I had forgotten it. Until now. Gee, thanks.
Why would you expect that? Haven’t you watched any of the debates in the last 50+ years?
You really can’t say there’s a hosting network, it’s on all networks.
Your request will be easy to grant.
If you want to hear that Clinton won, watch MSNBC.
If you want to hear that old Hamster-fists won, watch Fox news.
If you want something more in the middle, watch CNN.
If you want the truth, check the Election forum during the debate.
Now a word from our sponsors…
No need to be snarky. Didn’t you read my OP?
And frankly, having a panel score the debate is a pretty darned good idea.
Well, there is a venue, a location, a PLACE, owned by some media outlet, right? I mean, SOMEONE is in charge, pays for the lights, coffee, and toilet paper-- they’re the HOST. :rolleyes:
Check the elections forum and see who is getting how drunk, how fast.
At least it didn’t have an annoying bounce around your noggin theme song like “Farmers Only.com” or “Mr. Clean Mr. Clean Mr. Clean.”
@ThelmaLou - I was very little when it was on and I only remember small bits of it.
You aren’t by any chance Barney Phife’s former girlfriend are you? 
Yes, I am! And it’s “Fife.” Stop by sometime for a pan of my specialty: cashew fudge. Yum! 
The host is Hofstra University, which is NOT a media outlet.
No, I think the Commission on Presidential Debates is in charge of the logistics and payment. In the primaries, the networks kind of took turns but that’s past.
To riff off the op - what counts as winning the debate?
It seems to me there are different metrics that will apply.
Of course there is who meets or exceeds expectation. Advantage Trump there as the expectations are quite low. (And his team tries to lower them by emphasizing how little he is preparing … really people want a president who won’t bother preparing for major events?)
Whose team can spin better after the fact.
Whose performance can help rally his or her current supporters to make those loosely attached more securely attached and help motivate turnout come election day.
But the biggest impact potential is on the smallest demographic: the few percent who likely will vote but are still unsure who they want to vote against or for more and who actually can be swayed. The candidate who wins is the one who actually effectively decreases their negatives and increases the other’s in that very small but potentially important swingable demographic.
Polls afterward that ask “who do you think won?” are likely less important than a focused analysis of the group who are currently undecided, not firmly decided, or planning third party, and asking them not “who won?” but measuring within that group if favorable/unfavorable ratings have changed.
It would also be interesting to have before/after polls that asked people who were decided on a candidate to rate 1 to 100 how certain they were of their choice and of voting and see if that changed.
If I were President of the university, I’d put together a panel of people to score the debates.
Yeah, this seems like the single most important thing.
BTW the Commission on Presidential Debates set the rules and the format, not the hosting venue. Hofstra just provides the space.
Having a panel would, IMHO, be a horrible idea. Voters listen and decide for themselves. (Or listen to their favorite spin artists who tell them why they think their candidate won.) You’d only set up a debate over who is on the panel and how biased they are (more liberal intellectual elite trying to tell regular folk what to think as they believe regular folk aren’t smart enough to think for themselves).
So what?
It would be an accurate criticism.
And I say that as someone who would typically be identified as part of the liberal intellectual elite.
The only important jury for these debates is the voting public. Campaigns will try to work the jury after the event to influence that verdict, but setting up an official small panel to tell them what they just saw? Offensive.
Offensive? I don’t think so. Most people don’t know what they’re seeing/hearing until someone tells them. Far from being offended, I think they’d be relieved to have someone tell them. Why else do people listen to/read pundits and opinion columns?
I wouldn’t expect the panel to make judgments of the content of the debaters’ remarks as much as critique the **performances **in the debate, e.g., “Hillary asked this question and Donald never really answered,” and “Donald said he had four points to make, but he only made three…” and “Hillary effectively addressed four of Donald’s points but didn’t address point number five,” etc. Like critiquing any artistic or athletic performance.
THEN the viewers can decide for themselves about the content.
How are real college debates scored/judged? (I realize these debates aren’t real debates.)
Never mind that that’s exactly what every media outlet does.
Oh? Have you a Volvo? Would you drive that Volvo another mile because the liquor store closest to you doesn’t have a really good chardonnay? Do you own more than a hundred dollars worth of coffee-making equipment? If someone shows you a picture of melted cheese, do you think “nachos” or “fondue”?
Past car in the family was a Volvo. Now I have a plug-in hybrid … even more liberal intellectual elite. Not for a really good chardonnay but for the exact Scotch or Mezcal I want. Farther to get Leatherbee’s vernal edition gin. I love that stuff. Yes to the more than hundred dollars of coffee equipment (if only a hundred) although it is my wife who is more of the coffee geek. Nachos … who eats fondue anymore? Actually might think who let the Brie get that runny. And I not only eat kale but I like it. 
Exactly ThelmaLou. These are not college debates.
Morgenstern the media outlets are not official parts of the debates. They are the free press entitled to spin however they want and viewers and readers free to select the spin they prefer or none.
Orangy-tan? Aren’t-u-tan? Are-u-Tang?