DeSantis-Newsom Debate -- do we need this?

[Gospel]

In my opinion, Newsome's decision to agree to what was clearly a trap was a lapse in judgment.

 

[Rhea]

DeSantis, Newsom Debate

Click on the map for the article

www.electoral-vote.com

There’s a writeup on e-v.com. They are seeing the non-MAGA side of it…

DeSantis, Newsom Debate ​

Last night was the big debate between Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA). We'd like to give you a link so that if you missed it, and would like to watch, you could do so. However, at Fox, the news is a business and not a public service, and this was (technically) a regular episode of Hannity. So, if you want to watch it, you have to pay for Fox's streaming service. Sorry. That said, here's a pretty good 3-minute rundown of the highlights.

We watched it, of course, because that's part of our responsibilities. And we're going to give you our assessment by focusing on the four entities that were (or, in one case, were not) a part of the debate:

1. Newsom: Newsom may have been going into hostile territory, but he almost certainly had the easier task, which was to establish himself as a credible candidate of national stature. And he managed to achieve his goal.
   
   Newsom would love, love, love to be butter-smooth, like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but he's not that. It's probably not a coincidence that all three of those men were either college professors or actors; two jobs that force you to learn how to read and respond to an audience. Newsom is also not a passionate, fire-breathing true believer, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT); not that the Governor is shooting for that.
   
   No, Newsom is a wonky debater, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). That's not an insult; Warren was a champion debater who was good enough at it to earn a college scholarship. Being like Warren means that Newsom had strong command of facts and statistics, that he was well-prepared for DeSantis' lines of attack and was generally able to parry them, that he generally was capable of thinking on his feet and adapting when needed, and that he got off the occasional bon mot. Certainly the line of the night (which was undoubtedly pre-written) was when Newsom looked at DeSantis and said that "[what] we have in common is that neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024."
   
   
2. DeSantis: DeSantis, meanwhile, had the de facto home field advantage, but he had the harder task, namely to try to change the trajectory of the 2024 GOP primaries. The Governor did not come within a country mile of doing that.
   
   To start, DeSantis showed once again that he has exactly one facial expression, which is "grimace." And he has one tone of voice, which is nasal/whiny. No matter what he says, whether it's pro-Democratic or pro-Republican, it's going to be kind of a turnoff because he is kind of a turnoff.
   
   Beyond that, however, DeSantis' remarks and responses had three themes: California sucks, Democrats suck and Joe Biden sucks. If you can explain how any of those three messages help explain why you should vote for DeSantis instead of Donald Trump, then you are cleverer than we are.
   
   It is also the case that DeSantis seems to live in a fantasy world (but definitely not in Fantasyland, where he's not welcome). Most obviously, his version of California is that it is a dystopian hellscape. This comports with Republican talking points, but not with reality. At various points, DeSantis claimed that California has made it legal for unhomed people to defecate on the sidewalk (he even held up a map of defecation hotspots in San Francisco) and to light their own encampments on fire, that it takes twice as long to shop in California because everything is under lock and key to prevent theft, and that women in the state can never wear jewelry in public because they are certain to be mugged. The Governor shared similar fantastical ideas about Democrats and about Biden.
   
   This is not to say that everything that came out of DeSantis' mouth was a lie or an exaggeration, or that some of his ideas about California don't have SOME basis in reality. For example, (Z), who walks around Los Angeles a lot, has seen human feces on the sidewalk... twice. At his local drug store, the razors, baby formula, cigarettes and liquor are under lock and key... while 95% of the inventory is not. And he knows a couple of women who turned their diamond rings around while in downtown. On the other hand, he's been to Florida, and he's seen most of these things there, too.
   
   Maybe there are people out there who accept everything DeSantis says uncritically. Probably there are. But anyone watching with even a sliver of an open mind surely has to be left with the impression that he's as truth-challenged as Trump is, while being considerably less effective at selling his lies and exaggerations.
   
   
3. Hannity: Hannity made clear that he should never, ever, ever be allowed to moderate a real debate, even if it's candidates for assistant dogcatcher of East Cupcake. The first problem is that despite the fact that it was his show, and his studio, with microphones ostensibly controlled by his staff, he had absolutely no ability to enforce discipline. The candidates constantly talked over each other. Not only was Hannity unable to control it, but he eventually became petulant and whiny, at one point complaining that "I'm not a potted plant here!"
   
   The second problem is that a disproportionate number of Hannity's questions were, to be blunt, stupid. For example, he asked the two governors to "grade" Joe Biden, while not allowing them to explain their choice of grade. Surprise, surprise; DeSantis gave Biden an "F" and Newsom gave an "A." What on earth was the point of that exercise? What could possibly be learned from that? And there were a lot of questions of that sort, that basically boiled down to: "Please give me your talking point on [Subject X]."
   
   And the third problem is that Hannity started the debate by promising to be a neutral arbiter, but then spent the entire debate putting his thumb (and the rest of his hand, and arm) on the scale for DeSantis. To take one example, Hannity's staff had a pre-prepared graphic that revealed that since 2019, California has had 19 mass shootings that killed 4 or more people while Florida has had 9 such shootings. This was part of the discussion of gun-control laws (California) or lack thereof (Florida), and was meant to help DeSantis make his point that gun-control laws don't work.
   
   We are not experts on gun-violence statistics, but we suspect some cherry picking here. At very least, with such a small number of qualifying incidents per year, there has to be some amount of random variation here, which means that 4 years is too small a sample size. Also, the population of California is 39.24 million, while the population of Florida is 21.78 million, which means California has 180.1% of the population that Florida does. Meanwhile, 19 is 211% of 9. So, it would seem the primary difference between California and Florida when it comes to the total number of mass shootings is... California has way more people. And there were at least a dozen things like that, where Hannity and his team had chosen statistics or had made infographics clearly designed to prop up DeSantis.
   
   
4. The Audience: One of Newsom's requirements for attending the debate was "no audience," and he got what he wanted. And wow, even with the two governors yelling over each other on a constant basis, the absence of an audience was still noticeable and a vast, vast improvement. Debates are not a football game, and the viewing audience does not need to be told what to think or feel by a bunch of howling yahoos.

Who knows if this is a one-off, or if it will establish some sort of tradition? We tend to suspect that DeSantis will not be eager to repeat the experiment, once someone tells him that he did himself absolutely no good when it comes to the 2024 presidential race, but that's just a guess. (Z)

 

[bilby]

I would like to see a political debate in which the candidates are in separate, sound-proof booths, with only one microphone turned on at a time, and cut off at the very second that their time runs out according to the previously agreed rules of the debate.

Anything else isn't a debate, it's a circus in which the clowns get to hurl faeces instead of custard pies.

 

[Patooka]

I would like to see a political debate in which the candidates are in separate, sound-proof booths, with only one microphone turned on at a time, and cut off at the very second that their time runs out according to the previously agreed rules of the debate.

Anything else isn't a debate, it's a circus in which the clowns get to hurl faeces instead of custard pies.

Beau had a similar idea. Basically, if one of the candidates blatantly lies or tries to talk over the other, the other person gets 2 free minutes without interruptions and the interrupter has two minutes less of mike time as well. In the clip I linked he says, "We do not need to change the rules simply because one of the candidates can't follow them".

I wonder if Lumpenproletariat would support such a rule and could explain his position...

 

[TSwizzle]

In my opinion, Newsome's decision to agree to what was clearly a trap was a lapse in judgment.

Newsom is a moron.

 

[Politesse]

In my opinion, Newsome's decision to agree to what was clearly a trap was a lapse in judgment.

His entire career has been a long-running string of lapses in judgement that seem to sort of work out for him in the aggregate. Kind of like Biden that way.

 

[TomC]

In my opinion, Newsome's decision to agree to what was clearly a trap was a lapse in judgment.

His entire career has been a long-running string of lapses in judgement that seem to sort of work out for him in the aggregate. Kind of like Biden that way.

I don't pretend to understand politics in ferrin places, like California.

But didn't the @TSwizzle's of California launch a recall election against Newsom recently?

How'd that work out?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

In my opinion, Newsome's decision to agree to what was clearly a trap was a lapse in judgment.

His entire career has been a long-running string of lapses in judgement that seem to sort of work out for him in the aggregate. Kind of like Biden that way.

I don't pretend to understand politics in ferrin places, like California.

But didn't the @TSwizzle's of California launch a recall election against Newsom recently?

How'd that work out?
Tom

I think it's part of the reason why he has emerged so strongly onto the national scene of late. The Democratic Party is desperate for a charismatic candidate, and Newsom's crushing victory over the recall effort makes it seem to them like he's made of Teflon (tm). The man is a walking blunder, but he's a successful walking blunder. So they are pouring money and media attention in his direction, hoping he can be the new frontman for the controllable Left.

Hence, kind of like ol' gaffe-machine Biden, who is both frequently derided for lapses in judgement and also presently the "leader of the free world".

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Decline and Fall of NPR/PBS

As for NPR/PBS and debates, if you were paying attention, you'd be aware that NPR regularly broadcasts debates on important issues:

Intelligence Squared

Certainly no daytime programs or weekdays.

The above link/page is a listing of debates going way back to 2015 and earlier. So maybe it's true that back then there were some regular debates on NPR. Since then they've reduced this part of their schedule in favor of more movie reviews and celebrity interviews and latest hip-hop and rap albums and other pop culture, forcing me to switch to Hannity or Dennis Prager to find any political controversy.

However, searching further for something more recent, I acknowledge there are a few NPR stations doing a weekly debate program ("Open to Debate"). Maybe it's a large number, but in California there are only 7 stations, doing a Sunday night program, and nothing I can get (San Diego area).

So, it is pathetic how NPR today is doing so little of debate programs. It seems most of the NPR stations have none, and the ones having such a program are limited to a once-a-week Sunday night debate program. So they're available to all by computer only (or other device), but little or nothing on FM/AM.

It's true there are plenty of debates privately on YouTube and other web channels, if we want our 'puter running 18 hours a day and usually having to put up with sudden loud ads bursting in without warning. At least I know to turn Hannity off at certain regular points, for the ad, also at the top of the hour when he blares out his hillbilly country bumpkin music -- it's not so bad if I can anticipate when to shut it off.

It was once much better than this, on public radio, when there were regular debates, every day, not just Saturday or Sunday night.

Also, this is not just about FORMAL debates, with a rigid debate format and structure, but also regular conversations/dialogues, where two sides disagree on an important issue. Of which there is virtually none on public radio, though there used to be, 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.


The Left opposes having real debate (Red vs. Blue)

Both Left- and Right-wing crusaders are against debates between the 2 sides, because with monologue only or with two pundits agreeing with each other, each side does better at keeping their flock under control and subservient to the respective demagogues. Left-wingers want everyone to listen to Left-wing demagogues only, as Trumpists want everyone to listen to Trump only, while debate (2 sides) only confuses the Red and Blue disciples.

(Earlier I was mostly wrong to say Rightists favored the Newsom-DeSantis debate. Many Trumpists called into Hannity and criticized the debate for detracting away from Trump. Their heart was not in this debate -- they want nothing but Trump-only rallies, and no other voices which take attention away from their Champion.)

The only difference between the Left (Progressives) and Right (Trumpists) is that the Left currently has no national hero-pundit-macho-Champion to rally around (Obama, Kennedys, FDR e.g.). Without the He-Man Demagogue leading the stampede, it's much more difficult to win over the mindless (Red or Blue) herd.

 

[Patooka]

The Decline and Fall of NPR/PBS

As for NPR/PBS and debates, if you were paying attention, you'd be aware that NPR regularly broadcasts debates on important issues:

Intelligence Squared

Certainly no daytime programs or weekdays.

The above link/page is a listing of debates going way back to 2015 and earlier. So maybe it's true that back then there were some regular debates on NPR. Since then they've reduced this part of their schedule in favor of more movie reviews and celebrity interviews and latest hip-hop and rap albums and other pop culture, forcing me to switch to Hannity or Dennis Prager to find any political controversy.

However, searching further for something more recent, I acknowledge there are a few NPR stations doing a weekly debate program ("Open to Debate"). Maybe it's a large number, but in California there are only 7 stations, doing a Sunday night program, and nothing I can get (San Diego area).

So, it is pathetic how NPR today is doing so little of debate programs. It seems most of the NPR stations have none, and the ones having such a program are limited to a once-a-week Sunday night debate program. So they're available to all by computer only (or other device), but little or nothing on FM/AM.

It's true there are plenty of debates privately on YouTube and other web channels, if we want our 'puter running 18 hours a day and usually having to put up with sudden loud ads bursting in without warning. At least I know to turn Hannity off at certain regular points, for the ad, also at the top of the hour when he blares out his hillbilly country bumpkin music -- it's not so bad if I can anticipate when to shut it off.

It was once much better than this, on public radio, when there were regular debates, every day, not just Saturday or Sunday night.

Also, this is not just about FORMAL debates, with a rigid debate format and structure, but also regular conversations/dialogues, where two sides disagree on an important issue. Of which there is virtually none on public radio, though there used to be, 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.


The Left opposes having real debate (Red vs. Blue)

Both Left- and Right-wing crusaders are against debates between the 2 sides, because with monologue only or with two pundits agreeing with each other, each side does better at keeping their flock under control and subservient to the respective demagogues. Left-wingers want everyone to listen to Left-wing demagogues only, as Trumpists want everyone to listen to Trump only, while debate (2 sides) only confuses the Red and Blue disciples.

The only difference between the Left (Progressives) and Right (Trumpists) is that the Left currently has no national hero-pundit-macho-demagogue to rally around (Obama, Kennedys, FDR e.g.). Without the He-Man Demagogue leading the stampede, it's much more difficult to win over the mindless (Red or Blue) herd.

Translation: I'm going to ignore all the reprehensible shit and dishonest tactics Republicans do at debates and parrot the same old tired "both sides" false equivalency.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Left opposes having real debate (Red vs. Blue)

Both Left- and Right-wing crusaders are against debates between the 2 sides, because with monologue only or with two pundits agreeing with each other, each side does better at keeping their flock under control and subservient to the respective demagogues. Left-wingers want everyone to listen to Left-wing demagogues only, as Trumpists want everyone to listen to Trump only, while debate (2 sides) only confuses the Red and Blue disciples.

The only difference between the Left (Progressives) and Right (Trumpists) is that the Left currently has no national hero-pundit-macho-demagogue to rally around (Obama, Kennedys, FDR e.g.). Without the He-Man Demagogue leading the stampede, it's much more difficult to win over the mindless (Red or Blue) herd.

Translation: I'm going to ignore all the reprehensible shit and dishonest tactics Republicans do at debates and parrot the same old tired "both sides" false equivalency.

What's even more reprehensible and dishonest is to have no debate at all. Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

 

[laughing dog]

[
Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

Do tell how to have better debates.

 

[Patooka]

What's even more reprehensible and dishonest is to have no debate at all. Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

Translation: Deep down I realise that the root cause of lack of debates is right wingers refusing to follow the rules or even intend to debate in good faith so I'm going to deflect to literally anything else.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In my opinion, Newsome's decision to agree to what was clearly a trap was a lapse in judgment.

Newsom is a moron.

Based on the mildness of your insult perhaps you are warming up to him?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's even more reprehensible and dishonest is to have no debate at all. Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

Translation: Deep down I realise that the root cause of lack of debates is right wingers refusing to follow the rules or even intend to debate in good faith so I'm going to deflect to literally anything else.

I wouldn't go that far. Political Debates have turned into Prevent Defenses, where no question goes answered, no response not pre-programmed.

And the benefits? W and Trump were mopped off the floors in their debates... and won the White House. Romney is dogged by "folders full of women". Gore was 'too technical'. Presidential Debates are a necessity... it is too bad we don't actually have them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

Do tell how to have better debates.

How about a debate (Left vs. Right) sponsored by MSNBC, or by Thom Hartmann. No? Oh, you think Left-wingers/Progressives couldn't figure it out? couldn't do it better than Hannity/Fox?

Or how about this website. Why couldn't iidb arrange debates and try to find a network to broadcast them?

So, "Do tell how to have better debates" really means: We must not have Red vs. Blue debates, because it would cause too many Blue disciples to wander away from the fold. On both sides it would undermine the faith of the devotees both Red and Blue -- they'd start asking too many questions and doubting their pundits. Can't have that. More healthy for society is having more speeches, more monologues, more mass rallies for demagogues (Trump, Sanders, etc.). For us to follow our leaders takes highest priority, to be mesmerized and inspired by their charisma. This is why the DeSantis - Newsom debate was dangerous, and the example set by Hannity is unhealthy for us.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

Do tell how to have better debates.

How about a debate (Left vs. Right) sponsored by MSNBC, or by Thom Hartmann. No? Oh, you think Left-wingers/Progressives couldn't figure it out? couldn't do it better than Hannity/Fox?

Or how about this website. Why couldn't iidb arrange debates and try to find a network to broadcast them?

So, "Do tell how to have better debates" really means: We must not have Red vs. Blue debates, because it would cause too many Blue disciples to wander away from the fold. On both sides it would undermine the faith of the devotees both Red and Blue -- they'd start asking too many questions and doubting their pundits. Can't have that. More healthy for society is having more speeches, more monologues, more mass rallies for demagogues (Trump, Sanders, etc.). For us to follow our leaders takes highest priority, to be mesmerized and inspired by their charisma. This is why the DeSantis - Newsom debate was dangerous, and the example set by Hannity is unhealthy for us.

Why does somebody else have to do it? Why don't you do it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to see a political debate in which the candidates are in separate, sound-proof booths, with only one microphone turned on at a time, and cut off at the very second that their time runs out according to the previously agreed rules of the debate.

Anything else isn't a debate, it's a circus in which the clowns get to hurl faeces instead of custard pies.

I'd like to replace political campaigns with a debate.

Campaign speech is limited to persona appearances and a website where they present their position and why they're the best candidate. All other candidates get to put rebuttal links on the website. (And rebuttals can have rebuttals.)

Given the prevalence of third party money these days it's basically impossible, though.

And no politician would like arguing details rather than sound bites.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whereas honesty = Do more and better debates.

Do tell how to have better debates.

How about a debate (Left vs. Right) sponsored by MSNBC, or by Thom Hartmann. No? Oh, you think Left-wingers/Progressives couldn't figure it out? couldn't do it better than Hannity/Fox?

Or how about this website. Why couldn't iidb arrange debates and try to find a network to broadcast them?

So, "Do tell how to have better debates" really means: We must not have Red vs. Blue debates, because it would cause too many Blue disciples to wander away from the fold. On both sides it would undermine the faith of the devotees both Red and Blue -- they'd start asking too many questions and doubting their pundits. Can't have that. More healthy for society is having more speeches, more monologues, more mass rallies for demagogues (Trump, Sanders, etc.). For us to follow our leaders takes highest priority, to be mesmerized and inspired by their charisma. This is why the DeSantis - Newsom debate was dangerous, and the example set by Hannity is unhealthy for us.

Didn't you vote, at least twice, for the demagogue?

 

[Worldtraveller]

We all know debates don't settle, or prove, anything. Ever since reagan saying "there you go again" was considered such a brilliant zinger of a comeback (Narrator: it wasn't), the whole idea of a debate has gone even more downhill and become more like an argument between three year olds on the playground.

And the reason they do it, is because it gets ratings. People say they want honest discussion of policy, but multiple experiences over the years have proved that to be incorrect. Politicians who try to talk about actual real political issues are derided as being policy wonks, boring, or other insults that only appeal to the braindead masses.

Funny "coincidence" that the braindead seem to be the ones clamoring for more debates.