Most pundits regard an election year session as an opportunity for the two parties to frame issues and garner political advantage in advance of the approaching election.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
In 2012, I see the potential for people to come together, huge moments of political and social engagement where elections are part of the strategy for change, but not the end goal and not the only thing that matters.
A cardinal rule of politics is that if an issue has the potential to cause problems for a candidate, it is best to deal with it well before the election so the dust has time to settle.
I believe in the critical importance of participating in the political system - from voting to standing for election. It's both rewarding and necessary that men and women of good will and clear thinking engage in honest, open debate.
Democrats tend to think of elections as cycles. Republicans don't: It's ongoing and constant.
Each party steals so many articles of faith from the other, and the candidates spend so much time making each other's speeches, that by the time election day is past there is nothing much to do save turn the sitting rascals out and let a new gang in.
Activity in politics also produces eager competition and sharp rivalry.
Further-more, partisan attachments powerfully shape political perceptions, beliefs and values, and incumbents enjoy advantages well beyond the way in which their districts are configured.
The 2016 presidential election is ripe for the emergence of a game-changing political leader who either dramatically reforms one of the existing parties or mounts an independent bid.
As a general rule of thumb, Democrats do better in national elections when the year's defining issue is economic fairness, and Republicans do better when the defining issue is national security.
A debate has one purpose, one purpose only, and that is to facilitate the exchange of ideas directly between two candidates, and that's it.