Originally Posted by Tim

Whatever positive results might come from a GOP youtube debate would be outweighed by the discomfort of the format and the general tone.

Democrats are much better at this sort of thing. That's just the way it is.

A positive view: Dems are more flexible and comfortable with changes in the culture, more relaxed in front of a spontaneous audience and far more aware of cultural trends.

A critical view: Dems are far less comfortable with authority and tradition and many are essentially over-grown children.

Bill Clinton played the saxaphone with dark glasses in 1992 and Dems swooned and squealed with delight. Most conservatives were just confused: why would a presidential candidate be indulging in antics like that? He was making a fool of himself - but that is obviously NOT the response he received from libs.

Hillary usually does her prison-matron routine in those situations, but even she relaxes and comes alive (relatively speaking) before an audience.

Obama campaigns without a necktie. Many Dems see that as "free" and "young" and and "unencumbered by convention" and "trendy".

Conservatives (including me) see it as childish nonsense on the part of a man who wants to hold a position of extraordinary power and respect and authority. On this subject I do think the French are correct and we are wrong - dignity and maturity do matter, and so do the symbols.

But on Oprah, no one cares about dignity and maturity and gravitas; they even seem ridiculous. It is personality that sells.

I would assume that the vast majority of youtube viewers would think I was foolish to hold those views. But the differences between conservatives and liberals are highlighted in those situations.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Ahhh, another person who has no say!

Originally Posted by Traveler

Could be worse, if most people who could vote did that vote would be even more meaningless! But you're right, very few voters are crucial to the outcome of the election.

Originally Posted by Danny

Actually this is probably a very accurate assessment of the situation. Perhaps I overstated the importance of the YouTube format as well as the likely audience that the event holds for Republicans. Each party needs to pan to their respective bases for the nomination.

If there was a YouTube debate between the nominees of either party and mabye even an independent, a candidate refusing to show would be bad. That being said having a YouTube debate with 1 candidate or 1 candidate + an independent would be ridiculous so the point is mute.

Originally Posted by SamInTheSouth

This is proof? Where? There is nothing anywhere in the article whatsoever that says the candidates are snubbing the debate because of their opinion of American's youth. That's your opinion. Let's be honest, please.

But on that note, why should they care about what America's youth wants? Why should any politician care? Young adults don't vote. It's a plain and simple fact. Politicians know where the votes are coming from and that is who they pay attention and pander to. If younger adults started coming out in large numbers then politicians would start paying attention to them.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

I don't think a YouTube debate would be at all problematic for the Republicans if they get the same sort of softball questions the Dems got. Even easier still if they can get a few video questions where the opposing view is portrayed in some grossly stereotypical way for some easy laugh points.

I'm still amazed that anyone thinks the YouTube debate was anything special. The only innovation here is that the same limp, softball questions they would have gotten from a friendly moderator were instead delivered on video.

Matt

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

They will miss a key chance (of which there are few) to connect with the younger voter demographic that includes college age kids and young professionals.

Originally Posted by Steve

My daughter and her friends all fall into that same demographic.

I listen to these kids talk all the time, and I truly believe that a GOP candidate could walk on water, institute a flat-tax, end war, and cure cancer and my daughter and her friends still wouldn't vote for him...

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

Apparently there is still hope for America.

Originally Posted by Steve

I see it just the opposite.

It's tragic when someone decides to vote for someone based on the letter in parentheses that shows up after his name. If a Democrat were to burn live babies in the town square while juggling dying puppies, my daughter and her friends would still vote for that person, simply because the person is a Democrat.

To be fair, I also know plenty of Republicans who would rather dig their own eyes out with a shit-coated spoon before voting for a Democrat, regardless of the good things the Democrat may have done.

My father in law is one of them.

An old Junior High School teacher of mine is now a politician in New York, and a Democrat. When I was telling my father in law about him, he seemed genuinely interested in what the guy had done, and in what he was doing. My father in law seemed impressed right up until the point when I told him the guy was a Democrat. In an instant, the favorable opinions he had were instantly cast aside, and were replaced with rants about a guy he'd never even heard about until that day.

I see that from both sides, though. It's nothing new and, sadly, is something which isn't likely to change any time soon...