re: LA Senate Primary Race- Republican Debate

quote:

---

No one actually believes the people of LA know all there is to know about the political philosophy of Letlow, or Fleming for that matter. That's campaign nonsense. It's actually a rather absurd thing to suggest.

---

I'm not suggesting they do. I'm simply saying the information is out there for anyone to find if they are so inclined to look for it.

quote:

---

I want to see all of the candidates challenged on their views and forced to defend their records and claims. I don't know a single actual LA voter that doesn't want this but you sit here and offer your rationalizations for why it's not needed or serves no legitimate purpose. Lol

---

You're arguing from a biased POV in favor of a particular candidate, which is fine. I'm simply speaking from a neutral POV with the opinion that a public debate is not something that is as important as it once may have been, nor incredibly favorable to a candidate whose goal, first and foremost, is to win a race. It's FAR more likely a candidate participating in a debate does/says something that causes them to lose a race than it is something that causes them to win a race.

More than that, a debate is only as impactful as the people who choose to watch it. The majority of that viewership (at least in a state Senate race) is going to be informed voters who have already researched and scrutinized the candidates and, 2 weeks out from an election, made their decision of who they are going to vote for. 40-50 years ago when we still had just a few TV channels and limited media outlets people were almost forced to watch a debate. Now, with unlimited media/entertainment options debates, even televised, can be easily ignored.

You, me, and others on the board can not like the fact that a not so insignificant number of uninformed, or only lightly informed, voters can decide an election. But that is the reality, and I don't think a public debate would do much, if anything, to change that because those who are uniformed/lightly informed CHOOSE to be so despite having a vast amount of readily available information to access. A debate is not going to change that lack of desire.

quote:

---

You, me, and others on the board can not like the fact that a not so insignificant number of uninformed, or only lightly informed, voters can decide an election. But that is the reality, and I don't think a public debate would do much, if anything, to change that because those who are uniformed/lightly informed CHOOSE to be so despite having a vast amount of readily available information to access. A debate is not going to change that lack of desire.

---

Well it's reality by design is the point. The Letlow campaign is banking on these voters being uninformed and intends to keep them that way. And I actually don't agree at all with your claims regarding a debate or voters "choosing" to be ignorant. I don't think voters CHOOSE to be ignorant of Julia Letlow or any other person running for office that they simply aren't familiar with for good reason. And I think the attitude should be that those vying for elected office should be bending over backwards to allow voters access to fully understand what they will go on record claiming to believe and how they will vote once in office. And you don't get informed by listening to their campaign ads or reading their canned online write ups. The campaigns KNOW this and want the voters to know less. That's by design.

There is no reason to flat out REFUSE to debate, other than they don't want voters to learn things that they might not want them to learn or contrast with other candidates. Letlow is obviously riding the Trump endorsement and is content for voters to know very little. Like you admitted earlier, she is riding a strategy that helps her get elected, not that helps the people know what they are voting for.

quote:

---

40-50 years ago when we still had just a few TV channels and limited media outlets people were almost forced to watch a debate. Now, with unlimited media/entertainment options debates, even televised, can be easily ignored.

---

It sounds like you are just trying to convince us all of something that you want to sell. It could be broadcast on TV, Facebook, Youtube, etc all live at the same time. To pretend like it would reach no one is being extremely disingenuous. And the replays would get shared across all types of media, including print which apparently you think reigns supreme today. Thus far, the candidates have not had to face critique and answer questions outside of contrived ads and campaign responses. To imply that this is anything other than by design is playing people for fools. The only thing that has changed is that there is MORE appetite for dialogue, discourse, and critical debate, not less.

quote:

---

You're arguing from a biased POV in favor of a particular candidate, which is fine.

---

By arguing that there should be a debate amongst candidates so that voters can better determine which candidate supports their positions? By supporting the kind of thing that has long tradition in our elections and which I've not heard any voters opposed to? How is my view biased and yours not? Because I openly tell you who I support and you remain coy?