Presidential Debates

I CAN’T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THEY ARE

For the most part, Republicans are really stupid.  As an example, during last weeks debates that were held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, they all seemed to be interested in only one thing, to gang up on Donald Trump, as opposed to truly debating on a host of subjects that truly count or for that matter, their opposition.  Instead, they squandered a lot of valuable air  time on nonsense and intramural bickering.

Even those that ran the debates and asked the questions joined in the fray.  I could not believe my ears when the moderator asked Carly Fiorina to comment on some negative comments that Donald Trump made about her looks.  Who cares?  He should have asked a question that relates to what the prospective voters want to hear about and not those questions that rightfully belong in the papers that adorn the super market check out lines.

Furthermore, I think that by trying to gang up on Trump, it had the reverse effect because all it did  was to give Trump the greatest amount of air time.

Who came across the best?  I think that, in spite of the different manners of delivery, they all spoke well, that is when they were given the opportunity to do so.  Carly Fiorina did especially well and probably better than most of her competitors but she has no chance of winning the election, especially once the opposition points out that she allegedly saved Hewlitt-Packard by farming out some 10,000 or more jobs to southeast Asia.

But since a presidential election is really no different than a gigantic popularity contest, the one whose name is a household word or is at least more widely known to the public, is usually the winner.  Based on that premise, my money is on Trump.

Can the debates be improved upon?  Of course.  Everything can be improved because nothing is ever perfect.  How?  For one thing, the time of the debates can be reduced or cut because three hours is a bit much.  The network, CNN, can also eliminate the bullshit and make it a point to ask only real questions and the number of participants can be shortened by eliminating those marginal candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning the national election.

Even though the network, CNN, is talking of expanding the next televised debate, should this happen, the viewers will lose interest and/or fall asleep.  Or is it the network’s intention to merely sell more advertising time instead of informing the listening and viewing audience of the issues?

In my opinion, the answer is less time, not more – and the field of candidates should be reduced to no more than the top six or so.