This kind of thing is pretty routine in press conferences. Politicians do it all the time, including in debates, they just aren’t as forthright about it as Palin was in that instance.
If the candidates are going to be the same as the last Presidential election, I see no reason for any debates. Pretty much everyone has already made up their mind about the two, so let’s just skip them.
Make them actually answer the question. If they keep dodging it, moderator keeps saying, “You didn’t answer the question. The question was [ x ]. Please answer the question” until they either answer it, or the debate time is all up and they look like an utter fool.
Or better, until the debate time is half up, after which point only their opponent is allowed to say anything. Presuming, of course, that the opponent answers the question.
– or we could try @anny_m’s technique. Though today, I don’t know how we’re going to get a panel of five judges who are approved by both parties. And I would like to see them made to answer the question, not allowed to evade it at the cost of missing only one turn.
It’s pretty screwed up from the get-go.
The people hosting/moderating are rather conflicted in the first place. The coin of the realm for journalists is access – who takes their calls, answers their emails, and grants them interviews.
It’s not in a journalist’s (or their employer’s) interest to piss these people off, even when it’s the right thing to do.
I’d rather have PoliSci professors, or something similar, conduct the debates. They probably have much less to lose for doing right by the country (instead of the candidate or the network).
Santos-Vinick was a good start for a model:
Both of those guys were honest and polite, unlike real candidates.
As long as they’re ready for the online deluge of criticism from any perceived mistakes or favoritism.
It isn’t necessarily evasive to question the assumptions the question is based on (I found it a useful exam technique, back in the day). Even if it isn’t obviously a “When did you stop beating your wife” kind of question, it can help widen the terms of the debate and shift it on to your ground. Of course you have to be clear about what you’re doing and why, rather than just trying to wrench it back to a prepared but irrelevant line: but sticking to the “question as put” isn’t necessarily informative to the audience.
I’d accept it as answering the question if the debater explicitly took the question apart, explained what was wrong with it, and then answered the sense of the issue. But that isn’t generally what people running for office are doing.
Yeah. One of the oldest rules in politics is: don’t answer the question you were asked. Instead, answer the question that you wish you had been asked.
Tolerable – maybe – in daily life, but during the debates ? I’d like to see something more substantial than stump speeches (a/k/a finely honed and poll-tested public relations press releases).
I would think in this day and age of AI anything a debate performer says can be fact-checked in nearly real-time. I would love it if that technology could be deployed for these debates, along with a buzzer for when someone tells a lie or mistruth. “The economy grew at record levels during my term as President”, “BZZZT! I am sorry, but that statement was flagged as not truthful. Please try again.” …in a polite Alexa-type voice.
I agree 80% of voters have made-up their minds by the time of the first Presidential debate, and likely little changes for any additional sessions. The whole “undecided voters” thing is just a smoke screen for the networks to sell more advertising. Especially for the last election - who was undecided by that point? - I mean, you had Trump’s record for the past 4 years, and Biden’s long record in congress - these infotainment sessions cannot provide anything useful for anyone, but are a potential treasure trove of gaffs, gotchas, and mudslinging. If I were a candidate, I would not want to participate, either.
[bolding mine]
Not making fun of a typo, but pointing out the wry smile that I got from the word you wound up with:
So … I’d definitely tune in for that 
the other word has an ‘e’ on the end of it
LOL. Yeah, I would be down for that, too!! 
Brings new meaning to “Time to give 'em the hook!”
He did okay… vs trump. So, it all depends on who the GOP nominates.
I don’t really have anything to add to the topic other than re-proposing that we move to a debate system format more like TED talks but where the candidates will each do two sessions - one to present their vision and the other to respond to their opponents vision.
Snake turn order.
On the other hand, given the media bubbles in which some people live, the debates forces those who watch them to actually hear the opposition unfiltered. If all you know of Biden is what you hear through Fox you might assume that he can barely string two words together, hates the police, and wants to outlaw beef.
For those tuning into cheer on Trump, seeing him being alert and coherent, and offering sensible policy might open a few eyes, (probably not many but maybe a few).
I assume you mean Trump supporters seeing Biden as “alert and coherent” with sensible policy recommendations. But if they valued alertness, coherence and sensible policy, they wouldn’t be Trump supporters in the first place.
Unfortunately, long experience has told the politicians that telling the truth loses you elections. I don’t see how it’s in their best interests to do so.
When that happened in 2020, Fox News commentators kept talking about how Biden must be taking cognitive enhancement drugs.