How would you improve Presidential debate formats?

[Jragon]

@Covfefe

I do not watch them because of the audience applause. It’s clearly troubling how mindless it can get, like Castro going out of his way in support of abortion for trans women. That was applauded. It’s also troubling if talking over others may be incentivized.

In fairness, it was fairly obvious he meant transmasculine people (i.e. trans men and nonbinary AFAB people). It was a misgendering misstep I facepalmed at, but the way he phrased it made it fairly clear what he was talking about.

[Covfefe]

@Jragon

In fairness, it was fairly obvious he meant transmasculine people (i.e. trans men and nonbinary AFAB people). It was a misgendering misstep I facepalmed at, but the way he phrased it made it fairly clear what he was talking about.

Well he conspicuously went out of his way to say that. If he wants to say that or even ad-lib in and get it wrong at one of his pep rallies, that’s fine. On the debate stage, and he’s not the only one, my point is it is harder to take it all seriously when the atmosphere is partially that of a pep rally.

I’m thinking of it from the standpoint of someone who may not have followed the event and this was one of the only sound bytes they heard. I’m not necessarily against throwing a bone to a tiny minority on that stage, hearing it like this just made me feel embarrassment.

[asahi]

These aren’t debates; they’re personality tests. They’re contests to see which candidate can survive the toxic environment of modern American politics while occasionally make coherent arguments and saying things that people actually identify with.

What might be even more interesting is to see what candidates actually know about specific issues. Hell, turn the damn thing into a game show – Presidential Jeopardy with Alex Trebek moderating. Have the candidates answer specific questions about a range of topics. Have them compete with buzzers. Have a panel of experts decide how accurately they answered the questions. Give 'em points.

I wonder how many candidates would show up, lol?

[Oredigger77]

@UltraVires

I know I said something similar above, but I have flip-flopped. It gives too much power to a moderator, for one to ask a complex question to a candidate that he or she dislikes and then take an overly harsh position that the candidate is being non-responsive when actually the candidate is giving a reasonable answer.

Also, some questions are not easily answered directly. Like the question to Sanders if he would increase taxes on the middle class to pay for his Medicare-for-All program. His direct answer was yes, but the ins and outs of all that (and I’m not Bernie supporter by far) cannot be adequately explained in 60 or 120 seconds. So if what you are doing is looking for a headline the next day of “Sanders’ plan will Raise YOUR TAXES!!!” then the moderator wins.

The soundbite drowns out the entire contours of the plan and leaves many details unanswered such as who is the middle class?, will the taxes be offset by savings, and how much of the total cost would the middle class pay. What would the cost/benefit of a guy making $50k a year be?

I don’t think it is fair to be inordinately strict to a candidate who is attempting to put forth soundbites.

I still thing its a good idea. While you are correct it gives a lot of power to the moderator, I think that some one has to have the power. It could be improved by a 5 person moderator team and getting cut off if 3/5 decide your out of bounds. An important skill for a politician is to take important, complex ideas and boil them down to something that is understandable. Doing this without misleading is also important

Politicians making up a story and trying to give it detail and emotional beats about a parent rushing a child to the emergency room and sitting out side pondering if they can afford it is dumb and doesn’t advance the case that single player is a better more affordable system. Cutting them off and repeating I asked how a single payer system is better will hopefully turn debates into policy and position discussions instead of a who can make the audience emotional.