Candidates attacked one other, which is reasonable in a debate, but were occasionally somewhat unprofessional. Trump, ever the gentleman, exclaimed "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?!" when Carly Fiorina attempted to participate in the discussion. The comment reeked of his usual sexism and garnered lots of boos from the audience and a dismissive smirk from Trump. Rand Paul took shots at Marco Rubio's plan for military spending. Trump and Kasich faced off over money. Kasich is largely considered to have been one of the biggest losers of the debate, besides Trump. He came off as sullen and grumpy, far from presidential. Marco Rubio, overall, proved his debate chops once again. Carson's highly questionable past was barely touched (unfortunately), but he performed a bit more enthusiastically than he has in the past.
Obviously, candidates have to differ from each other in order to prove their worth to voters. However, the differences have quickly become divisions between candidates. The jabs seemed almost petty, rather than pointed and crucial. Personally, I think that having such a large debate is debilitating for candidates. It's very, very difficult to establish yourself and appeal to voters if you have only 60 or 90 seconds and must speak over 7 other people at the same time. The fact that there are so many people running for the Republican nomination also presents a problem for contenders. As I mentioned, they have to differentiate themselves somehow, and often alienate themselves in the process. Though it'll never happen, I think that a much smaller debate (maybe 4 people) would be much more beneficial to both voters and the candidates.
What was your opinion on the debate? Would smaller debates help? Who won the debate? Who lost?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/10/455560499/the-fourth-republican-debate-in-100-words-and-three-video-clips
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/10/winners-and-losers-from-the-4th-republican-debate/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/republican-debate-takeaways/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34784688
9 comments:
I was only able to watch a part of the debate, but even in that amount of time it was evident the direction it was going to head for the rest of the night, with the candidates fighting for time and fighting against one another. I feel that Rubio was one of the more successful debaters that night along with Cruz, both of whom who were trying to build upon their steady rise in the polls recently. Rubio was able to show off his 'foreign policy chops', helping to contrast with the less mainstream Rand Paul. And with all questions directed his way he didn't bend under the pressure. As for Cruz he helped to solidify his base by 'slamming moderate, establishment Republicans' (CNN), leading many to see him as the conservative alternative to whichever establishment candidate emerges. As Sarah mentioned Kasich did not show well, what with repeated interruptions.
As for whether a smaller debate would help, I'm not entirely sure. While I do see the merit in having fewer candidates on stage, and thus providing them with more time to discuss their policies in-depth, there is also the draw back of not really seeing the other lower tier candidates debate. Most Americans (who watch the debates at all), often times only watch the main debate, and as a result would miss out on the majority of candidates and therefore may just give their support to the ones who have so far been at the top of the polls, only helping to continue their success. Therefore I feel that as the field (hopefully) narrows down in the weeks to come, the debates will be able get smaller naturally and allow for more substance (without the risk of not hearing from those still in the race).
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/republican-debate-takeaways/index.html
After watching this debate, I was pleasantly surprised because, although it contained some of its usual "entertainment", over all I thought that the candidates were much more professional. This was beneficial because we were able to specifically see the views of the candidates in an in-depth manner. Many of them explained the ground work and how they would achieve their specific plans such as Rubio, with his family and education initiative. However, as mentioned above, there was a lot of attacking one another that went on. Over all, I believe that Rubio preformed the best as he articulated his points clearly and in a strong manner. The only conflict that arose with Rubio was wen Paul attacked how he would obtain money for his plan. He argued back but Paul's comments did undermine him a little bit. I thought that Bush, although he made his points clearly, lacked the emotion and connection with the crowd that is so vital to an election. However, over all, I would have to say that I believed that Carson preformed the worst. There was just nothing positive about his persona, ideas, or actions on the stage that made him seen like a future presidential nominee. At this point I believe that many of the debates are turning out the same, with the same winners and losers. This is indicative of the current trend of support for the voters. Although Trump and Carson are in the lead I predict that this may be changing in the near future, especially after their performances at the debate.
Smaller debates would definitely make the debates a little less chaotic. Debates used to be generally professional and civilized, but ever since the candidates began their campaigns last year they have become the opposite. Especially candidates like Donald Trump and Chris Christy, the Republican debates seemed disorganized, hostile, and childish. I will admit that it is quite entertaining to see fully grown adults screaming over each other like a bunch of toddlers in kindergarden. But with all this childish behavior, it makes it very difficult for the candidates to get their ideas out on the table, and when they do they sound desperate and poor. These poorly run debates make it hard for the audience to get a good feel for the candidates in the party, which makes them even more unsure about who to vote for. Even though it will be hard to stop the candidates from babbling over each other as they do, perhaps smaller debates would make it easier for the people to understand what is actually going on in the debate.
I agree with Kyle that smaller debates would improve the organization of the debate, however, it would do nothing to improve upon the petty argumentative nature the republican debates have been holding. While Ben Carson is in no way qualified to win a nomination or, in fact, stand at that stage, I feel Trump and Christie did the worst out of all of the candidates. Sure, they were far more energetic than Carson, but their lack of tact or professionalism will ruin them in the end. Our country needs a commander-in-chief that can handle diplomacy, and if either of these two were voted in, they'd do an awful job of coming to agreements with other world leaders. all in all, the republican debates have been characteristically distasteful.
I definitely agree with Kyle that the smaller debates would be less chaotic and allow all candidates to get a word in without talking over one another. However, there are also many negatives to a smaller debate. In this presidential election, there are eight Republican candidates. Therefore, if smaller debates were held with four people, there would have to be twice as many debates. In addition, an important part of both Democrat and Republican debates is that candidates can counter and fight one another on their positions and policies. But in a smaller debate, not all candidates will be present and both sides of the story will not have have the chance to speak, that is, unless they are both present.
I enjoyed watching the fourth Republican debate. Furthermore, Trump has been reluctant to dive into specifics of policy so far in his campaign. I do not think this was a smart move on behalf of Trump, but to be honest, the majority of things that Trump states, and the positions he has I do not agree with. I continue to think that many Americans still believe it is humorous and a joke that Donald Trump is running for President. People do not want to take him seriously as the potential leader of this nation.
I agree with Katie, as I too was pleasantly surprised by the debates. They were much more focused and policy not petty disses was the main topic of discussion. After this debate I believe that we will begin to see the decline of Trump’s popularity. As mentioned in the launch his comment to Carly Fiorina was inappropriate and his his usual sexist manner. John Kasich and Jeb Bush also called out Trump on his immigration policies, especially his plan of deportation, that are unrealistic and against American ideals. Despite his performance improving from the last debate, he couldn’t contend with Marco Rubio, who undoubtedly won the debate. He wove his story of being born to immigrant parents through each of his responses and was able to differentiate himself on some important topics, such as foreign policy. The way he differentiated himself was key: instead of taking eccentric stances, he contrasted himself with his less mainstream opponents, such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul who is a strong isolationist.
With so many Republican candidates it is key for the candidates to try and stand out. I agree with Kyle in that smaller debates would help the candidates be able to go in depth into their own policies, without having to stretch the truth in order to sound unique. This would also create less competition on stage and thus would make the Republican party seem less fragmented. I think that this disunity between the candidates is not only detrimental to them but makes the Republican party as a whole look much weaker.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/republican-debate-takeaways/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34784688
Although I believe that smaller debates would help each of the candidates better express their ideas, I believe that belligerent candidates like Trump would still use these debates as opportunities to unleash insults against the others. Thus, though it would be easier for each of the candidates to express their ideas if the debates had fewer participants, it seems unlikely that this would curb the exchange of personal attacks that goes on between them.
Even though I d not agree with most of his policies, I believe that Marco Rubio performed best at the last Republican debate, since his charisma as a candidate seemed to take center-stage. He opened with a well-spoken argument against raising the minimum wage, and his ideas were soon reiterated by other candidates such as Carson and Trump, who are leading in the polls. He also made an effort to show himself as a candidate that would support the middle class, criticizing the educated "elites" of society and stating that "We need more welders and less philosophers" (sic) (CNN).
Trump, like always, made a fool of himself, but everyone knows that his belligerence and impulsiveness as a candidate will paradoxically lead to a surge in the polls for him. As for Bush, who flopped in the last debate, he seemed to have a sense of renewed vitality in this debate. Though he was far from being the winner, his performance in this debate, including his lack of reluctance to face Trump head on in an exchange about foreign policy, certainly exceeded expectations.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/politics/republican-debate-2015-updates/
The recent Republican debate showed us that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are probably the strongest candidates in the race despite Trump and Carson’s popularity in the polls. I think that Rubio and Cruz’s polls will rise after this debate especially after Rubio stated his views on American military power, which strongly contrasted with Rand Paul’s isolationist views. Also, Cruz defended true conservative values by asserting his views on immigration (his views are popular among the conservative wing). Overall, I felt that this debate was informative of the candidates’ views and was more productive than other debates. However, What I didn’t find good about this debate is the fact that the candidates were all attacking each other on the issues. Specifically, Rand Paul attacked Marco Rubio questioning if his programs were truly conservative. I feel that if these Republicans expect to succeed in the next election, candidates that are doing poorly should drop out and start supporting other Republican candidates so that the Republican Party has a few especially strong candidates to compete with the Democrats.
As for smaller debates, I think that it would be more beneficial (especially after more candidates drop out) so that we can hear their opinions more in depth. Right now, we only hear each of them briefly.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/republican-debate-takeaways/index.html
I 100% agree with Margot when she said that smaller debates would be more orderly and decrease the chaos that is common in these large group debates. There comes a point where the issues and policy ideas are lost within the drama of the individual candidates and the debate is not completing the task it was supposed to, leaving the public uninformed on where the individuals they are electing to office stand. There is too much time given to each candidate in the debate that allows them to sneak in jabs at the other candidates. Instead, there should be just enough time for the candidates to discuss their policies and plans. This debate, in comparison to those in the past couple of weeks, definitely was more content based. Marco Rubio stood out to me personally in sticking to strictly his debate agenda and stayed out of the petty drama that Trump would attempt to stir up. Trump, in character, avoided discussing any real plans he had and instead stuck to tearing down his competition with insults. Although the debates are not completely focused, they are moving in the right direction.
Post a Comment