Bottom line: Few insights gleaned
The presence of the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates seemed to bog down the gubernatorial debate.
Compared to the AG debate, where the two candidates covered 15 questions, the foursome competing for governor answered only seven questions. And some of the questions, like the one on alternative energy, were vague, allowing the candidates to meander. We heard their usual talking points but not much new or specific.
In one of the few surprises, Hulshof took issue with Nixon’s proposed expansion of the college scholarship program known as A-plus. The program has been popular with both Democrats — Mel Carnahan created it — and Republicans — Matt Blunt has increased its funding.
Hulshof said it focused too much on community colleges. Under A-plus, that’s where students must go for the first two years to get free tuition. Hulshof said he would prefer to expand needs-based scholarships, which students can use at both public and private institutions.
Nixon said afterward that his plan was a “clear, precise first step” to pay for four years of college for middle class students with B averages. He said he didn’t think Hulshof understood it.
I felt that the Libertarian party and the Constitution party offered their fair share. Young may disagree, but since when is it Journalist’s job to be biased? The J-school teaches us to represent all voices. It’s Journalists like you that make our nation mistrust the media. Shame on you.
Mallory: (I can’t believe I’m defending a writer for the P-D, but) I think the thrust of that statement was in the fact that I don’t think any person truly believes that the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates truly have a chance to win. I understand that they can help advance the overall debate, and I would like to see the Libertarian Party come to some sort of 3rd party prominence in the future.
But, when you have a limited amount of time for the candidates to actually debate, you have to consider that the first and foremost principle of debating is to give the public the viewpoints of the candidates who are viable. When you have candidates who will, at best, maybe draw 5 percent of the vote between them, they are not truly viable. In that context, it does slow down the debate and keep the public from being able to truly distinguish the differences between the major candidates.
Besides, this isn’t necessarily the P-D. This is a blog, and I’m sure you know that personal biases will escape once in a while.
Agreed. The voting populace isn’t better informed by someone getting to scream about how the US needs to go back to “Constitutional values” as a “Christian nation.” We already have one right wing party that has to at least pretend to be moderate and we don’t need their voice echoed. At least the Libertarians bring something new to the table.
Well I think that you have to exclude 3rd party candidates unless they have a legitimate chance of winning. For instance Ross Perot did exhibit a possible chance a few years back in the presidential campaigns.In that instance it made sense to include him.
Being so “diverse” as to include the above named “also ran” partiess only served to limit the amount of information on issues that the two that actually are “in Play to win could debate.