't setup to provide any substantive insight into candidates and have really become nothing more than high profile game shows.
The debates serve to introduce the candidates to the voters. Given the number of eligible voters, holding only three debates doesn't really seem like a reasonable effort to reach all of them or even a fair percentage. Three debates seems like the number of debates you would conduct if you wanted to reach as few voters as possible without making it obvious that's what you're trying to do.
But OS can explain it away by talking about the number of candidates at the debates, rather than addressing your point of how many debates there were.
Well yes, when the difference in number of nationally televised debates/forums aren't that far apart, 26 for 2008 and 22 for 2016, the number of debates/forums becomes unimportant. But when the debates are slimmed down to just the two front runners a difference between Clinton vs Obama at 6 and Clinton vs Sanders at 14 is important when you're claiming injustice done in 2016 to Bernie because of too few debates.
In 2008 there were 6 faces offs between Clinton and Obama including official debates and official forums. In 2016 there were 5 face offs between Clinton and Sanders in official debates and 9 face offs between Clinton and Sanders in official forums. Now I don't know that the difference between 5 and 6 debates is all that important, but I'd say that difference between 5 and 14 is. Though with Bernie loosing in the polls done in all 9 of the 9 official debates maybe Bernie would have been even worse off with even more debates.
Willie71 wrote: Creationism at its finest.
Can't quite figure out why you'd want to brag about it.
