On Oct. 15, 12 candidates took the stage for the fourth Democratic presidential primary debate of the 2020 electoral season. CNN and The New York Times hosted the extensive three-hour debate at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio. Needless to say, I have several thoughts after watching it.
After sharp criticism of their 2016 presidential primary cycle, the Democratic National Committee promised the 2020 primary debates would be more fair. At first it appeared it would be better with earlier debates, low entrance criteria, and candidates in the first round being split randomly instead of into “Varsity and JV”.
State senate candidates Daniel Champagne (R) and John Perrier (D) debated highway tolls, state spending and the legalization of marijuana in the first and only debate for the 35th district of Connecticut.
The event was hosted by E.O. Smith freshmen, supervised by politics teachers at the high school. All freshman students were assigned a project to learn the responsibility of the citizen with state politics. Three freshmen, Nick Lanza, Emma Smith and Ashley Soto, moderated the evening’s event.
As we once again approach election season, it will not be too much longer before we see debates between candidates for governor, senate and other government positions. I won’t lie, I’ve always enjoyed watching these debates. In fact, for my birthday a couple of years back, I had all of my friends watch one of the Republican primary debates with me (thanks again guys). But recently I’ve come to the conclusion that debates, especially the presidential ones, are deeply flawed.