Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cain-Gingrich “Lincoln-Douglas” Debate – Live

Cain-Gingrich “Lincoln-Douglas” Debate – Live

The debate between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich is scheduled for 90 minutes starting at 8 p.m. Eastern.  We will have an embed if available, or you can open a separate window for The Right Scoop or C-SPAN.

To comment in the live feed please register in the CoverIt-Live box using OpenID (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Your Legal Insurrection registration will not work. If you comment anonymously, your comment will be held in moderation until I get around to clearing it.

You also can comment as usual for posts, but it will appear in the comment section, not in the live feed.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Lessons learned from the debate itself. 1. Technical snafus diminished the listening quality thus the effect of the debate itself. By itself, the technical difficulties greatly effected the listening and viewing qualities.

2. The two moderators are one too many. Both took too much time setting up something but all they both did was begin to bore the viewing audience. Rep. S. King is a good representative but his attempt to sell his ideas were not the reason I, and perhaps others, was tuned in to the debates.

3. I expected, and hoped, that the Lincoln Douglass format might have opened up the discussion to a more give and take exchange of ideas, whether differing or not. That doesn’t seem to have happened.

The next such L-D debate might have fewer technical problems and get to the concept of having a real exchange about differing ideas from the candidates. Tonight has turned out to be not the case at the 1-hour mark.

The format is far superior to what we’ve been seeing for years. It will always be difficult to find a neutral moderator, but this can be worked on. Shorter floor time with a wider range of subjects might help, taking care not to shorten comments. Cain and Gingrich are very close together philosophically though Gingrich is much more articulate as a consequence of his years in government. Pairing candidates with more divergent views would add spark, but everyone should be given a chance. The format will set the table for very good matches between the final Republican and Democrat candidates.
Let’s have more of this.

Oh man, I love, Love, LOVE this format. I want to watch it again without the ‘distraction’ of the live comment feed before I pick apart the substance, but really: Have we seen anything better in the last few decades?

Cain’s VP question to Newt was perfection. Just… perfection.

Technical difficulties aside, I really appreciated the relaxed atmosphere this “debate” (they’re buddies) offered. It was really nice to have the opportunity to listen to Gingrich and Cain *detail* their ideas. Cain is not polished, but he gets it. He really does understand the problems, and he has ideas he’s willing to put forward for discussion. Gingrich really is the smartest guy in the room, hands down. Aside from his occasional belly flops, it’s a genuine pleasure to listen to him speak.

I know the conventional (i.e. establishment) types will say it’s a bad idea to put together a national ticket with two people from the same state, but it seems that a lot of conventional wisdom is swirling down the toilet. It’s risky, but they would make a great team.

    dmacleo in reply to punfundit. | November 5, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    newt knows the technical details well due to his speaker time, cain knows when to admit hes does not know everything. thats something so many people treat as a weakness when its not. present narcissistic potus should try it sometime.

    I think cain has better leadership qualities and I think newt is a perfect second man for him.

    randazzo the magnificent in reply to punfundit. | November 5, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    actually punfundit, it’s a constitutional thing, not just conventional wisdom. Article 2, section 1 requires candidates it.

rocking good time for us wonks

randazzo the magnificent | November 5, 2011 at 10:19 pm

oops, typo. article 2, section 1, requires candidates be inhabitants of different states.

    Randazzo, are you referring to the 12th Amendment? If so, I believe passage you refer to deals with Electors. Admittedly I might be reading it incorrectly.

    “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President…”

    This seems to be stating the Electors must vote for at least one candidate who is not from the Elector’s state. But I might be misunderstanding the verbiage.