"democratic" debates?

For Immediate Release: October 10, 2003

CNN's Democratic presidential candidates' debate last night was held
with the stated intention of providing the candidates equal time.
According to the Hotline (National Journal), here are the results:

Candidate Amount Of Talk Time During the Debate

Dean 14 min 07 seconds

Kerry 12 min 31 seconds

Clark 10 min 36 seconds

Gephardt 10 min 02 seconds

Lieberman 9 min 26 seconds

Braun 8 min 39 seconds

Sharpton 8 min 28 seconds

Edwards 8 min 00 seconds

Kucinich 5 min 09 seconds

At the debate, Congressman Kucinich stood out, expressing some of the
clearest and sharpest distinctions between himself and other candidates,
and receiving applause for his comments. It is safe to assume that his
impact would have been even greater had he been given more than 36
percent of the time given to Gov. Dean.

Kucinich pointed out that he is the only candidate who voted against the
War on Iraq one year ago today.

Kucinich challenged the other candidates to oppose spending another $87
billion on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and no one accepted the
challenge.

Kucinich advocated creating a cabinet-level Department of Peace to
promote nonviolence in domestic and international affairs and to make
war archaic.

Kucinich presented the outlines of a plan he has just released to bring
US troops home from Iraq, end the war profiteering, and allow the United
Nations to facilitate Iraqi self-governance.

was a shameful bush* supporters orgy

value of what each has to say. The inverse correlation is almost perfect.

And I don't think it's an accident.

It's a pattern replicated everywhere in the media.

And idea that is "dangerous" or challenges the current fascism gets no play at all.

... he wants to empower labor, and bring on Universal Health Care. (The reasons I'm working on his campaign). You notice that they didn't talk about Health Care, Energy policy, or NAFTA - that's because the reporters are all conservatives when it comes to money - they want to keep all of theirs.

The questions were absolutely insipid - they spent 15 minutes talking about "Why don't The Democrats talk about values?" The media is trying to keep political discussion in this country as nebulous and stupid as they possibly can. They make their money on fear, confusion and prejudice (and so does George Bush).

LaRouche has raised more money that Sharpton and Braun combined. He has also raised almost as much money as Kucinich, and is only slightly behind Kucinich in the polls.

Some of these candidates should be happy that they are allowed at the debates at all.

:eyes: and poll position.

You have to draw the line somewhere. There are dozens of people running for the Democratic nomination but they are not allowed to participate in the debates. What about Warren Ashe

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CZZ73526

or Jerry Beck?

http://www.beck2004.com

would you really want a debate with 50 people, each given an equal amount of time?

Why should money and poll position be a determining factor in time allowed to talk? If the candiate you supported had this done to he or she, I bet you would be outraged, I know I think this is unfair.

Why should Dennis Kucinich be allowed included in the debate and not Jerry Beck?

and YES, I would like to see a debate with 50 candidates each given an equal amount of time. Unfortunately the media is not ever going to do that.

I would propose the candidates be broken down into groups of 8-10 per debate, half unknowns and half popular polling candidates. With the technology we have today, we could even have scheduled, online, ongoing debates among ALL the candidates running. Supporters could print out and distribute statements to people without computer access, or those without could use public computers (local Librbary, etc.) to read the debate.

If we actually made porper and efficient use of the tools of communication available, we'd have a far more well-informed electorate, a much fairer eleaction process, and ALL candidates would get equal exposure. Money/polling positions SHOULD NOT be such defining factors in this day and age, and this early in the race.

Every nutjob and publicity hound will thropw thier hat in the ring to promote themselves or their narrow agenda. You would need 50 debates to include all 500 if you limited them to ten persons per debate. Although you would certainly have a 'fair' situation, you also would ruin the debates as a tool for people to decide who to vote for

I do not. That would help. Ideally I think they should all be allowed but you are right, it would be a mess. Still, money should not be one of the deciding factors IMO or poll numbers at this point.

There has to be some way to seperate those who are running serious campaigns and those who are not. Perhaps we could just go by the odds that the bookies are giving.

And keep in mind, the Iowa Caucuses are only about three months away.

they do it but I am planning on finding out. What makes you think that the others are not running serious campaigns? Is it the money? I know that Kucinch does not accept corporate money so therefore he should not be considered serious? He is running a people powered grass roots campaign and that is not serious? The caucuses are where this all gets sorted out but I think Kucinich would be surprised to learn that he is not serious. I know it surprised me.

Corporations are forbiden by federal law from donating money to candidates for federal office.

And no, it is not just the money. It is painfully obvious from every single public opinion poll that Kucinich's campaign is going absolutely nowhere.

First you say they should all be allowed to debate and then you say that the candidate with the lower money and the lower guys in the polls should not be doing it? I don't think polls should decide anything. Sorry, I know they do but I do not care for them in these circumstances. If you take the opportunity to look inside the Kucinich campaign I think you will see otherwise but somehow I don't think you are very interested in doing that.

If the debates are going to meaningful to TV viewers, the number of candidates needs to be limited in some way.

Take fo instance what they did in California. Instead of having a debate with all 150 candidates, they limited the number by having a certain threshold in polls numbers. Any candidate who polled over a certain amount was invited to the debate.

The Presidential Debate Commission uses similar criteria. They made an exception for Ross Perot in 1992 becasue anyone with that large of a bank account could certainly buy enough exposure to make himself a credible candidate.

I will agree with you that many in the Kucinish campaign are very serious in their effort. But the chances of that campaign's success are not. Every single poll that has been conducted confirms that.

Who knows the polls arent always accurate. We have no idea on this day knowing who will prevail in the end, it could be anyone really.

You are correct in that we don't know who will prevail. But we can tell with a certain amount of confidence who WON'T. Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich are in that category.

Remember some of the candiates of the past didnt enter to the year of. Yes and polls have failed in the past too.

But that is unlikely to occur in today's compressed primary calendar. Regardless of any late entries, it isn't likey that they would cause Kucinich to rise in the polls.

I can see how you may be sceptical of polls, but every singe poll is showing that Kucinich has between 0% and 3%. These results are pretty consistant.

When we have a primary then maybe I might understand until then, I will remain skeptical. Its still the right thing to support who I support. Results? primaries havent happened.

what a ludicrous and inaccurate statement. Perhaps your agenda is not what it seems from post to post.

because it's been said to me enough times to rankle, but this is my honest personal feeling-

I watched the NY debate and was absolutely sickened by the behavior of LaRouche supporters. I understand the frustration, without question, but you don't get your candidate heard by silencing others. You don't get the moral high-ground for ignoring common courtesy, and you don't get them into debates by pissing off the opposition and debate sponsors.

I'll grant you that LaRouche should really be in the debates as long as he keeps running, because that's just fair and right. Money doesn't have a thing to do wit that position, nor should it.

Unfortunately LaRouche and his supporters have resorted to extremist behavior enough times that his reputation is deeply damaged. Let me put it this way, I refuse to even look into the man after learning that he's been convicted of a crime, seeing his supporters behavior in NY and hearing just a few of the venomous statements made by some of them towards other people.

Kucinich supporters as a general rule are not extremists, nor is the Congressman himself. We're good upstanding people who care about each other and humanity. LaRouche has sadly given the impression that he's a "little Hitler", and by that I mean intent on pushing his agenda at any and all costs. I could be wrong about that, and I'm happy to be proven wrong about it, however that needs to come from Lynden LaRouche himself. Tell the man to stand up, speak as clearly and plainly as Kucinich and not encourage or accept irrational behavior on his behalf, and I'll have a lot of respect for him.

In the meanwhile, I'll stand behind Dennis Kucinich until he drops out, loses, or even better becomes the next President. He walks the walk, LaRouche has not shown me that he can do that.

He has utterly no place in the Democratic debate, nor in our political party. If, say, some Klan leader wanted to be in the debates, he would not be allowed in; and rightly so. The same with that monster LaRouche.

I find it extremely disturbing that anyone would speak of LaRouche in anything except the most openly negative terms. Our open-mindedness need not give sanction to Fascists.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932323219/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385238800/

After doing some quick arithmetic, the total candidate talk time comes to roughly 88 minutes. Seems to me that moderator time and commercial time takes the total to over the 90 minutes that the debate was on CNN. Kinda makes me wonder about the information provider.

Therefore, Dean gobbled up the most time. If you guys want to make the election about Howard Dean, it will be about Howard Dean. Politicians made a similar mistake in California, making the election about Schwarzenegger.

No attacked Dennis Kucinich on purpose. The attacks on Dean and Clark were a deliberate attempt to marginalize the other candidates. I'll bet that CNN is behind it.

about biography).

The moderators were encouraging attacks on Dean.

For example, the fax bullshit was a manufactured attack.

Furthermore, the media sends the message that, if you attack Dean during the week, we'll talk about it and give you coverage, and let you talk about in the debate.

It's totally manufactured by CNN.

It's BS.

CNN might as well have Ann Coulter as the moderator for the next debate. Let's quit pretending!

talk time?

...this is just one more reason- thanks for the interesting/obscure stats!