Let’s Have A Debate That Matters: Memo To 3rd District Dem Candidates — Esrati, Fogle, Roberts

To: Democratic Candidates 3rd District — David Esrati, Guy Fogle, Joe Roberts
Re: Let’s plan another debate

I am hoping that sometime prior to July 13, when Ohio’s 3rd District Democrats choose their candidate to oppose incumbent Republican Mike Turner, that the three Democratic candidates will agree to come together to have a meaningful debate. The June 30 League of Women Voters debate is not enough. The LVW format — two minute answers to random questions — I feel, actually disincentivizes any prospect of serious discussion among the candidates. My own experience as a participant in a LWV forum as a candidate for the Kettering School Board allowed me to see how unsatisfying the experience is from a candidate’s point of view.

The meaningful debate, I am hoping still can come together at this late date, as I see it, would seek to accomplish several goals.

1. Revealing to the public that Dayton Democrats are thoughtful, informed, inspiring, visionary people  — united in their zeal that Mike Turner must be defeated.
2. Revealing to the public that 3rd District Democrats are using technology to create democratic processes.
3. Unifying the party’s base into making a united and vigorous effort to defeat Mike Turner.
4. Raising money to offer for prize money and for funding You-tube type videos centered on making the case of why Turner should be defeated.
5. Helping to clarify for Democratic voters which candidate, among the three, would be the best choice to challenge Turner.

The idea is that the debate would be broadcast live over DaytonOS.com and Esrati.com, and any other web-site that might carry it, and part of its message would be an appeal for watchers to contribute money, via PayPal, to a You-tube campaign.

My idea is that we should bring back a Lincoln Douglas type format, one where, rather than a flurry of questions, the number of questions is reduced to just one, a format where a participant would have sufficient time to develop his or her ideas and time to give thoughtful response to the ideas of the other participants.

I propose that this be the topic for discussion: Why Mike Turner should be defeated and why I should be chosen to be the Democratic challenger.

I like the idea that, although the three candidates are in competition to gain votes, the three would encourage and support each other in making the case why Mike Turner should be defeated.  The whole exercise could simply be a discussion of leadership.  What it means to lead, how, if elected the challenger would lead, and how Mike Turner has failed to lead.  I like the Senate term for structured discussion:  colloquy.

The format I’m suggesting is 57 minutes — which, with breaks, would mean at least a 65 minute program.

1. Candidates decide through a random process who should be Candidate A, Candidate B, Candidate C
2. Each candidate make introduction 2 minutes each (6 minutes)
3. Three colloquy’s, each centered on one candidate at a time, with the other two candidates reacting — each colloquy 13 minutes each (39 minutes)
4. Individual Summaries 4 minutes each (12 minutes)

Here is my suggestion as to how the 13 minute colloquy might work — This one centers on Candidate A:

Candidate A       4 minutes

Candidate B and Candidate C discuss Candidate A’s remarks      3 minutes
giving each other equal time

Candidate B and Candidate C ask Candidate A questions and A gives answers      6 minutes.