I think there's something to what he's saying:
"No getting around it, this debate is just amazingly boring. I have to imagine it seems that way from a variety of political perspectives. True, debates aren't judged properly by entertainment factors. But 'boring' in this case is largely a matter of its not being engaging because nothing is actually happening. TPM Reader JB says this debate is like watching serial infomercials. I have to imagine that the audience for the next GOP debate will drop off dramatically. Engagement, tough questions, quite simply fighting generates new information. You learn things. This debate is painfully awful."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/let-s-keep-this-real
He thinks that the moderators have been suitably cowed by the way the CNBC moderators were demonized.
I do find that it gets a little repetitive. Everyone just talks about how much they will cut taxes, cut regulations, and raise growth.
"No getting around it, this debate is just amazingly boring. I have to imagine it seems that way from a variety of political perspectives. True, debates aren't judged properly by entertainment factors. But 'boring' in this case is largely a matter of its not being engaging because nothing is actually happening. TPM Reader JB says this debate is like watching serial infomercials. I have to imagine that the audience for the next GOP debate will drop off dramatically. Engagement, tough questions, quite simply fighting generates new information. You learn things. This debate is painfully awful."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/let-s-keep-this-real
He thinks that the moderators have been suitably cowed by the way the CNBC moderators were demonized.
I do find that it gets a little repetitive. Everyone just talks about how much they will cut taxes, cut regulations, and raise growth.
There have been a few good moments. I enjoyed the Rand Paul-Marco Rubio skirmoff; I took Rand's side for the first time in anything. That's because it's against Rubio.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/marco-rubio-rand-paul-debate-clash-215737
There was some fun when Trump and Cruz sort of battled Jeb and Kasich over immigration. Kasich seems to have come in with a strategy of interrupting people like Firoina usually does-though she's done less tonight.
Jeb certainly hasn't attacked Rubio and neither has Trump gone after Carson. Underscoring Josh's point, I'm not sure who's winning right now. I thought Cruz had some good moments.
Trump sparred on immigration.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/marco-rubio-rand-paul-debate-clash-215737
I do think that Dr. Ben did his best job yet; his campaign told us he was studying and he did seem to show a little command of economics-more than in the past.
But there's definitely something to what Marshall said here:
"The moderators have definitely gotten the message from the post-CNBC debate freak out. All questions seem to be some form of, how do you propose to be conservatively awesome?"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/live-blogging-the-awesomest-debate-in-the-history-of-debates
Of course, the question is, assuming Josh Marshall's take on this debate is right who benefits and who loses? I don't really know who won or lost at this point-though I'm watching on DVR, and still have about 40 minutes left.
It would seem that a debate that generates less information probably doesn't hurt those who were already doing well. But how does it help those who weren't?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/marco-rubio-rand-paul-debate-clash-215737
There was some fun when Trump and Cruz sort of battled Jeb and Kasich over immigration. Kasich seems to have come in with a strategy of interrupting people like Firoina usually does-though she's done less tonight.
Jeb certainly hasn't attacked Rubio and neither has Trump gone after Carson. Underscoring Josh's point, I'm not sure who's winning right now. I thought Cruz had some good moments.
Trump sparred on immigration.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/marco-rubio-rand-paul-debate-clash-215737
I do think that Dr. Ben did his best job yet; his campaign told us he was studying and he did seem to show a little command of economics-more than in the past.
But there's definitely something to what Marshall said here:
"The moderators have definitely gotten the message from the post-CNBC debate freak out. All questions seem to be some form of, how do you propose to be conservatively awesome?"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/live-blogging-the-awesomest-debate-in-the-history-of-debates
Of course, the question is, assuming Josh Marshall's take on this debate is right who benefits and who loses? I don't really know who won or lost at this point-though I'm watching on DVR, and still have about 40 minutes left.
It would seem that a debate that generates less information probably doesn't hurt those who were already doing well. But how does it help those who weren't?
No comments:
Post a Comment