Presidential Debates are Not That Important

candycorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
115,305
Reaction score
60,462
Points
2,605
Location
Deep State Plant.
Really...I'm glad that, by all accounts, Harris won tonight's debate by a wide margin. It was a blow out. And that she absolutely field dressed Trump like one would do to a deer they took down in a meadow was very satisfying.

But really folks...in what universe does this tell us what type of President she will be? While it is true that you do get to lay out your vision in broad strokes in the forum of a Presidential Debate in the opening statements, answering these questions with 2 minute time limits and one minute rebuttals etc... is a very poor indicator of any skills as a chief executive. In no scenario would anyone, as a President, have to work under those conditions without advisors, notes, etc... Its dumb that a lot of the electorate puts so much emphasis on the debate performance.

Harris has 4 years as VEEP, 12 years, as Senator I believe, and numerous years as an AG in a large diverse state. She's qualified to be POTUS. That shined through tonight. But as a device, the debates have an out-sized importance when you are talking about the party nominees. Party candidate debates are a slightly different ballgame since they often feature candidates who are unknown. Jon Huntsmann for example really impressed me in his debate performance. I had never heard of him before. We could use more politicians like him.
 
Really...I'm glad that, by all accounts, Harris won tonight's debate by a wide margin. It was a blow out. And that she absolutely field dressed Trump like one would do to a deer they took down in a meadow was very satisfying.

But really folks...in what universe does this tell us what type of President she will be? While it is true that you do get to lay out your vision in broad strokes in the forum of a Presidential Debate in the opening statements, answering these questions with 2 minute time limits and one minute rebuttals etc... is a very poor indicator of any skills as a chief executive. In no scenario would anyone, as a President, have to work under those conditions without advisors, notes, etc... Its dumb that a lot of the electorate puts so much emphasis on the debate performance.

Harris has 4 years as VEEP, 12 years, as Senator I believe, and numerous years as an AG in a large diverse state. She's qualified to be POTUS. That shined through tonight. But as a device, the debates have an out-sized importance when you are talking about the party nominees. Party candidate debates are a slightly different ballgame since they often feature candidates who are unknown. Jon Huntsmann for example really impressed me in his debate performance. I had never heard of him before. We could use more politicians like him.

^^ Translation: Harris lost bad so let’s just remember debates don’t matter that much.




.




.




IMG_7275.webp
 
Really...I'm glad that, by all accounts, Harris won tonight's debate by a wide margin. It was a blow out. And that she absolutely field dressed Trump like one would do to a deer they took down in a meadow was very satisfying.

But really folks...in what universe does this tell us what type of President she will be? While it is true that you do get to lay out your vision in broad strokes in the forum of a Presidential Debate in the opening statements, answering these questions with 2 minute time limits and one minute rebuttals etc... is a very poor indicator of any skills as a chief executive. In no scenario would anyone, as a President, have to work under those conditions without advisors, notes, etc... Its dumb that a lot of the electorate puts so much emphasis on the debate performance.

Harris has 4 years as VEEP, 12 years, as Senator I believe, and numerous years as an AG in a large diverse state. She's qualified to be POTUS. That shined through tonight. But as a device, the debates have an out-sized importance when you are talking about the party nominees. Party candidate debates are a slightly different ballgame since they often feature candidates who are unknown. Jon Huntsmann for example really impressed me in his debate performance. I had never heard of him before. We could use more politicians like him.
Exactly what I thought.
 
Really...I'm glad that, by all accounts, Harris won tonight's debate by a wide margin. It was a blow out. And that she absolutely field dressed Trump like one would do to a deer they took down in a meadow was very satisfying.

But really folks...in what universe does this tell us what type of President she will be? While it is true that you do get to lay out your vision in broad strokes in the forum of a Presidential Debate in the opening statements, answering these questions with 2 minute time limits and one minute rebuttals etc... is a very poor indicator of any skills as a chief executive. In no scenario would anyone, as a President, have to work under those conditions without advisors, notes, etc... Its dumb that a lot of the electorate puts so much emphasis on the debate performance.

Harris has 4 years as VEEP, 12 years, as Senator I believe, and numerous years as an AG in a large diverse state. She's qualified to be POTUS. That shined through tonight. But as a device, the debates have an out-sized importance when you are talking about the party nominees. Party candidate debates are a slightly different ballgame since they often feature candidates who are unknown. Jon Huntsmann for example really impressed me in his debate performance. I had never heard of him before. We could use more politicians like him.
You're delusional.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom