This message was self-deleted by its author

[sunonmars]

This message was self-deleted by its author (sunonmars) on Wed Mar 11, 2020, 12:41 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Squinch]

1. Good. Maybe it'll feel a little less like thunderdome.

[hlthe2b]

2. Actually, I think it might be a calmer debate, but perhaps more revealing.

[democrattotheend]

3. How is it pointless?

Usually the audience is a few thousand people in person, and tens if not hundreds of thousands (or even millions) watching at home. The debate is for the voters, not the people in the room.

My state doesn't vote until April and I am still undecided between the two candidates left. I for one would like to see how they do in a one-on-one debate before making my decision.

[Blue_true]

19. I am not 100% sure because I was way too young.

But I think the Kennedy-Nixon Debate was done in a studio with aides, but no audience.

[TwilightZone]

4. I disagree. I think the audience serves no purpose.

I'd be more than happy if they got rid of debate audiences permanently.

[jberryhill]

6. Agree

[sunonmars]

8. I just hope it does not turn into an absolute snoozefest

[TwilightZone]

15. I'm not sure how an audience changes that.

It's a debate, not a pep rally. All the hooting and hollering does is cut down on the time for issues to be discussed and give people a false sense of how the debate went, including the media.

[Newest Reality]

13. Same here!

[IluvPitties]

5. If Biden wins big tonight

What would be the point of the debate?

[TwilightZone]

14. It ain't over 'til it's over.

Well, it's over, but the more convincing the lead is by the time Sanders withdraws, the better off we'll all be come convention time.

I don't really have a problem if everyone goes through the motions for another couple of weeks if it means that the door is firmly closed on shenanigans like 2016.

[Turin_C3PO]

17. I'm fine with

Sanders staying in until it becomes mathematically impossible for him to win. I think he deserves that. But after that I expect him to endorse Biden. I’ll be very disappointed if he takes this all the way to the convention.

[TwilightZone]

18. Based on the math, Biden would have a majority around the end of April.

Sanders might want to take it to the convention, but no one outside of his die-hards is going to care. Voters, especially. They pretty clearly want to focus on Trump.

[IluvPitties]

20. Having two Democrats against each other for no real reason

doesn't help us.

[unitedwethrive]

30. I agree, why have the two last Dems providing attack ideas

for the repubs?

[DrToast]

7. That's how they ALL should be

[NYMinute]

9. Just cancel the debate

No point in having it

[NurseJackie]

12. You make a valid point.

[TwilightZone]

21. I disagree, I guess.

Not that I think it's going to matter from a voting perspective, but the fewer excuses that Sanders supporters have to complain, the better off we'll be at this point. If the debates are cancelled, they'll come up with conspiracy theories, DNC, blah, blah, and/or claim that Biden was "afraid" to debate Bernie. I'd like the door closed on all of that.

[NYMinute]

24. The Sanders campaign is pushing for more debates

because their only hope is for Biden to make a fatal gaffe.

I don't want any more debates -- they won't throw any more light on the race.

[TwilightZone]

25. One would probably do it.

I think there are only two scheduled and if the first comes off as we all expect it to - basically a repeat of the last couple - I think cancelling the last one would be a no-brainer.

I get your point and I mostly agree with it. I just want the door closed as convincingly as possible.

[NurseJackie]

10. Excellent! It's a debate, not a game show, not a reality show.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Just heard that.

I think there was discussion about it yesterday or earlier I heard.

[Blue_true]

16. No, it is not pointless to have the debate.

It will have a moderator and will be televised. No need to have people in the Hall reacting and doing some of the other stuff they do.

[11cents]

22. Pointless to have a nationally-televised debate if there's no audience?

Live audiences at a debate are an abomination. They should never be there.

[underpants]

29. I agree.

Why not just have the two of them at a desk with the moderators.

[defacto7]

23. Good

[handmade34]

26. good...

now can we dismiss the childish "stand/sit" controversy

[BidenBacker]

27. Other debate decorum changes

Put 'em both in rocking chairs with nice comfy robes, some fuzzy slippers, a coupla pipes and a big glass of Bushmills single malt for each of them . Sitting in front of a roaring, crackling fireplace.

Of course, it's in the 70s in Phoenix right now so we'll have to crank up the A/C so they don't sweat their asses off.

We might have to skip over any climate change questions wasting all that energy.

[Turin_C3PO]

32. Lol, I'd definitely watch that!

[still_one]

28. Good

[Vivienne235729]

31. I am so bummed. I was in the lottery for that and had my fingers crossed still hoping to be picked

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

33. Probably the prudent thing at this point.

[Hortensis]

34. Good. Safer AND less circusy. Nt