Why I think 1 or 2 debates would be good idea, do you agree?

[rinsd]

Poll question: Why I think 1 or 2 debates would be good idea, do you agree?

This is not about debates having influence on the primary (though that certainly could happen) but rather the continuing showcase our our better Democratic ideas & candidates vs the crap offered by Republicans.

The last few debates have been breaking viewership records and we are seeing record turnout at the ballot box.

Why not continue to showcase some of the best our party has to offer?

[LakeSamish706]

1. My real objection is the fact that the debates would be on Fox. n/t

[Tektonik]

2. I think another debate would be helpful

[Mass]

3. I thought a debate was planned for Texas. Do we really need more than that?

And particularly on FOX?

[jillan]

4. People need an opportunity to compare the candidates side by side more now than ever.

Face it - all of those debates last year - only political junkies were watching.
People are tuning in now.

[gateley]

9. Excellent point, Pirhana. nt

[Unsane]

5. No more debates are needed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Just like no discussion of the issues is needed n/t

[mikelgb]

7. in all the debates Obama and Hillary got more time than anybody else

then they had their own debate....

enough

they have had their say

just have the convention and get this over with so the damn criminals can steal it from whoever it is. And we can all bitch for another 8 years over stolen elections while the one we voted for do fucking absolutely nothing about it.

[gateley]

8. With Romney pulling out I think it would be a good opportunity to showcase

our candidates to those Reps who don't want either McCain or Huckabee.

Hillary and O could present more 'love fests' (or not) and entice those reps to come over to our side.

Do we HAVE to have them on FOX? If it's up to the DNC, can't they just ignore the FOX thing and schedule some elsewhere?

[BeyondGeography]

10. One TV, one radio

The NPR Iowa radio debate is always the best of the season. Takes the pundits out of the mix and elevates substance.

[Benhurst]

11. I'm all for getting the so-called pundits and stooges from our corporate press

out of the mix as much as possible. And I'm also for having as many true debates/discussions as possible. The staged "events" and commercials are nothing but propaganda.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. You do not have an option up that represents my position

One OR two debates doesn't work for me because I strongly believe that one debate is not enough under the current circumstances of a dead heat between the two remaining candidates. But since I am willing to settle for two debates, I can't vote for the option that says we need to have more than two. I would say that we need AT LEAST two more debates.

This is about more than the shifting political needs of various candidates. This is about the constant political need of the voters to be informed. Politicians will lean for or against holding debates in different situations based on their read of their narrow political self interest in getting elected. Those who believe debates have the most to offer them want the maximum amount of debates that they can have. Those who believe debates have the most to lose from them want the minimum number of debates they can get away with.

I however am a voter, and much like the League of Women Voters, I think public debates between the candidates for President, while the choice remains very much still undecided, serve the public interest.

[Unsane]

13. I actually think there should be negative debates.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. good advice......

[newmajority]

15. Here's the criteria under which debates would be acceptable

Debates carried on C-SPAN and/or network TV. No FAUX Noize, No Leslie Blitzer, No Chuck Todd.

REAL, old school debate sponsored by some neutral non corporate entity.

Moderators: Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, Rachel Maddow.