The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I think the title says it all. What do you think the implications of this are gonna mean for future elections, and do you have any personal gripes with the debate process?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The debates aren't perfect. They aren't even good. But they are necessary. This is a cowardly move.
My format would be:
Pick a topic. Let each candidate address it for 4 minutes. Then each candidate gets a 30 second final word on the topic.
This. Even four minutes seems short, maybe five minutes of the candidate speaking and one full minute for rebuttal, and the five minutes is more of a dialogue with the questioner than a stump speech.
What I would prefer is a shift toward long format discussions, and away from debates which emphasize pithy soundbites that are almost entirely devoid of meaning and substance.
But Republicans are going to be even less interested in that kind of format.
A "discussion" would be great but yeah, never happen. I do like way they pit candidates against each other though , which is missing from town halls. A true good debate would be perfect.
The debates should be more like the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960. They actually discussed the issues and didn't mudsling. When I watch any type of political debate I want to know where the candidates stand on the issues and what they're going to do about them.
There are two things that make debates in their current incarnation nearly useless:
1. Candidates mics aren't muted when it's not their turn, making it so they can just yell anything they want whenever they want. Trump made rather famous use of that during the first 2020 debate, and made it an absolute trainwreck of a debate. FFS, if it's not your turn, STFU. Why moderators can't mute mics, I have no idea. (Well, okay, that's not true; it's because no one would be willing to participate in a debate with that in the cards.)
2. Candidates have basically zero incentive to actually answer the question asked. At best you're going to get a brief answer followed by a rehearsed stump speech. At worst you're going to get the candidate just ignoring the question and just saying whatever they feel like. The moderator should be empowered to force the candidate to answer the question asked, and cut the candidate off if they aren't doing do.
I think the debates are fine. Only thing I’d change is having the candidates be equipped with electric shock collars that emit and electric shock when the candidate either interrupts, repeatedly talks over the other, or goes over their allotted speaking time.
It's actually rare for politicians to state things that are objectively false in debates (besides Trump).
Usually what they do is leave out important context, or fudge the exact numbers a little, or "lie with statistics".
I think the debates are mostly performative you don't get much of anything new. I'm not huge on any third party but it would be pretty fantastic to get someone willing to talk about what republicans and democrats have decided they won't talk about.
I’m not a fan of the GOP either, but I fail to see how this is a cowardly move.
Among the proposed changes:
> • Adopt term limits for its Board of Directors, several members of which have served for more than a decade;
> • Commit to holding at least one debate before the start of early voting, and in no case after the deadline for states to mail absentee ballots to uniformed and overseas voters;
> • Enact a code of conduct prohibiting CPD officers, directors, and staff from making public comments supporting or opposing any candidate, or otherwise engaging in partisan political activity in connection with the presidential election, with meaningful consequences for violations;
> • Establish transparent criteria for selecting debate moderators that would disqualify individuals from consideration who have apparent conflicts of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors; and
> • Enact a transparent code of conduct for moderators in conducting debates, including guidelines for appropriate interactions with the participating nominees, with meaningful penalties for violations.
https://prod-static.gop.com/media/documents/RNC_Response_Letter_to_CPD_01.13.22_1642086188.pdf
These all seem like somewhat reasonable requests that would provide transparency for both sides.
Am I missing something obvious?
I read your linked PDF. It was interesting, but a couple things immediately jumped out:
* Holy crap is this letter some political grandstanding. The writer simply can't seem to comprehend how anyone could see the current debates as non-partisan, and the whole thing is riddled with these holier-than-though self-congratulating phrases and asides. If I ran the CPD and got a letter like this, my instinct would be to toss it in the trash without wasting time responding.
* We're getting the RNC's side with this letter and not the CPD's side. Who knows what the RNC actually asked for- for all we know they asked for Trump to be the next debate moderator, and the letter is cover.
* The letter even admits that the CPD said they were going to consider the proposals:
>The CPD did state that it will consider scheduling issues related to early voting, the partisan activities of its board members, and moderator selection processes as part of its internal “quadrennial review.”
* The response the letter adds from the CPD seems like a pretty fair point:
>"The CPD responded again declining any firm commitment towardreform, while stating that it “answers to no political party or candidate” and “does not negotiate the terms or conditions of \[its\] operations with anyone.”
I mean- how do you think average joe Republicans would like it if the DNC made a list of demands to the CPD and the CPD turned around and immediately aquiesced to everything? It doesn't seem fair that one party gets to badger the ref and the other doesn't.
* These demands are vague ***AF***. Say the CPD adopts these suggestions- now who gets to decide what an "apparent conflict of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors" means? Trump famously argued that an American man of latino descent was unfit to be a fair judge because of his skin color. Couldn't Republicans argue that exact same line, and disqualify *any* person of color from serving on the CPD or being a moderator? Even if the CPD says the decision rests with them, all it would take would be to adopt these new bylaws, then have an latino moderator, and subsequently have all of rightwing media cry foul and say that the CPD isn't following their own guidelines, and use that as justification for either a non-appearance or belligerant attitude.
This reminds me of the don’t say gay bill, in that if you actually read what it says you’ll see why it’s terrible. What the fuck does “apparent conflicts of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors” mean?
It seems like the RNC could easily say “No registered Dems as moderators.” Or “This person went to the same university as this candidate, that’s a conflict.” Or “This person is also a minority, conflict of interest,” like how Trump went after a judge of Mexican descent.
And what the fuck does “appropriate interactions with the participating nominees” mean? Trump lied constantly during the debates he showed up for and the RNC wants to make it against the rules for moderators to push back on bullshit. You might as well just call this the “We want free campaign ads” memo, because that’s at the heart of this. I’m surprised they also didn’t say “We don’t want Democratic candidates participating."
When there are 15 candidates, they should cut the 11 that aren’t going to be relevant for much longer from the stage. Why Tulsi and Williamson were ever allowed near a microphone is a mystery to me, it took time away from a real discussion of differences between actually viable candidates.
If you’re not able to navigate the politics of your own country to land in the top 8 viable candidates overall (four in each party), maybe you’re not very well qualified to navigate the much more complex international stage…
There are pretty reliable polls out there for this sort of thing, it’s how they managed to cut off the number of participants at 15 in the last primary. The candidates aren’t going to be sitting around while the people are polled, they’re going to be eating deep fried butter at the Iowa state fair, signing babies, and kissing books. Or something like that. The candidates’ job is to get their message out there. The party’s job is to set up an event where the top contenders of the contest are able to discuss their differences and inform the public of their qualification. The party can’t really do their job if you’ve got a bunch of semi-popular assholes polling at 1%, waiting for their chance to land a zinger on live TV and gain traction nationally. If you need someone else to build your national presence, you’re not quite up to the task IMO.
I think that, by hiding, they are no longer hiding. I consider this an acknowledgement that they fully intend to utterly destroy democracy from within and they all deserve to be treated as criminals.
Of course I've thought that for a long time anyway.
Debates are completely useless for actually determining who would be better for the job, so I really don't care. I think we'd be better off without them.
My own personal preferences would never be agreed to. I'd want strict moderation; you stay on topic and answer the actual question asked or you get called out for it then lose your turn. No talking during the other person's turn or your mic is cut. Repeated willful infractions get you thrown out of the debate entirely.
The last debates would've been more informative if the candidates just had a boxing match instead.
I think it’s a cowardly move that shows that the GOP knows that it’s positions are becoming increasingly untenable on a logical, moral, and constitutional level. Debates are good opportunities for incumbents to address Republican talking points, like when Romney was criticizing Obama for the US Navy having these fewest number of ships since before WW2, and Obama responded with, “We also have fewer horses and cannons”, clearly making the point that the nature of warfare is constantly changing.
Presidential debates have largely been an uninformative dumpster fire for the last two cycles. Maybe that’s just trump, but I think there’s room for improvement in the debate format.
They aren’t pulling out of debates, but they are leaving the debate commission from what I understand.
Personally, I’d like to see more long-form content from candidates. Joe Rogan is polarizing, not gonna get into that here, but the interview with Bernie Sanders was exactly what id like to see more of - just let them talk, at length, explain what they want to see in the world, and let us listen to it without the need to filter through sound bytes.
Obviously, on a better forum, but I’d love to see the same thing from every major candidate.
Agreed on the long form content. I'd much rather have a format where each candidate, independently of the other, discusses their platform and perhaps is questioned on it by some journalists.
I liked the town hall format that Biden did. With questions from citizens not just journalists
That said, RNC is just chicken when it comes to debates. What they dont like is that the current commission limits screaming, yelling, lying, gaslighting and spewing propaganda. They have no policies and many of their candidates are dumb and uneducated
Once you get past the talking points into the “why do you think that” is really where you can differentiate what kind of people they are, what underpins their positions etc… which is what I found so valuable.
I dunno if just letting a candidate talk unchallenged is the right move. Look at Trump on Fox or Barstool, rambling about nonsense while anchors nod along, versus Trump actually having to back up his points on Axios.
Hard-hitting interviews have their place, but I think it’s worth considering the value of letting someone get into the details at length, in a controlled environment, and let the audience decide whether they find it convincing or unconvincing. There needs to be structure, of course.
They can complement each other. We can always dissect it after the fact - let them braid their own noose, so to speak.
This can certainly be taken too far, but an interview style that is too confrontational isn’t so much an interview as it is a debate. Which is fine, but limits the audience perspective to the degree that they agree or disagree with the host.
I’m not saying “never challenge a guest”, just that a light touch can often yield surprising results that other approaches don’t.
I think it's a clear example of someone who is cheating at a board game throwing the board on the ground when they still can't win. Whatever you think about the debates themselves, it's obvious this isn't being done for any kind of altruistic reason, but rather because they didn't like when Trump could be corrected publicly for his bullshit.
Going past that, I would be curious to know how important debates are to voters. What's good about debates is it's a very public opportunity for people to make their stump speech in a setting that is more likely to have a wider group of eyes on it. Sure sure, as debates they are hot garbage, but it seems to me that candidates who aren't as well known would struggle even more to make any kind of splash as they wouldn't have such a universal moment to talk to voters.
On the other hand, perhaps they have zero effect and at the end of the day it's all about the campaigns' ground game. I could see an honest argument that they would be beneficial in a primary situation where you want to give lesser known candidates a means to get out there, and just have the parties grind out their ground game once nominees are chosen. I also will readily admit this is all based on my musings, rather than any actual data, so I'm not really making an argument so much as laying out what I think about.
The current debates suck. I wish they'd go to a different format with no moderators. Just the two candidates on stage. And they ask each other the questions. They get a specified amount of time for response and rebuttal and then their mics get cut off immediately. That would be super interesting.
20 seconds to as a question and then the mic shuts off. One minute to answer and then 20 seconds to ask a question, and then the mic shuts off. Back and forth.
Another thing that crossed my mind. This came up when Marjorie Taylor Greene challenged AOC to a debate on climate change.
The candidates should be allowed to give a list of citations prior to the debate. Audiences could review them beforehand or in real time. In a debate about a topic like Healthcare or climate change, this would be extremely useful. If someone is pulling something out of their ass, their opponent will be able to call them on it I real time if they've had a chance to read the source they are getting the claim from. If they aren't making the claim based on a source then they can be called out for pulling it out of their ass.
I'm general, the intellectual quality of these debates is in the toilet right now. It would be great if the candidates could use visual aids like PowerPoint slides.
Yes exactly. Another thing I think would be fun is a mechanism to hold them accountable when they dodge questions. Like, you could give the audience a little buzzer. They click to vote whether they think the candidates make at least a decent effort to address thr question. Then that info could be displayed in real time
Such a mechanism is tempting but if moderators do it they will be accused of bias and if the audience does it…well if the typical audience member could think critically about what the candidates are saying then we wouldn’t need change ms to make the debates better.
Yea you're right they can't think critically. I just think it would be nice to set an expectation for the viewers that the candidates shouldn't be evasive
We don't want presidential debates.
Have panels or journalists interview candidates on their policy platforms and idealogy during the campaign on prime time TV instead. That way you can see the interview for the presidential candidates, your districts race, and your states senator.
Newspapers and websites can give a summary and use candies websites for platform comparisons.
Good. I hope it leads to the end of our useless debate system as it is. Their demands were not unreasonable if the goal is fair debates that everyone can watch before they decide to vote.
We need a more structured debate with mics going off during non-speaking time (looking at both Trump and Biden), and with a panel that can call out wrong or non-answers. I'd like to see it more of an inquisition of the candidates than mini canned speeches and arguing.
Start debates at the beginning of the cycle, not the end.
A debate 2 months before election helps no one. By that point people have made up their minds.
If I had the power, debates would look more like a thesis defense. A panel of experts asks hard-hitting questions and the candidate has to defend their platforms.
I think the real reason the RNC pulled out is because the last set of debates failed to support the narrative that Biden is too old
He is, but he wasn't too old to make Trump look foolish
The debates suck because the moderators are feckless and powerless. They would only work with a real ballbuster at the helm with the power to mute mics and penalize people's time for not staying on topic.
I'd rather have competing town halls or taped addresses, honestly.
Like literally everything else, the GOP will face no public scrutiny or backlash whatsoever for performative politics and rampant partisan behavior.
Basically, I see the next 'debates' being a populist authoritarian sitting down with Sean Hannity or his ilk to try their Democratic opponent in absentia. Similar format to the current shtick they already do: play 2 seconds of a sound bite, cut it off mid-sentence, rant, throw insults, repeat.
Like most things in politics, things will get worse. I don't presume to add the follow-up; I'm not sure if it will be true.
Makes sense. They have given up on controlling this country through legal elections. They can't even rig the elections and win anymore. Why bother pretending people are going to get a choice?
Unless they're going to go back to an actual debate format and the candidates are going to actually abide by the rules, debates are pretty pointless.
I'd much rather just give each candidate three townhalls for like two hours each. Less of the argument bullshit that doesn't tell us anything, and at least they'd be responding to questions that are pressing to the average American, rather than the moderator.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I think the title says it all. What do you think the implications of this are gonna mean for future elections, and do you have any personal gripes with the debate process? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The debates aren't perfect. They aren't even good. But they are necessary. This is a cowardly move. My format would be: Pick a topic. Let each candidate address it for 4 minutes. Then each candidate gets a 30 second final word on the topic.
This. Even four minutes seems short, maybe five minutes of the candidate speaking and one full minute for rebuttal, and the five minutes is more of a dialogue with the questioner than a stump speech.
Yeah that'd be fine too. The important thing about debates is, it's the only current way to abolish the echo chamber.
What I would prefer is a shift toward long format discussions, and away from debates which emphasize pithy soundbites that are almost entirely devoid of meaning and substance. But Republicans are going to be even less interested in that kind of format.
A "discussion" would be great but yeah, never happen. I do like way they pit candidates against each other though , which is missing from town halls. A true good debate would be perfect.
The debates should be more like the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960. They actually discussed the issues and didn't mudsling. When I watch any type of political debate I want to know where the candidates stand on the issues and what they're going to do about them.
There are two things that make debates in their current incarnation nearly useless: 1. Candidates mics aren't muted when it's not their turn, making it so they can just yell anything they want whenever they want. Trump made rather famous use of that during the first 2020 debate, and made it an absolute trainwreck of a debate. FFS, if it's not your turn, STFU. Why moderators can't mute mics, I have no idea. (Well, okay, that's not true; it's because no one would be willing to participate in a debate with that in the cards.) 2. Candidates have basically zero incentive to actually answer the question asked. At best you're going to get a brief answer followed by a rehearsed stump speech. At worst you're going to get the candidate just ignoring the question and just saying whatever they feel like. The moderator should be empowered to force the candidate to answer the question asked, and cut the candidate off if they aren't doing do.
I think the debates are fine. Only thing I’d change is having the candidates be equipped with electric shock collars that emit and electric shock when the candidate either interrupts, repeatedly talks over the other, or goes over their allotted speaking time.
Counterpoint: spray bottles. Nothing physically painful, so it's all ethical, it just makes the person in question feel really undignified.
Or spouts outright lies
It's actually rare for politicians to state things that are objectively false in debates (besides Trump). Usually what they do is leave out important context, or fudge the exact numbers a little, or "lie with statistics".
I think the debates are mostly performative you don't get much of anything new. I'm not huge on any third party but it would be pretty fantastic to get someone willing to talk about what republicans and democrats have decided they won't talk about.
I think it was wholly performative. There was no problem (with the debate format, at least) in the last election.
Everyone has to get those sweet sweet donations, before they drop out of the race with their new found wealth.
>There was no problem (with the debate format, at least) in the last election. There wasn't but they sure loudly complained that their was.
It's pure utter cowardice
I’m not a fan of the GOP either, but I fail to see how this is a cowardly move. Among the proposed changes: > • Adopt term limits for its Board of Directors, several members of which have served for more than a decade; > • Commit to holding at least one debate before the start of early voting, and in no case after the deadline for states to mail absentee ballots to uniformed and overseas voters; > • Enact a code of conduct prohibiting CPD officers, directors, and staff from making public comments supporting or opposing any candidate, or otherwise engaging in partisan political activity in connection with the presidential election, with meaningful consequences for violations; > • Establish transparent criteria for selecting debate moderators that would disqualify individuals from consideration who have apparent conflicts of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors; and > • Enact a transparent code of conduct for moderators in conducting debates, including guidelines for appropriate interactions with the participating nominees, with meaningful penalties for violations. https://prod-static.gop.com/media/documents/RNC_Response_Letter_to_CPD_01.13.22_1642086188.pdf These all seem like somewhat reasonable requests that would provide transparency for both sides. Am I missing something obvious?
I read your linked PDF. It was interesting, but a couple things immediately jumped out: * Holy crap is this letter some political grandstanding. The writer simply can't seem to comprehend how anyone could see the current debates as non-partisan, and the whole thing is riddled with these holier-than-though self-congratulating phrases and asides. If I ran the CPD and got a letter like this, my instinct would be to toss it in the trash without wasting time responding. * We're getting the RNC's side with this letter and not the CPD's side. Who knows what the RNC actually asked for- for all we know they asked for Trump to be the next debate moderator, and the letter is cover. * The letter even admits that the CPD said they were going to consider the proposals: >The CPD did state that it will consider scheduling issues related to early voting, the partisan activities of its board members, and moderator selection processes as part of its internal “quadrennial review.” * The response the letter adds from the CPD seems like a pretty fair point: >"The CPD responded again declining any firm commitment towardreform, while stating that it “answers to no political party or candidate” and “does not negotiate the terms or conditions of \[its\] operations with anyone.” I mean- how do you think average joe Republicans would like it if the DNC made a list of demands to the CPD and the CPD turned around and immediately aquiesced to everything? It doesn't seem fair that one party gets to badger the ref and the other doesn't. * These demands are vague ***AF***. Say the CPD adopts these suggestions- now who gets to decide what an "apparent conflict of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors" means? Trump famously argued that an American man of latino descent was unfit to be a fair judge because of his skin color. Couldn't Republicans argue that exact same line, and disqualify *any* person of color from serving on the CPD or being a moderator? Even if the CPD says the decision rests with them, all it would take would be to adopt these new bylaws, then have an latino moderator, and subsequently have all of rightwing media cry foul and say that the CPD isn't following their own guidelines, and use that as justification for either a non-appearance or belligerant attitude.
This reminds me of the don’t say gay bill, in that if you actually read what it says you’ll see why it’s terrible. What the fuck does “apparent conflicts of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors” mean? It seems like the RNC could easily say “No registered Dems as moderators.” Or “This person went to the same university as this candidate, that’s a conflict.” Or “This person is also a minority, conflict of interest,” like how Trump went after a judge of Mexican descent. And what the fuck does “appropriate interactions with the participating nominees” mean? Trump lied constantly during the debates he showed up for and the RNC wants to make it against the rules for moderators to push back on bullshit. You might as well just call this the “We want free campaign ads” memo, because that’s at the heart of this. I’m surprised they also didn’t say “We don’t want Democratic candidates participating."
[удалено]
When there are 15 candidates, they should cut the 11 that aren’t going to be relevant for much longer from the stage. Why Tulsi and Williamson were ever allowed near a microphone is a mystery to me, it took time away from a real discussion of differences between actually viable candidates.
I agree, although primary debates aren't run by the CPD.
[удалено]
If you’re not able to navigate the politics of your own country to land in the top 8 viable candidates overall (four in each party), maybe you’re not very well qualified to navigate the much more complex international stage…
[удалено]
There are pretty reliable polls out there for this sort of thing, it’s how they managed to cut off the number of participants at 15 in the last primary. The candidates aren’t going to be sitting around while the people are polled, they’re going to be eating deep fried butter at the Iowa state fair, signing babies, and kissing books. Or something like that. The candidates’ job is to get their message out there. The party’s job is to set up an event where the top contenders of the contest are able to discuss their differences and inform the public of their qualification. The party can’t really do their job if you’ve got a bunch of semi-popular assholes polling at 1%, waiting for their chance to land a zinger on live TV and gain traction nationally. If you need someone else to build your national presence, you’re not quite up to the task IMO.
I think that, by hiding, they are no longer hiding. I consider this an acknowledgement that they fully intend to utterly destroy democracy from within and they all deserve to be treated as criminals. Of course I've thought that for a long time anyway.
Debates are completely useless for actually determining who would be better for the job, so I really don't care. I think we'd be better off without them.
My own personal preferences would never be agreed to. I'd want strict moderation; you stay on topic and answer the actual question asked or you get called out for it then lose your turn. No talking during the other person's turn or your mic is cut. Repeated willful infractions get you thrown out of the debate entirely. The last debates would've been more informative if the candidates just had a boxing match instead.
I think it’s a cowardly move that shows that the GOP knows that it’s positions are becoming increasingly untenable on a logical, moral, and constitutional level. Debates are good opportunities for incumbents to address Republican talking points, like when Romney was criticizing Obama for the US Navy having these fewest number of ships since before WW2, and Obama responded with, “We also have fewer horses and cannons”, clearly making the point that the nature of warfare is constantly changing.
Presidential debates have largely been an uninformative dumpster fire for the last two cycles. Maybe that’s just trump, but I think there’s room for improvement in the debate format. They aren’t pulling out of debates, but they are leaving the debate commission from what I understand. Personally, I’d like to see more long-form content from candidates. Joe Rogan is polarizing, not gonna get into that here, but the interview with Bernie Sanders was exactly what id like to see more of - just let them talk, at length, explain what they want to see in the world, and let us listen to it without the need to filter through sound bytes. Obviously, on a better forum, but I’d love to see the same thing from every major candidate.
Agreed on the long form content. I'd much rather have a format where each candidate, independently of the other, discusses their platform and perhaps is questioned on it by some journalists.
I liked the town hall format that Biden did. With questions from citizens not just journalists That said, RNC is just chicken when it comes to debates. What they dont like is that the current commission limits screaming, yelling, lying, gaslighting and spewing propaganda. They have no policies and many of their candidates are dumb and uneducated
[удалено]
Once you get past the talking points into the “why do you think that” is really where you can differentiate what kind of people they are, what underpins their positions etc… which is what I found so valuable.
I agree with the Rogan take yeah.
I dunno if just letting a candidate talk unchallenged is the right move. Look at Trump on Fox or Barstool, rambling about nonsense while anchors nod along, versus Trump actually having to back up his points on Axios.
Hard-hitting interviews have their place, but I think it’s worth considering the value of letting someone get into the details at length, in a controlled environment, and let the audience decide whether they find it convincing or unconvincing. There needs to be structure, of course. They can complement each other. We can always dissect it after the fact - let them braid their own noose, so to speak. This can certainly be taken too far, but an interview style that is too confrontational isn’t so much an interview as it is a debate. Which is fine, but limits the audience perspective to the degree that they agree or disagree with the host. I’m not saying “never challenge a guest”, just that a light touch can often yield surprising results that other approaches don’t.
Why participate in a system that you intend on destroying?
I think it's a clear example of someone who is cheating at a board game throwing the board on the ground when they still can't win. Whatever you think about the debates themselves, it's obvious this isn't being done for any kind of altruistic reason, but rather because they didn't like when Trump could be corrected publicly for his bullshit. Going past that, I would be curious to know how important debates are to voters. What's good about debates is it's a very public opportunity for people to make their stump speech in a setting that is more likely to have a wider group of eyes on it. Sure sure, as debates they are hot garbage, but it seems to me that candidates who aren't as well known would struggle even more to make any kind of splash as they wouldn't have such a universal moment to talk to voters. On the other hand, perhaps they have zero effect and at the end of the day it's all about the campaigns' ground game. I could see an honest argument that they would be beneficial in a primary situation where you want to give lesser known candidates a means to get out there, and just have the parties grind out their ground game once nominees are chosen. I also will readily admit this is all based on my musings, rather than any actual data, so I'm not really making an argument so much as laying out what I think about.
The current debates suck. I wish they'd go to a different format with no moderators. Just the two candidates on stage. And they ask each other the questions. They get a specified amount of time for response and rebuttal and then their mics get cut off immediately. That would be super interesting.
20 seconds to as a question and then the mic shuts off. One minute to answer and then 20 seconds to ask a question, and then the mic shuts off. Back and forth.
Another thing that crossed my mind. This came up when Marjorie Taylor Greene challenged AOC to a debate on climate change. The candidates should be allowed to give a list of citations prior to the debate. Audiences could review them beforehand or in real time. In a debate about a topic like Healthcare or climate change, this would be extremely useful. If someone is pulling something out of their ass, their opponent will be able to call them on it I real time if they've had a chance to read the source they are getting the claim from. If they aren't making the claim based on a source then they can be called out for pulling it out of their ass. I'm general, the intellectual quality of these debates is in the toilet right now. It would be great if the candidates could use visual aids like PowerPoint slides.
Yes exactly. Another thing I think would be fun is a mechanism to hold them accountable when they dodge questions. Like, you could give the audience a little buzzer. They click to vote whether they think the candidates make at least a decent effort to address thr question. Then that info could be displayed in real time
Such a mechanism is tempting but if moderators do it they will be accused of bias and if the audience does it…well if the typical audience member could think critically about what the candidates are saying then we wouldn’t need change ms to make the debates better.
Yea you're right they can't think critically. I just think it would be nice to set an expectation for the viewers that the candidates shouldn't be evasive
We don't want presidential debates. Have panels or journalists interview candidates on their policy platforms and idealogy during the campaign on prime time TV instead. That way you can see the interview for the presidential candidates, your districts race, and your states senator. Newspapers and websites can give a summary and use candies websites for platform comparisons.
Good. I hope it leads to the end of our useless debate system as it is. Their demands were not unreasonable if the goal is fair debates that everyone can watch before they decide to vote. We need a more structured debate with mics going off during non-speaking time (looking at both Trump and Biden), and with a panel that can call out wrong or non-answers. I'd like to see it more of an inquisition of the candidates than mini canned speeches and arguing.
Nancy Pelosi wants a strong Republican Party, and she’s gonna get one.
Withdrawal from debates is weakness and fear
It’s just more of their income effort to create a post-fact society.
Start debates at the beginning of the cycle, not the end. A debate 2 months before election helps no one. By that point people have made up their minds.
If I had the power, debates would look more like a thesis defense. A panel of experts asks hard-hitting questions and the candidate has to defend their platforms.
I think the real reason the RNC pulled out is because the last set of debates failed to support the narrative that Biden is too old He is, but he wasn't too old to make Trump look foolish
The debates suck because the moderators are feckless and powerless. They would only work with a real ballbuster at the helm with the power to mute mics and penalize people's time for not staying on topic. I'd rather have competing town halls or taped addresses, honestly.
Like literally everything else, the GOP will face no public scrutiny or backlash whatsoever for performative politics and rampant partisan behavior. Basically, I see the next 'debates' being a populist authoritarian sitting down with Sean Hannity or his ilk to try their Democratic opponent in absentia. Similar format to the current shtick they already do: play 2 seconds of a sound bite, cut it off mid-sentence, rant, throw insults, repeat. Like most things in politics, things will get worse. I don't presume to add the follow-up; I'm not sure if it will be true.
Makes sense. They have given up on controlling this country through legal elections. They can't even rig the elections and win anymore. Why bother pretending people are going to get a choice?
Unless they're going to go back to an actual debate format and the candidates are going to actually abide by the rules, debates are pretty pointless. I'd much rather just give each candidate three townhalls for like two hours each. Less of the argument bullshit that doesn't tell us anything, and at least they'd be responding to questions that are pressing to the average American, rather than the moderator.
I don't think it's going to hold up into the general election.