Can we stop with the pugilistic frames for debates and comebacks?

[jmbar2]

Many Dems were disappointed by the last two debates due to the way CNN tried to provoke candidates to engage in shouting matches and gotchas.

I see lots of statements on DU that mirror that mindset
- Candidate X DESTROYED candidate Y by saying...
- Candidate D hits back at X for saying...


This reinforces a boxing or street fight metaphor for our debates/elections where we win by destroying other Democrats. Stop!

What about shifting the frame to that of a marathon, where you simply pass your opponent without destroying them? Or that of an intelligent debate? The healthcare proposals require a lot of research and development over time. The debates pointed out honest flaws in proposals that need to be addressed, not fatal flaws. No one needs a "knockout punch" over a weak point in a proposed policy.

In the end, this large field of great candidates will make a stellar cabinet. We need for all them to shine, even if only one ends up being POTUS.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Lawrence O'Donnell suggested the same thing, using the analogy of a home-run derby.

Everybody gives it their best shot without dragging any of the others. Make the point that they are running against Trump and the GOP, not each other. For example: "We are all Democrats and we all want (for example) a health care system that ensures everyone has equal access to good, affordable health care. Trump and the GOP want to go back to the bad old days when you could be rejected by your for-profit health insurance company because you had a pre-existing condition, or that you'd exceeded your lifetime cap on your chronic illness, basically letting people die because they couldn't afford treatment. We fixed that with the ACA, which the GOP tried to repeal some 50 times because it wasn't making enough money for the insurance companies. All of us have plans for an even better system, and they are all good plans. But my plan is the best because....."

Isn't that a better approach than accusing each other of being Republicans in sheep's clothing or closet racists or some of the other trash that's been thrown around, incited by crappy debate moderators?

[frazzled]

2. I've been saying this for years

and you should expect, as I have come to do, for it to fall completely on deaf ears. The number of posts in which someone (by means of a mere quip spoken on a talk show or in a debate) is said to have "slayed," "eviscerated," "destroyed" someone else is legion. Aside from the fact that this is the language of warfare (not useful to tempering the political heat), it is, of course, not at all true: nobody destroys somebody by talking. And usually, few are listening anyway.

I tend never to open posts with such belligerent words in the header. They're dead ends.

[dalton99a]

3. It's all about ratings for CNN and money in Jeff Zucker's pocket

Don't forget who turned Donald Trump into a TV celebrity and gave him free 24/7 coverage for his presidential campaign.


Donald Trump and Jeff Zucker in 2004. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)