Ronna McDaniel said the commission is “biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates including hosting debates before voting begins and selecting moderators who have never worked for candidates on the debate stage.”
Are there really problems with the Commission? It’s always seemed to me that the moderators were impartial. And why is it an issue if the debates take place after any early voting starts?
I admit my opinion of the GOP is bad enough that when they say the debates are unfair, they mean the debates aren’t set up so the GOP candidate automatically wins, but I thought I’d see if they do have a legitimate point.
Remember that the RNC is the same group that in February said those who invaded the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were engaging in “legitimate political discourse.” So even within the GOP, the RNC is kind of extreme.
They believe that all news organizations outside of Fox news and ONAN are liberal propeganda, so its hard to find moderators that would seen by both sides as unbiased.
Basically, anyone who believes that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen is disqualified.
Presidential debates are mostly useless, anyway in terms of actual policy analysis; they’re largely just a means for candidates to pander to their respective bases and post-debate critiques of them often boil down opinionizing as to which candidate sounded and behaved “more presidential”. Since the 2016 presidential election election debates in which one candidate threatened to jail his opponent, appealed to an adversarial foreign power to do opposition research for him, and refused to answer as to whether he would accept the lawful results of the election, civility and “presidential” behavior is basically out the window.
What does Donald Trump want? Unfortunately (for him) the Republican Nationalince Committee does not run an dating site for skeevy dads interested in exploring the fringes of incest but I’m morally certain they have a working group on the topic that is even now formulating recommendations.
I think presidential debates have outlived their usefulness. The candidates just give rehearsed soundbites which often have nothing to do with the questions. The voters don’t watch them to guide their votes, they watch them to cheer their man on. Fucking waste of time.
Agree. They could do away with the debates, but I think the Town Hall style meetings are more valuable anyway. At least, if the candidate is willing to meet with real Americans and not just carefully screened donors and fans.
How does the recent debate protocol compare with olde-tymey debates like in the days of Lincoln-Douglas? As @BobLibDem says, today’s presidential debates are just a collage of soundbites.
There’s a Wiki page on the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. But I don’t really understand very well what it says. It seems to be saying that the LD Debate style has more meat to it.
That’s the “classic” debate form which was also taught by colleges and high schools in what used to be called forensics. The debaters were judged by logic, strength of argument, staying on topic, appeals to reason vs. emotion, countering the opponents arguments, etc. Frankly, I found the style pretty much like two people taking terms reading snippets of their term papers with an occasional departure into commenting on each other’s term paper. They were meaty as hell, but tough to chew.
So, Lincoln and Douglas debated like that? And people paid attention and took it all seriously? Well, that was then.
What do you suppose would happen if actual candidates today had a debate like that? What would the general public voters think? Would their eyes and ears glaze over and tune out immediately? Would the TV ratings plunge to zero in the first five minutes? Would the pundits barbecue them to cinders?
What would the reaction today be, if candidates really debated issues?
Listening to people talk was what we did in the 19th Century. Don’t forget, at Gettysburg, the main speaker was Edward Everett, not Lincoln. Everett spoke for two hours. William Henry Harrison’s inaugural address ran 8,445 words (and may have killed the poor man.) By contrast, Joe Biden’s inaugural address was a comparatively terse 2,521 words.
Joe Biden has skills but debating isn’t one of them. If the Republicans are afraid to debate Biden, it’s an admission how weak they expect their candidate will be.
Does that disprove your comment in another thread that Donald Trump is not the cause, but a symptom?
I would like “High School” Presidential debates. Ask the same question to both guys, for a start.
Part of the RNC’s beef is that the moderator worked for Biden twenty years ago.
Another beef is shutting off a guy’s microphone when he isn’t speaking. Probably not necessary for anyone but Trump, who believes that the guy who screams more loudly wins the debate.
I don’t think so. Trump has been sort-of groundbreaking in showing that there are really no negative consequences to this kind of brazen disrespect for not just his opponent but the members of the voting public seeking informed debate and exchange of policy ideas, but it isn’t as if he emerged from the womb fully formed like this. Much of what we see in what passes for political discourse today was actively fostered by people like Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich, particularly the threats against opponents (veiled or otherwise), slandering with provably bogus or unsubstantiated claims, ‘dog-whistling’, using the fear-uncertainty-doubt trivium to goad otherwise politically unengaged people into action, et cetera.
And it isn’t like these guys invented it de novo, either; they basically read the history of the Roman Senate and distilled the lessons of how to sow the seeds of disruption and dissension. Trump is just an idiot savant at this sort of thing because he has a combination of zero shame and some inexplicable charisma for people who like this rhetoric. I mean, if Ted Cruz wasn’t such an execrable asshole, or if Paul Ryan would lower himself to making crass comments about grabbing women’s genitalia, they could be Trumps, too.
The theoretical purpose of debates is to introduce the candidates to the public, and help voters make up their minds. If some people have already voted before a debate occurs, what’s the point of the debate?
Presumably, those who have already voted had already made up their minds. The point of the debate is to help those who have not yet decided make up their minds.
There are always some who will vote for their party’s candidate no matter what. The debate won’t change their minds, so why care if they have already voted?
I’ve long wanted there to be an “Answer the Damn Question” debate.
An impartial panel of 5 judges, approved by both parties, monitors the debate. The questions are selected from those submitted by voters. Each candidate gets two minutes to answer the question. If by a certain time, say 20 seconds, the candidate has not started to answer the question according to a member of the panel, that member hits a button. If three members of the panel have hit the button, that candidate’s mic is automatically turned off, the spotlight on the candidate is turned off, and either the question goes to the other candidate (if not had a chance yet to answer) or a new question is asked.
I have a vague recollection that in the 2008 Vice President debate, Palin outright said she didn’t want to answer the question and used her time to talk about something else. I thought at the time and still think that’s wrong and should not be allowed.
I think they realize that their Mango Messiah is increasingly dysfunctional outside his hothouse ecosystem populated exclusively by flunkies and ass-kissers, and are trying to ward off a potential (worse) public meltdown.