cthia wrote:What would you change?
We know why the format is the way it is. Debates aren't historical cash cows for the networks. They don't generally draw huge audiences or generate huge incomes from commercials like the mind boggling costs of a single slot consisting of seconds during a Superbowl game. Like the insane $33M shelled out for Chanel's "The Film." So let's change it!
Does anyone else think it is high time we change the format of the political debate? I was a member of the debate team. That and my impeccable logic has gotten on many of your nerves. But the forum is for the fun and enjoyment of book discussions.
The political process is different, and all of the traditional rules of debate settle nothing when so much is laying on the line. I find myself wanting to hear everything the candidates have to say. Let them talk for at least five to ten minutes each per subject or question. And for chrissake let's give the moderator the power to actually moderate. Each candidate can be given a microphone that can be shut off during his opponents turn. Or—what would have worked perfectly and which also would have been appropriate during this pandemic—place each one in a cubicle. Shut off their microphone when it isn't their turn. These type of debates shouldn't be about the party, or the candidate, but about the constituents and the country. I think it's long since overdue that we change it.
Let the debate go on for a few hours. Give the candidates a halftime break like the Superbowl. Let the networks make money by changing the format to something the American people actually want to watch.
Do not allow any candidate to disrespect another. We have such rules in collegiate debates, but not in political debates for the future of our country?
Allow each candidate to ask the other a series of questions.
Pick several journalists from the circuit and allow them to ask a series of questions too. Perhaps that will make each President respect journalists a lot more during their first term, knowing they may see that journalist again for all the marbles.
At any rate, all in favor say aye.
I don't know about a prohibition on disrespecting the other candidate. I would have found it hilarious if Vice President Pence had said "Kamala, you ignorant slut!"
David Weber would recognize what movie this was paraphrased from.
We have a serious problem in that allegedly neutral debate moderators are picking the questions to ask. The favoritism is obvious to anyone who isn't suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I would greatly prefer a debate format in which the candidates pick questions to ask of each other. There obviously could be prepared questions, but as the debate progresses, the candidates would have to be asking questions that are relevant in context of previous responses. What questions the candidates ask would be just as informative as their answers to prepared questions.
We also have to question the wisdom of Chris Wallace presuming to fact check President Trump will allowing Biden to go full fucktard.
As for my preference of candidates, Biden is the obvious loser because he was pay off the Obama administration. The decision to shoot down production of the F-22 fighter and destroy the production line was so insane that no one connected to it should be allowed to serve in the executive branch ever again.
