[Rb ver. 2.0]

Have any of these early, absurd game show looking debates served any purpose, other than for the candidates to primp and strut?

[elizabetty]

Have any of these early, absurd game show looking debates served any purpose, other than for the candidates to primp and strut?

This is a Fox News debate which is significantly better than the rest.

To answer your question, yes, the past debates have indeed demonstrated important differences between the candidates.

Just ask Ron Paul how his "America is to blame for 11" remark went over.

[Will88]

“Have any of these early, absurd game show looking debates served any purpose, other than for the candidates to primp and strut?”

They provided a forum for Obama to make several controversial statements on foreign policy, and his support seems to have deteriorated up to 10 points. Hillary now seems in command unless something happens to change the momentum.

And they serve to allow the eight or more candidates a few debates until the also rans thin out. I doubt we will or should deny them entry in early debates, but hopefully the process will be down to three or so viable candidates by November or December.

Even though they’re pretty boring, with the way the primaries are now scheduled, it’s probably good to start early and thin out the candidates some before the post-New Hampshire primaries are held.