133

How Presidential Debates Became Unwatchable. A Nonpartisan Analysis (statecraft.beehiiv.com)

submitted 10 months ago by robotemoji@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 53 points 10 months ago

Moderators are incompetent hacks with no political knowledge.

They should have a panel of the top general, most recent american economic Nobel laureate (or some equivalent), most recently retired surgeon general and attorneys general write the questions which are then presented by a moderator, then the author of each question responds to their answers and if required asks a single follow up question to each debator.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

More importantly, if the candidates are non-responsive they should shut off their fucking microphones.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And when it isn't their turn shut off their mics. The only hot mics should be the moderators and the candidate being addressed by the moderators.

[-] robotemoji@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

yes plz :)

[-] robotemoji@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

I think this is a great point. All the moderators are media personalities without a background so they can't really claim expert knowledge on the issues. But the panel of experts I think is spot on to create this basis of expertise or fact. The single follow up used to be the norm. e.g. "candidates have 2 minute responses with a 30 second follow up" (strictly adhered to time)

[-] Uranium3006@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

also give them the authority to mute a candidate's mic for breaking rules, like talking over someone else when they don't have the floor. perhaps you can have a separate umpire type character. record what's going in the mic and release it 7 days later for transparency but don't let it get messy

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 44 points 10 months ago

Its been at least 10 years since I've watched one. They dont even answer the questions that are asked.

[-] robotemoji@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Candidates go straight to personal attacks :/

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

Since they changed the rules where candidates are allowed to address each other its been a slow decline to Jerry Springer status.

[-] cabbage@piefed.social 7 points 10 months ago

Ten years... So that's essentially two debates:

Clinton v. Trump, 2016 Biden v. Trump, 2020

One might be tempted to believe the problem is more with one bumbling fascist fool and the decay of American democracy than with the format as such.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

If the debate were actually a debate, I would consider watching them.

The intelligence squared series is a great example of what a debate could be. I'm utterly disinterested in what talking heads have to say about who won or lost. I want an actual score at the end.

[-] robotemoji@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

this version of debates is actually reality tv

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

I mean, debates aren't just like, whatever we pretend them to be.

They are like, an actual, structured, formatted, moderated thing. There are definitions that are meaningful to these words.

For example: https://opentodebate.org/what-is-the-oxford-style-debate-format/

You poll the audience before the debate begins on the reaction to the thesis. You poll them afterwords. Whichever team changed more minds is the winner.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

They’re not debates. They’re ridiculous slapfights that no one cares about.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

The debates stopped being controlled by an independent 3rd party and started being controlled by the DNC and RNC.

Simple.

The last real debate was in 1984.

[-] ember@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

At what point do we start blaming the people for selecting them to run?

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If our votes mattered...yes...I'd blame the people.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

I doubt we'll have em much longer, doesnt seem like not participating hurts any candidates chances.

this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024

133 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19096 readers

1159 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News