The Dud Debate . . .

Last night voters were subjected to the most agonizing hour-and-a-half of this election season's programming . . . perhaps of any election season. That was the NY Gubernatorial "Debate" . . . and the term "debate" is used very loosely.

Paladino supporters certainly must be disappointed in their candidate's lack of performance last evening.   Per YNN: 

It was almost as if Carl Paladino, the fiery Republican, turned the fire extinguisher on himself. He also left the stage mid-debate for a bathroom break, stumbled over words and at times, confused Medicaid and Medicare.

As for his main challenger, Andrew Cuomo:

The Democrat kept stately and bland, offering few specific commitments, animated most when speaking about ethics.

Paladino clearly is not an orator and appeared uncomfortable. His wild hand gesturing was distracting.  Cuomo, on the other hand, was glib but non-substantive.

OK, so we know that in the speaking department, Cuomo is hands down the better speaker of the two. (To be honest, I thought Madam Davis won the debate over all, but she is not a viable candidate and some of her positions are just nonsense).   However, a good speaker does not automatically point to who would be a good governor.  . . .

And we, the voting audience, did not get a chance to really see what the principal two candidates stand for . . . how they think. . . because of the absolutely ridiculous spectacle of having seven candidates on the stage at once. 

I felt like I was watching a 3 ring circus. The whole "debate"  was a farce.  It should have been Paladino vs Cuomo. Then we would have seen the real issues developed.  There was simply no chance for that to be done under the format that was chosen.  

As lousy a speaker as Paladino is, I think he still would go for a one-on-one debate with Cuomo -- and Cuomo would refuse.