Re: Why don't the debates show the name of each pe... - Page 13

Marienkaefer2 · ‎03-09-2010

Hi MJ 12!

If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.--Marcus Tullius Cicero

Mj12 · ‎03-09-2010

@Marienkaefer2 wrote:
Hi MJ 12!

sandy53 · ‎03-12-2010

I don't need nametags. I live in Iowa and the candidates are pretty much living here until the February caucuses. I've met three of them already: Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee. I live in a small city, not a metro area, and it is great that the candidates come to us.

Winkk · ‎03-15-2010

@newjersey wrote:
I haven't read all the replies so sorry if someone asked this - why do they have to stand up for hours during the debate. My feet would be killing me

I was thinking the same thing. I guess I'm getting old.

nomless · ‎03-10-2010

newjersey wrote:

I haven't read all the replies so sorry if someone asked this - why do they have to stand up for hours during the debate. My feet would be killing me

For a 3 hour event, I would have preferred them seated. The questioners were seated; no need to make the candidates stand. A semicircle table so they could see and address each other would have worked, I think.

Winkk · ‎03-15-2010

@HappyDaze wrote:
I think it is crazy that people are trying to shame people for not being 100% familar with ALL candidates and then make assumptions about them and their voting habits. Especially when they are asking for the names so they CAN become more familar with the lesser known candidates. Unbelievable.

I am a person who is not officially affiliated with one party or another.I try to listen to and learn about all candidates on both sides.

I agree. It is still so early in the game and so many candidates it can be overwhelming.

I never used to follow politics until a few years ago. But over the past several years it has become the best reality show on T V. There's lying, back stabbing, conspiracies, adultry, fraud, cheating - what more could you ask for?

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@Greenhouse wrote:
Their questions were meant to provoke candidates into sparring with each other.
Yes of course, because it's all about RATINGS for CNN.
Also, did you know that the debate was supposed to be 2 hrs. long but CNN realized they could get advertising money for more time so two days before the show it was made into a three-hour debate? (This according to Donald Trump). It's all about ratings and dollars. So of course CNN was interesting in instigating fights which would make for more viewer interest (to watch the entire show), good ratings, and more advertising dollars. Most of the questions posed were to Trump and Bush with Fiorina just butting in all the time interrupting to get air time; hardly any questions were asked of Huckabee, Walker (who is really boring), Cruz, or Kasich. Rand Paul a few more but not many. It's as if CNN didn't take the other candidates seriously. CNN knew what it was doing - exactly - and it worked.

Uh, sorry to have to point out the glaringly obvious .... but it's all about ratings for EVERY news station and network .... seriously, didn't you know that?

I don't know why DT would have some" inside information" about CNN, but you seem to think that if he says it, it must be true. Strange comment, IMO.

@Tinkrbl44Uh seriously of course I knew that <rolling eyes upward.. But I was answering the specific question pertaining to this debate. Seriously, you didn't understand that?

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@Lila Belle wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@Lila Belle wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@Greenhouse wrote:
Their questions were meant to provoke candidates into sparring with each other.
Yes of course, because it's all about RATINGS for CNN.
Also, did you know that the debate was supposed to be 2 hrs. long but CNN realized they could get advertising money for more time so two days before the show it was made into a three-hour debate? (This according to Donald Trump). It's all about ratings and dollars. So of course CNN was interesting in instigating fights which would make for more viewer interest (to watch the entire show), good ratings, and more advertising dollars. Most of the questions posed were to Trump and Bush with Fiorina just butting in all the time interrupting to get air time; hardly any questions were asked of Huckabee, Walker (who is really boring), Cruz, or Kasich. Rand Paul a few more but not many. It's as if CNN didn't take the other candidates seriously. CNN knew what it was doing - exactly - and it worked.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

In respect to just asking a few questions of the low polling candidates FNC did the same thing. It worked for them as well.
@Lila Belle First of all, I was sticking to the subject of this thread.
Second, Foxnews didn't do it nearly as much or as badly as CNN did. If you look at the stats for time spent on each candidate on the Foxnews debate, except for Trump which way ahead of others got the most air time, the air time stats are much closer than last night's for each candidate. Really, go look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL

Interesting response to the truth. You must not have looked up the facts.

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@JAXS Mom wrote:

Are all you people serious? Have you never watched political debates before?

All the way back to the first televised presidential debate: Kennedy/Nixon.. That's the first one I watched.

I am really tired of being asked on this board whether I am serious. How about everybody assume my posts are serious unless I put up a smilie emoticon? Then I won't have to be asked dozens of times, "seriously?" Yes, seriously or I wouldn't be wasting time posting.