Here’s a guide for options. It will be streaming at Bloomberg.
14 thoughts on “Wondering How To Watch The Debate Tonight?”
Honestly, I don’t know what is the purpose of these debates, other than to anoint a clear front runner before the primaries begin and the voters get to have their say.
At the very least an effort — failing miserably — to weed out the ones that aren’t ready for prime time.
I mean, seriously? Mitt Romney is still running?
The Tigers really need a win tonight.
I’m listening to the debate. Governor Perry just said that “Americans are untrustworthy”.
Ok, he said “Americans are untrustworthy of the tax cuts proposed in Washington DC because they never see them in reality”, but it was still funny.
Well, I guess Perry’s debating performance explains why his contract (to become the Republican nominee) collapsed on Intrade. Too bad nothing similar is happening on the Democrat side. Would be nice to see Obama sweat a little and maybe give some worthy opponent a chance to become the nominee.
An article on politico.com says that Perry plans to catchup and overtake Romney through a sustained campaign of TV advertisements. He can afford to try – Perry has done well with fund-raising.
And that’s why I’m surprised by the hostility in this comment thread toward the very idea of pre-nomination debates. Certainly the implementation could be significantly improved any number of ways, but just about any debate format is better than TV advertisements! What other approaches are there for voters to get to know the candidates, besides debates & commericials? I can think of two: unplanned personal appearances (like the Joe the Plumber moment), and big rehearsed speeches. There are also position papers, but the candidates didn’t write them, and the voters don’t read them. I say keep the debates.
And tonight’s debate, using a round table and a chance for candidates to ask each other questions seemed like an improvement over the first three debates.
What is it about the debates that in any way relates to the job of actually being president? Nothing. Perhaps if the debates focused on the candidates knowledge of the Constitution, executive philosophy and experiece and related topics then they might be worthwhile. In their current format, they’re little more than gotcha TV.
Like I’ve said before, given that any GOP prez, irrespective of how far to the left he or she may be, will face a hostile press 24/7 for 4 years straight, these debates at least give us an idea of how they would handle that pressure if given the chance. Not much beyond that, though.
Ron Paul got one “you wanna say me too on the Fed?” at the beginning of the debate and zero questions since. Ya need an equal time rule.
Ya, between equal time and trying to choose a candidate while telling others to quit, the media is screwing up the debates.
A winner comes through the primaries not the 4th branch of government anointment.
Same crap happened in the Democrat primaries last cycle.
Pre-nomination debates should be sponsored and moderated by party or political-action groups, not the media.
Assuming there should even be debates, that is.
I don’t understand why they don’t just put the equivalent of a chess clock on everyone. Everybody get’s equal time and no moderators. They ask each other questions. Only one microphone is hot at a time and they can turn it off anytime they want to save time to respond in the future. A light indicates a hot microphone.
then you’d need soundproof booths .. and honestly, the next step from there is pouring goo on their heads if they say “I don’t know”.
Actually, I’d prefer high voltage like that famous Simpsons episode.
Honestly, I don’t know what is the purpose of these debates, other than to anoint a clear front runner before the primaries begin and the voters get to have their say.
At the very least an effort — failing miserably — to weed out the ones that aren’t ready for prime time.
I mean, seriously? Mitt Romney is still running?
The Tigers really need a win tonight.
I’m listening to the debate. Governor Perry just said that “Americans are untrustworthy”.
Ok, he said “Americans are untrustworthy of the tax cuts proposed in Washington DC because they never see them in reality”, but it was still funny.
Well, I guess Perry’s debating performance explains why his contract (to become the Republican nominee) collapsed on Intrade. Too bad nothing similar is happening on the Democrat side. Would be nice to see Obama sweat a little and maybe give some worthy opponent a chance to become the nominee.
An article on politico.com says that Perry plans to catchup and overtake Romney through a sustained campaign of TV advertisements. He can afford to try – Perry has done well with fund-raising.
And that’s why I’m surprised by the hostility in this comment thread toward the very idea of pre-nomination debates. Certainly the implementation could be significantly improved any number of ways, but just about any debate format is better than TV advertisements! What other approaches are there for voters to get to know the candidates, besides debates & commericials? I can think of two: unplanned personal appearances (like the Joe the Plumber moment), and big rehearsed speeches. There are also position papers, but the candidates didn’t write them, and the voters don’t read them. I say keep the debates.
And tonight’s debate, using a round table and a chance for candidates to ask each other questions seemed like an improvement over the first three debates.
What is it about the debates that in any way relates to the job of actually being president? Nothing. Perhaps if the debates focused on the candidates knowledge of the Constitution, executive philosophy and experiece and related topics then they might be worthwhile. In their current format, they’re little more than gotcha TV.
Like I’ve said before, given that any GOP prez, irrespective of how far to the left he or she may be, will face a hostile press 24/7 for 4 years straight, these debates at least give us an idea of how they would handle that pressure if given the chance. Not much beyond that, though.
Ron Paul got one “you wanna say me too on the Fed?” at the beginning of the debate and zero questions since. Ya need an equal time rule.
Ya, between equal time and trying to choose a candidate while telling others to quit, the media is screwing up the debates.
A winner comes through the primaries not the 4th branch of government anointment.
Same crap happened in the Democrat primaries last cycle.
Pre-nomination debates should be sponsored and moderated by party or political-action groups, not the media.
Assuming there should even be debates, that is.
I don’t understand why they don’t just put the equivalent of a chess clock on everyone. Everybody get’s equal time and no moderators. They ask each other questions. Only one microphone is hot at a time and they can turn it off anytime they want to save time to respond in the future. A light indicates a hot microphone.
then you’d need soundproof booths .. and honestly, the next step from there is pouring goo on their heads if they say “I don’t know”.
Actually, I’d prefer high voltage like that famous Simpsons episode.