Bielat POUNDS Joke3 in only televised (mini) debate

Pounds? (0.00 / 0)

Are you sure it wasn't hammered?

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 18:29:19 PM UTC

Only the middle class gets hammered (0.00 / 0)

Even by Liz ("Baroness of Big Business Bankruptcy") Warren's standards, Little Lord Camelot is not middle class.  

Unless you mean partaking in his namesake's product ...

---

by: Bravehaht @ Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 23:40:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bielat campaign @&!$ blew it! (0.00 / 0)

(Full Disclosure: I am a supporter who has given the campaign ~$200, but the Bielat campaign hates it when I don't clap like a trained seal for every thing they do. I don't care.)

So this is the "televised" debate, eh? What a damned joke. So, a television network with low ratings runs 20 minutes of television early on a sunday (11 a.m.) when no one is watching and then won't make the video available to the public. We only get a 2-minute excerpt on the station's YouTube feed. Outrageous! How could that have happened that the actual debate isn't available to the public? How many people in the district saw this debate? 0.001% ? They must be laughing at the Kennedy headquarters.

I am sure the other two "debates" will not be accessible or newsworthy either. The three debates are designed to be invisible so Kennedy can pretend that debates happened while he cruises to a victory he doesn't deserve.

I understand that Kennedy had the leverage on debates as he didn't need them, but Bielat had the leverage that the public wants some debates. I would have held out for one debate with a good format and that would be live. Or I would have said "no debates at all" and let the public wonder why there are no debates.

Because what we have now are three debates that aren't really debates and Sean will get nowhere with them, even though he is a fantastic, intelligent, well-informed candidate and his opponent can't depart from talking points he has been force-fed.

I guess the Bielat campaign will have to come up with some other way to break this race open. They might be able to do so, as they have done a lot of good work lately. But the "debates"? They won't change anything.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 19:45:16 PM UTC

maybe... (0.00 / 0)

I dunno, maybe no debates would have forced Kennedy into a serious debate, or maybe it would have just given Kennedy and excuse to blame Sean for there being no debates.  Hindsight isn't even 20/20 on this one because we don't know how that would have turned out.

I agree that this sucks, it is an affront to voters in the district, and it is 100% Kennedy arrogance to think they can walk a kid with no experience right into office by having no real debates.

I guess if I were Sean I'd still take the debates because something is better than nothing.  But you could be right, maybe if he refused they would have made a concession and had at least one real debate.

Doesn't it just say it all that Kennedy is so desperate to avoid debates, though?  

This is highly unusual and I think in and of itself could serve the same purpose as having no debates.  Shouldn't the public be just as outraged about the hidden mini fake debates as they would be at no debates?

I think so.

---

by: demolisher @ Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 20:02:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

I think the public will be told "there were debates" even though they didn't see them. They will say, "Oh - it's my fault I missed them." But then even if they do a Google search, they won't find them.

I think "no debates" will, more importantly, get the media to notice, as they are the people who notice that most. The column in the Globe two days ago (Vennochi) wondering why there were only three - is an example of this.

Ultimately, I don't think the Kennedy campaign would have wanted the no-debate dynamic - not when they are avoiding all other kinds of unstructured interactions.

Also, from a strategic point of view, having three meaningless debates is part of their plan to win, and no debates is not in the plan.

We have an expression in the chess world - that you have to get someone "out of book" which means that you have to get someone to depart from the moves they had planned to make - and expose them to some uncertainty.  Right now, Kennedy's plan is working perfectly. Bielat has to take his staff on a retreat or something and figure out a way to get Kennedy "out of book" for the next month. If they don't - fundraising, GOTV, etc - is not going make a damned bit of difference.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 20:10:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

chess world huh.... (0.00 / 0)

are you one of those guys who can play 4 people at the same time, blindfolded?

Number 3: "It was your plan, they followed it implicitly."
Kronsteen (again very softly): "Impossible, it was perfect!"

No seriously, OK, I like chess a lot and I'm just playing around.

I just don't know that we can know for sure the stuff that you know you know.

---

by: demolisher @ Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 20:47:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IMHO (0.00 / 0)

   Kennedy won. And I hate democRATS. All of his pauses consumed time that kept Bielat from speaking.
  Brainless bumbler? Not exactly.

---

by: billxi @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 03:43:10 AM UTC