Interesting Things to Note About the Republican Debate

[rkim291968]

 

Gambling is a non-issue. It's just like liberals to try to make something more when it's not. Honestly, just allow gambling. If they want their cut then tax draft kings heavily to cover it. 

 

I think that's what Jeb was saying before Christie hijacked it and went ballistic.  

[dkolo]

I don't know. I think that might just keep him chugging along during this whole thing. He might never serge, but he might just constantly gain support at a slow steady rate. If it becomes Kasich versus someone who's flip flopping all over the place or becoming too radical he might appeal enough to common sense republicans to pull out the victory. I think he's playing the only card he has, be the voice of reason and the mature one. 

Gambling is a non-issue. It's just like liberals to try to make something more when it's not. Honestly, just allow gambling. If they want their cut then tax draft kings heavily to cover it. 

 

Well, it's the same moralizing as with marijuana and gambling is much more harmful to society than legal pot would be. 

[boogielicious]

 

Gambling is a non-issue. It's just like liberals to try to make something more when it's not. Honestly, just allow gambling. If they want their cut then tax draft kings heavily to cover it. 

 

I'm not sure it's the liberals going after gambling. I always felt that conservative and religious folks are more inclined to go after gambling. Also, I think the issue that has been raised is not about the gambling itself, but more some insider trading type activity (cited by the State of NY) when a Fan Duel employee made a bunch of money on the Draft Kings site. The other concern was about hacking and collusion of competitors. Casinos are regulated for both of these and it's more of a protection to them as well. Mass is looking into this but they also stated that they do not want any regulation to stunt the growth of the young industry. Their approach is more from a consumer protection standpoint than a tax revenue standpoint.

As for the debates, I think there are too many before even the first caucus. The candidates are letting polls and not actual voting determine their position in the electorate. It has almost become a reality show instead of a means to understand the candidate's position on issues.

I would like to actually hear each candidate lay out their tax plan, economic plan, foreign policy plan, etc. so I can understand exactly what they hope to do. Instead, we get two minutes sound bites and interruptions from other candidates, bickering, one-liners and attacks. It becomes a free-for-all and looks silly. Except for the final debates by just the final candidates, these pre-primary debates have become very disappointing. 

[saevel25]

I'm not sure it's the liberals going after gambling. I always felt that conservative and religious folks are more inclined to go after gambling. Also, I think the issue that has been raised is not about the gambling itself, but more some insider trading type activity (cited by the State of NY) when a Fan Duel employee made a bunch of money on the Draft Kings site. The other concern was about hacking and collusion of competitors. Casinos are regulated for both of these and it's more of a protection to them as well. Mass is looking into this but they also stated that they do not want any regulation to stunt the growth of the young industry. Their approach is more from a consumer protection standpoint than a tax revenue standpoint.

Some good points there. You wouldn't stunt the growth of that industry by banning the employees from using their own site or any other site in the same area. How many people use those sites, a lot. You are talking about a very insignificant restriction. 

Here was the question asked,

"QUINTANILLA: Governor Bush, daily fantasy sports has become a phenomenon in this country, will award billions of dollars in prize money this year. But to play you have to assess your odds, put money at risk, wait for an outcome that’s out of your control. Isn’t that the definition of gambling, and should the Federal Government treat it as such?"

This type of thing is the closest thing to gambling in fantasy sports. Just because of the short time windows you can play in. It takes away the research aspect, and puts it more into luck over skill. 
 

I would like to actually hear each candidate lay out their tax plan, economic plan, foreign policy plan, etc. so I can understand exactly what they hope to do. Instead, we get two minutes sound bites and interruptions from other candidates, bickering, one-liners and attacks. It becomes a free-for-all and looks silly. Except for the final debates by just the final candidates, these pre-primary debates have become very disappointing. 

It's tough for it because you have 10 people over 2 hours. That isn't enough time. If you want to discuss all that. They should each do an interview, 2 hours long, and it should be shown 1 night a week. So in two weeks you would have all the candidates points. Then at the end hold a 1 hour long show summarizing the details and differences. 
 

[boogielicious]

Some good points there. You wouldn't stunt the growth of that industry by banning the employees from using their own site or any other site in the same area. How many people use those sites, a lot. You are talking about a very insignificant restriction. 
Here was the question asked,

"QUINTANILLA: Governor Bush, daily fantasy sports has become a phenomenon in this country, will award billions of dollars in prize money this year. But to play you have to assess your odds, put money at risk, wait for an outcome that’s out of your control. Isn’t that the definition of gambling, and should the Federal Government treat it as such?"

This type of thing is the closest thing to gambling in fantasy sports. Just because of the short time windows you can play in. It takes away the research aspect, and puts it more into luck over skill. 
 

It's tough for it because you have 10 people over 2 hours. That isn't enough time. If you want to discuss all that. They should each do an interview, 2 hours long, and it should be shown 1 night a week. So in two weeks you would have all the candidates points. Then at the end hold a 1 hour long show summarizing the details and differences. 
 

I'd watch that, but I think most people have too short an attention span.

[saevel25]

I'd watch that, but I think most people have too short an attention span.

I agree. I really do like the townhall style debate/discussions as well. 

Honestly I am kinda surprises no one has done a mini-series type show before about each candidate. I think that would be great exposure for the party itself and the candidates. 

 

[RandallT]

This video kills two birds with one stone. Rubio introduces himself with some humor and says he's ok with fantasy sports gambling!

But seriously, I know some of them try to have videos that define who they are. Below, here's Rubio again trying to be casual and accessible. But they could each (some do) use things like this to define how they stand on each of the issues. Their campaign websites could have content like this for each issue that are organized well and show clearly where they stand. Mostly their sites seem to be about getting campaign contributions. Their YouTube channels are just long lists of random videos. Their twitter feed is just an endless narrative of minutiae. 

Overall, I think candidates fail to use the internet to just boil their message down to what we need to hear.

Hmm, why didn't videos embed? I thought I did it right.

 

Edited October 30, 2015 by RandallT
fix embed

[dsc123]

Does Rubio have a position on actual issues?  I thought he was just running on a platform of handsomeness, cuban nationality, and "main stream media" bashing. 

[Pretzel]

Quick videos, of two to three minutes, on the various pressing issues for each candidate would be a great idea for them to get the message out on where they stand and help voters understand the differences between candidates a lot better than most do currently.

[Gator Hazard]

Quick videos, of two to three minutes, on the various pressing issues for each candidate would be a great idea for them to get the message out on where they stand and help voters understand the differences between candidates a lot better than most do currently.

Agreed, actually why not the same 10-15 questions for each candidate on each side.  They get 3 minutes to answer it.  Round #2 they do the same with follow up questions from round number 1.  THis way you can easily compare and contrast candidates on both sides.

[RandallT]

Does Rubio have a position on actual issues?  I thought he was just running on a platform of handsomeness, cuban nationality, and "main stream media" bashing. 

Yah, I think the format of that Q/A vid was cute, but why limit it to the "frivolous" stuff. And if those were his best answers, hmmmm. If they were scripted, they were weak. If they were off the cuff, why didn't he ask to do it again??

But I'd love to see quick vids like that on important topics, just to let them by themselves. No filters.  I wasn't so much trying to push Rubio.

[rkim291968]

Does Rubio have a position on actual issues?  I thought he was just running on a platform of handsomeness, cuban nationality, and "main stream media" bashing. 

He is very articulate, and sharp on responses.   These debates suit him well.   When the number of candidates whittle down and each candidate gets more debate time, I think he will overcome Carson & Trump in polling.    Regardless of C & T's popularity, they don't do well in the debates and I thought that was the main reason why they insisted that the debate does not go over 2 hours.  I am surprised that the other candidates didn't ask for 3 hour debate.   

[boogielicious]

Quick videos, of two to three minutes, on the various pressing issues for each candidate would be a great idea for them to get the message out on where they stand and help voters understand the differences between candidates a lot better than most do currently.

Quick is a problem for me. I want details not sound bites.

[nevets88]

 

[dsc123]

Quick is a problem for me. I want details not sound bites.

Do you think anyone on that stage is capable of giving details?  Jeb and Cruz probably can, but seem to think its better to not to (yet).  We saw Carson try to explain marco economics 101 and it was a disaster.  It was like watching the unprepared student try to bs his way through an answer.  Trump's idea of detailed policy is declaring himself likeable, or a winner.  Rubio just pulls the victim card when asked a tough question and gets praised for "getting the better of the exchange" without saying anything. 

 

Paul could do it.  But his details would put off most people.  Christie might be able to do it, but it would be full of lies and flying saliva. 

 

Kasich is probably the only one that could do it right now.  Why isn't he polling better?

[rkim291968]

Do you think anyone on that stage is capable of giving details?  Jeb and Cruz probably can, but seem to think its better to not to (yet).  We saw Carson try to explain marco economics 101 and it was a disaster.  It was like watching the unprepared student try to bs his way through an answer.  Trump's idea of detailed policy is declaring himself likeable, or a winner.  Rubio just pulls the victim card when asked a tough question and gets praised for "getting the better of the exchange" without saying anything. 

 

Paul could do it.  But his details would put off most people.  Christie might be able to do it, but it would be full of lies and flying saliva. 

 

Kasich is probably the only one that could do it right now.  Why isn't he polling better?

Agreed with most of your comments.   Details can lead to scrutiny and can piss off a voting bloc or two.   As to why Mr. K isn't polling better?   He should. Instead, people are flocking to Carson & Trump who really don't have much to offer other than having no political background (i.e, not a part of establishment).   That's sad and says a lot about the state for Republicans.  

[rkim291968]

The new poll leader Carson really stunk today in FoxB debate.  The poll position is going to change again, methinks. 

[boogielicious]

I think there are too many debates. It is diluting whatever message each candidate wants to present.