After a raucous first
general election debate where an unruly audience saw an attendee removed from the theater and the candidates shouted over each other, often cutting each other off and going over their time limits, what will happen at this final debate is anyone's guess.
Not exact matches
There is this fantasy that the
general election debates are going to happen in some Tea Party Thunderdome
where the live crowd will go wild for Gingrich and boo Obama into broken silence.
As the next
general election begins to loom over the horizon, the
debate over
where our electricity comes from is starting to hot up - and nothing seems guaranteed.
There are no other citywide primary
debates, with not enough competition for any of the Republican citywide nominations or for the Democratic nominations for Comptroller or Public Advocate,
where the two incumbents are set to cruise into the
general election.
In the cases, just this last couple of
elections,
where stem cell politics, for example, has been played out in the electoral process, stem cell research is [has] done better than the winning candidates for offices; and I think, apart from that, I think that we do have a serious problem in
general education of the sciences and that accounts for the reluctance of a large segment of the population to accept the principles of evolution and think that there is still a
debate about it, which there isn't — and that's a problem we need to solve, — but I still think there is an incredible constituency for science in this country.
The reason, Leiserowitz suspects, is that outside of political and green spheres —
where the
debate is certain to be ferocious over the coming months, and into the midterm
elections — the
general public isn't particularly engaged on these issues, or even very clear on the specifics.