RSS Feed Sign-Up

« Vance LaVelle Gives Tips For In-Between Job Time | Main | links for 2007-11-29 »

Comments

Hello, Eric-

Your site has just been added to my site's blogroll...

Per your analysis on the CNN/YouTube debate:

Having read a lot of the analyis of the debate within the blogosphere, it was cool to read something where the author had collected some objective evidence to support a case on whether the debate was good/OK/bad. My personal reaction is that I think these YouTube debates are a great idea in general. This year's debate had entertaining videos and it was great political theater.

You raised an interesting point on whether the format was fair, in terms of not only who got the most questions, but how many they were permitted to answer (even if they weren't first). Obviously, I was disappointed that Senator McCain's total answer opportunities were so low - looking at your table, Rudy had 14 answers, Mitt and Fred 11, with McCain just six (barely more than Ron Paul).

On the idea that CNN wanted to get as many videos in as possible, even at the expense of permitting as many candidates as possible to answer-

I think that their basic idea of cramming as many videos in as possible was the right thing to do. It's more likely to keep the viewers' interest, if new video questions appear frequently. The main problem, as I see it, is that there are too many candidates on stage, and not every candidate really warrants a turn. If Tancredo and Hunter had been excluded - as they should have been, given their lack of support at this point in the campaign - their seven answers, plus their two videos, could have gone to the other six candidates.

Also, I thought that I remembered Huck having many more than five answers. That could mean that he made his answers more memorable (perhaps they were longer or wittier) or just that my memory on the point was flawed...

Anyhow, I thought you provided a good analysis...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Stuff