Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

artislife

(9,497 posts)
8. What I meant
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:46 PM
Aug 2015

And I was searching for a word...not happy with defeated...but what I meant was that I am hearing: We don't need debates because no one watches anyway. Because research says they do little to change the mind of a voter. We don't need debates because we had too many in 2008.

This sounds like....we don't need any debates, as if nothing is revealed of any importance. I don't think I am that unique, I have changed my position because the argument that supported a different view was more compelling than the one I had. I think being in the presence of other candidates will tip the comfortable state and reveal the person underneath. Possibly.


I would love a debate where the candidates had no idea what questions were going to be asked at all. I would love questions that would ask for a real answer and not a canned response.

It feels "defeated" or if you can find a better word, please --that there are Democrats from the top to the bottom saying it is no big deal. Like we put colored jelly beans in our Easter baskets only because we always did but the colored eggs are the only important item.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Martin O'Malley»Hey guys...maybe we can j...»Reply #8