Democratic lawmakers are leery about the prospect of President Biden debating former President Trump, fearing that putting the two on stage together would only elevate the likely GOP nominee. Trump…
I think the time of American political debates, and to an extent American democracy, is over.
Arguably, political debates are meaningless today. When they were hosted by the League of Women Voters and the candidates had to actually answer questions, it was interesting and potentially informative. Now, it’s scripted to the point of being useless. Candidates will refuse to answer questions and simply repeat talking points prepared ahead of time and which have already been aired in countless political ads. Candidates like Trump won’t even go that far, but treat it like a campaign rally where they’re playing a professional wrestling character.
Trump decided there was no need to debate in the primaries. He’s the chosen one. I don’t see why the democrats should bother to debate either. Biden’s not going to win or lose based on the debate. It’s going to come down to turnout. I can’t imagine that there’s anyone on the fence other than whether they’re going to bother to vote or not.
Biden would be better served actually making impactful public statements that invigorate people to turn out. Trump is constantly trying to win in the court of public opinion, and if Biden doesn’t meet him on that field, Trump wins by default.
The only way this works is if each candidate has 1 minute to answer and is then MUTED at the 1 minute cut off, AND for the duration of the next person’s turn. Further, each should be seated in a sound-proof box, with a light that is turned off so that no-one can hear them or read their lips unless the microphone and light are on
I like this kind of idea, but to be honest, I’m still uncertain of the value added by the debate format.
A president doesn’t pass policies by debate. They formulate an agenda and work with policy experts to construct a means to achieving those items. They form a cabinet, which ideally consist of people skilled in management and with enough subject matter expertise that they can provide a similar approach to the management of their various departments, and so on.
Debates are simply theatrical performances that are not replicated nor relevant to the job of the executive. They have scripted lines that they try to fit in, they’re coached on talking points and how to deflect on subjects their handlers don’t want them to talk about.
I vastly prefer policy positions published in detail and unscripted interviews with professional journalists who are not looking to protect their access but rather to both clarify points the candidates have made and more importantly to bring up issues that are relevant but which the candidates have avoided.
To be crude, I literally don’t give a fuck that the line “I knew John F Kennedy, and you’re no John F Kennedy” was one of the best retorts in (vice) presidential debate history, and anyone who would vote on that kind of thing - in my opinion - is not properly exercising their choice.
I’m okay with stump speeches - I think they’re still pretty useless for many of the same reasons - but they do give a sense of the personality of the candidate and their approach to addressing the public. That is an important factor - the charisma effect - and I think we should keep them around.
I think the time of American political debates, and to an extent American democracy, is over.
Arguably, political debates are meaningless today. When they were hosted by the League of Women Voters and the candidates had to actually answer questions, it was interesting and potentially informative. Now, it’s scripted to the point of being useless. Candidates will refuse to answer questions and simply repeat talking points prepared ahead of time and which have already been aired in countless political ads. Candidates like Trump won’t even go that far, but treat it like a campaign rally where they’re playing a professional wrestling character.
Trump decided there was no need to debate in the primaries. He’s the chosen one. I don’t see why the democrats should bother to debate either. Biden’s not going to win or lose based on the debate. It’s going to come down to turnout. I can’t imagine that there’s anyone on the fence other than whether they’re going to bother to vote or not.
Biden would be better served actually making impactful public statements that invigorate people to turn out. Trump is constantly trying to win in the court of public opinion, and if Biden doesn’t meet him on that field, Trump wins by default.
The only way this works is if each candidate has 1 minute to answer and is then MUTED at the 1 minute cut off, AND for the duration of the next person’s turn. Further, each should be seated in a sound-proof box, with a light that is turned off so that no-one can hear them or read their lips unless the microphone and light are on
I like this kind of idea, but to be honest, I’m still uncertain of the value added by the debate format.
A president doesn’t pass policies by debate. They formulate an agenda and work with policy experts to construct a means to achieving those items. They form a cabinet, which ideally consist of people skilled in management and with enough subject matter expertise that they can provide a similar approach to the management of their various departments, and so on.
Debates are simply theatrical performances that are not replicated nor relevant to the job of the executive. They have scripted lines that they try to fit in, they’re coached on talking points and how to deflect on subjects their handlers don’t want them to talk about.
I vastly prefer policy positions published in detail and unscripted interviews with professional journalists who are not looking to protect their access but rather to both clarify points the candidates have made and more importantly to bring up issues that are relevant but which the candidates have avoided.
To be crude, I literally don’t give a fuck that the line “I knew John F Kennedy, and you’re no John F Kennedy” was one of the best retorts in (vice) presidential debate history, and anyone who would vote on that kind of thing - in my opinion - is not properly exercising their choice.
I’m okay with stump speeches - I think they’re still pretty useless for many of the same reasons - but they do give a sense of the personality of the candidate and their approach to addressing the public. That is an important factor - the charisma effect - and I think we should keep them around.