Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster86
That they reached less people is likely a blessing for the CPC at this point. Just because Trudeau did well in them does not make them different from the past. When are people going to give up this flawed line of thinking created by terrible CPC ads. He was fine off the cuff, he will be fine going forward.
|
I don't think you are understanding my point. I believe that most non-partisans who watched the debates in whole would agree that Trudeau was outclassed by Mulcair and Harper overall. He was by far the most uncomfortable when conversation strayed from what he had prepped for, and he often refrained from joining the discussion - presumably to avoid making mistakes. Add one point during the Munk debate, the moderator had to prompt him to join the discussion after standing in silence for several minutes. He did have several short bursts of enthusiasm that came across well on the debate highlight compilations shown the next day.
In this way, the reduced reach of the debate was beneficial to the Liberals by limiting the exposure of Trudeau in a situation where he was obviously uncomfortable. The Conservatives made a miscalculation here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster86
The "online" debates were not any different to other debates of the past. Being online did not make them "less like previous debates."
|
The fact that the debates reached only an estimated 40% those that the consortium debate did in 2011
does indicate that the new system is different and indeed inferior. I really enjoyed the focus on foreign policy and economics, but I imagine it was only political wonks like myself who would have tuned in. You can't argue to me that reduced public exposure is a good thing for our democracy.
John Doyle had a good article in The Globe explaining the shortcomings of the new formats.