MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, November 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 43.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

League slams corporate-debates

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

The League of Women Voters says Eisman is a legit candidate who should be welcomed to the debates. The ATC-AmFam-MGE-WEAC-Chamber debate commission (self-styled "We the People") says no. What do you think?

Eisman belongs in the debate.
18
75%
Keep it a two-party affair.
2
8%
I'm sick of elections. When does the streetfighting start? And will Stu be there?
4
17%
 
Total votes : 24

League slams corporate-debates

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:13 pm

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=22&date=8/22/2006&id=10299

League wants Green Party hopeful debating


Madison - The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin wants the third candidate on the ballot for governor, Green Party hopeful Nelson Eisman, invited to participate in two debates announced last week.

"The League has long believed that voters are best served when all candidates are included in a discussion of the issues. Third-party candidates play an important role in steering the debate toward issues that affect our daily lives but might otherwise not be discussed," said Andrea Kaminski, executive director of LWVWI, said in a statement.

Kaminski said the League hopes to hold a Green Bay debate of its own with Eisman and the two major-party candidates for governor, Democrat incumbent Jim Doyle and Republican challenger Mark Green. But only Eisman has agreed to that event so far.

The We the People/Wisconsin coalition of news and other groups last week announced that Doyle and Green had agreed to debate Sept. 15 in Waukesha and Oct. 20 in La Crosse.
Ben Manski
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Postby Jay Allen » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:15 pm

I believe that the more the merrier. There should be MORE debate, not less, dammit. MORE!
Jay Allen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Fitchburg, WI

Postby Andy Olsen » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:16 pm

Agreed.
Andy Olsen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: East side Madison

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Ben Manski
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Postby Stampy » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:00 pm

Ah, the Greens don't have a chance in hell of winning anything so there's no real point in having them included.
Stampy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:40 pm

Postby gargantua » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:06 pm

Stampy wrote:Ah, the Greens don't have a chance in hell of winning anything so there's no real point in having them included.


It's a vicious circle. They "don't have a chance in hell" partly because they're excluded from the debate and don't have a chance to be heard. Why are the major parties afraid of a level playing field? If they have no chance, where's the harm?
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4286
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:06 pm

Stampy wrote:Ah, the Greens don't have a chance in hell of winning anything so there's no real point in having them included.


You're right. And if we don't include them in the debates, they won't have a chance in hell of winning. So let's not include them, and then we'll be right.
Ben Manski
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Postby lukpac » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:11 pm

gargantua wrote:It's a vicious circle. They "don't have a chance in hell" partly because they're excluded from the debate and don't have a chance to be heard. Why are the major parties afraid of a level playing field? If they have no chance, where's the harm?


I'd agree they should be included, but I disagree that it would offer any real chance. How many people pay attention to Gubernatorial debates, and how many of those people make a decision based on what they've seen?
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Postby ShaneDog » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:15 pm

I'd like to see the Lincoln-Douglas policy debate format come back into style. I don't even really consider the "debates" that are held these days real debates because they are pretty much just formalized campaign speeches. I want to see how smart the candidates are, and how they can form and rebut an argument by thinking on their feet. The question/answer format makes me want to vomit in frustration.

Here's what the debate organizers should do. Give the debate participants two weeks to come up with briefs in support of or opposing the status quo on three regional topics of interest. Then use the Lincoln-Douglas format and pick one question at random at the beginning of the debate that they will have to debate on.

Now that would be a real debate.
ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:21 pm

lukpac wrote:
gargantua wrote:It's a vicious circle. They "don't have a chance in hell" partly because they're excluded from the debate and don't have a chance to be heard. Why are the major parties afraid of a level playing field? If they have no chance, where's the harm?


I'd agree they should be included, but I disagree that it would offer any real chance. How many people pay attention to Gubernatorial debates, and how many of those people make a decision based on what they've seen?


Not that he's my hero, or anything, but Ventura went from single digits to neck and neck because of his debate performance.

Perot also benefited from his role in the debates.
Ben Manski
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Postby lukpac » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:27 pm

Ben Manski wrote:Not that he's my hero, or anything, but Ventura went from single digits to neck and neck because of his debate performance.

Perot also benefited from his role in the debates.


Well, Perot was a presidential candidate, not gubernatorial.

Besides, both candidates were VERY high profile. Perhaps the debate "sealed the deal" for Ventura, but he was already well known. Who knows who Nelson Eisman is?

Can an "outsider" candidate win? Sure. But the voters have to know about them before that will ever happen. One debate isn't going to do that on a large scale.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:50 pm

I'm sorry, but Perot was not high profile in presidential terms. And I don't see what the fact that that was presidential race has to do with anything.

As to Ventura. Ok. He was a faded celeb when he ran. He still was polling in the single digits (lower than Nader, actually) until he got into the debates.
Ben Manski
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Postby lukpac » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:56 pm

Ben Manski wrote:I'm sorry, but Perot was not high profile in presidential terms.


Excuse me? Who *didn't* know about Perot when he ran?

And I don't see what the fact that that was presidential race has to do with anything.


A lot more people pay attention to presidential debates than gubernatorial debates.

As to Ventura. Ok. He was a faded celeb when he ran. He still was polling in the single digits (lower than Nader, actually) until he got into the debates.


He was still a celeb, faded or not. There was buzz around him running.

There's no buzz around Eisman, nor do most people know who he is.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Postby Ben Manski » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:01 pm

Sorry. Can't agree with almost any of this. Perot was not well-known until after the debate. Ventura did not have a buzz until after the debate. And you must not spend much time around the environmental, labor, family farm, or clean elections movements if you think there's "no buzz" around Eisman.

Hell. If there's no buzz, why are we talking about it?

:o
Ben Manski
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Postby AJ Love » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:22 pm

Eisman should be included if for no other reason than listening to Doyle and Green "debate" would be more boring than watching paint peel...

The Wisconsin 2 Party run for Governor = the epitome of unappealing candidates.
AJ Love
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3618
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 10:11 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Next

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar