Discussion - Presidential Debates

[OrphanSlug]

This thread is being created as a splinter of the "RNC unanimously votes to withdraw from Commission on Presidential Debates" and "GOP apparently doesn't care to debate anymore" threads.

The questions that keep coming up are...

1. Has the importance of a Presidential Debate diluted by the media, slant, party controls, what have you? (Meaning has all the behind the scenes shenanigans reduced the debate to talking points over substance? What is really debated?)

2. Has the control and influence from the Republican Party and Democratic Party harmed what could be very valid debates on issues? (Meaning, duopoly almost predetermining the questions and answers as a function of "us vs. them" mentality on all the usual suspect subjects?)

3. Have you really ever changed your mind about a candidate or party because of the Presidential Debates? (Either way, support for a candidate or lost support for a candidate.)

You could argue strictly along party lines and say the Republican Party made a move against what they perceive is slant, or a stacked deck, against them in these debates. Arguably one network leaning their direction with the others more leaning left. You could also argue that how our arguably left leaning media (other than a few key examples like FoxNews) has a predetermined tone simply because of our duopoly of political power suggesting less than honorable intention on having a fair debate. It is not as if FoxNews is going to be fair with their liberal counterparts anymore than ABC will be fair with their conservative counterparts.

But is there a deeper issue? Duopoly is enough suspect but have our division oriented political condition in this nation removed all reasonable debate and discourse on the issues taking with it a Presidential Debate season?

I am starting to conclude that media controls mixed with party shenanigans has damaged what could be very important debates on the issues we face, amplified by that us vs. them that leaves an increasing number of moderates and independents sitting on the sidelines questioning what is really being asked *and* how each candidate answers.

Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, what have you are all removed from the process intentionally. You cannot convince me otherwise. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the GOP pulled away from the process but I can say my support for (or against) a candidate has not be swayed very much in Presidential Debates going back at least 20 years or more.

What do you say about these things?

 

[redbeer]

This thread is being created as a splinter of the "RNC unanimously votes to withdraw from Commission on Presidential Debates" and "GOP apparently doesn't care to debate anymore" threads.

The questions that keep coming up are...

1. Has the importance of a Presidential Debate diluted by the media, slant, party controls, what have you? (Meaning has all the behind the scenes shenanigans reduced the debate to talking points over substance? What is really debated?)

2. Has the control and influence from the Republican Party and Democratic Party harmed what could be very valid debates on issues? (Meaning, duopoly almost predetermining the questions and answers as a function of "us vs. them" mentality on all the usual suspect subjects?)

3. Have you really ever changed your mind about a candidate or party because of the Presidential Debates? (Either way, support for a candidate or lost support for a candidate.)

You could argue strictly along party lines and say the Republican Party made a move against what they perceive is slant, or a stacked deck, against them in these debates. Arguably one network leaning their direction with the others more leaning left. You could also argue that how our arguably left leaning media (other than a few key examples like FoxNews) has a predetermined tone simply because of our duopoly of political power suggesting less than honorable intention on having a fair debate. It is not as if FoxNews is going to be fair with their liberal counterparts anymore than ABC will be fair with their conservative counterparts.

But is there a deeper issue? Duopoly is enough suspect but have our division oriented political condition in this nation removed all reasonable debate and discourse on the issues taking with it a Presidential Debate season?

I am starting to conclude that media controls mixed with party shenanigans has damaged what could be very important debates on the issues we face, amplified by that us vs. them that leaves an increasing number of moderates and independents sitting on the sidelines questioning what is really being asked *and* how each candidate answers.

Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, what have you are all removed from the process intentionally. You cannot convince me otherwise. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the GOP pulled away from the process but I can say my support for (or against) a candidate has not be swayed very much in Presidential Debates going back at least 20 years or more.

What do you say about these things?

I think it's important for people to get the chance to see the candidates on the debate stage to see how they will lead the country and articulate their policies. Over time they have become less and less interesting watching the likes of Wallace in the last one.....seriously, that was a pathetic view of a debate. I think any rational human being could admit the bias was overwhelming. The debates must be totally unbiased with both candidates being asked hard questions and the moderators cannot interject their own personal bias into the equation. Afterall, if the left wants fair debates, what's their objection to other venues?....

 

[phoenix2020]

Debates become much less interesting when one of the participants is more interested in stoking culture wars than articulating policies. As such, I've lost interest. Should a GOP candidate actually offer up a health care policy proposal, or an infrastructure plan, to cite some examples, I might change my mind.

 

[redbeer]

Debates become much less interesting when one of the participants is more interested in stoking culture wars than articulating policies. As such, I've lost interest. Should a GOP candidate actually offer up a health care policy proposal, or an infrastructure plan, to cite some examples, I might change my mind.

Admittedly, Trump not offering his health care plan, while touting one was a serious let down for me.....but understand the constant attack through two impeachments did impede much of what he wanted to accomplish....not wanting to make excuses, but that was a flaw in his presidency.

 

[Mycroft]

This thread is being created as a splinter of the "RNC unanimously votes to withdraw from Commission on Presidential Debates" and "GOP apparently doesn't care to debate anymore" threads.

The questions that keep coming up are...

1. Has the importance of a Presidential Debate diluted by the media, slant, party controls, what have you? (Meaning has all the behind the scenes shenanigans reduced the debate to talking points over substance? What is really debated?)

2. Has the control and influence from the Republican Party and Democratic Party harmed what could be very valid debates on issues? (Meaning, duopoly almost predetermining the questions and answers as a function of "us vs. them" mentality on all the usual suspect subjects?)

3. Have you really ever changed your mind about a candidate or party because of the Presidential Debates? (Either way, support for a candidate or lost support for a candidate.)

You could argue strictly along party lines and say the Republican Party made a move against what they perceive is slant, or a stacked deck, against them in these debates. Arguably one network leaning their direction with the others more leaning left. You could also argue that how our arguably left leaning media (other than a few key examples like FoxNews) has a predetermined tone simply because of our duopoly of political power suggesting less than honorable intention on having a fair debate. It is not as if FoxNews is going to be fair with their liberal counterparts anymore than ABC will be fair with their conservative counterparts.

But is there a deeper issue? Duopoly is enough suspect but have our division oriented political condition in this nation removed all reasonable debate and discourse on the issues taking with it a Presidential Debate season?

I am starting to conclude that media controls mixed with party shenanigans has damaged what could be very important debates on the issues we face, amplified by that us vs. them that leaves an increasing number of moderates and independents sitting on the sidelines questioning what is really being asked *and* how each candidate answers.

Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, what have you are all removed from the process intentionally. You cannot convince me otherwise. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the GOP pulled away from the process but I can say my support for (or against) a candidate has not be swayed very much in Presidential Debates going back at least 20 years or more.

What do you say about these things?

Keep in mind that Wallace, who took part in that debate squarely on the side of the doddering Democratic candidate, was from Fox News. The fix was in back then and it was all hands on deck to put Trump at the disadvantage.

So what can the Republicans expect in 2024, if Trump is the Republican nominee? Should they expect thing to change like the proverbial insane person? Or should they just look reality square in the face and make decisions accordingly?

As I said in that other thread...they made a good decision.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Admittedly, Trump not offering his health care plan, while touting one was a serious let down for me.....but understand the constant attack through two impeachments did impede much of what he wanted to accomplish....not wanting to make excuses, but that was a flaw in his presidency.

Walk us thru how Trump's impeachments impacted his agenda? Not as if he turned over a trove of documents or had to appear at multiple hearings. The primary reason Trump accomplished so little was because he is a lazy narcissist with a singular focus on self promotion. Hard to pass legislation when you fail to ever draft any, or even have your lemmings do it for you.

 

[MamboDervish]

What do you say about these things?

The reason the GOP wants to opt out of the debates is because, based on content alone, there's no way for them to "win". They have no policies that advance the well being of the American electorate, they they have no vision of any future that can be shared without invoking the horror of our citizens, they know they have no intention of fulfilling any promises that they make, and they have no intention of suffering the further embarrassment of the video record coming back to bite them in the ass for eternity. Their biggest fear is that they may be forced, for lack of any sane adult alternative, to put Trump up there once again to make a spectacle of himself, just as he did in both the Clinton and Biden debates.

Better to concoct some pretext for opting out than to bare the eternal shame of having their party represented by Trump for the third time, essentially conceding the fact that their party is forever damned to settle for appealing only to the lowest elements of our society.

 

[Callen]

Walk us thru how Trump's impeachments impacted his agenda? Not as if he turned over a trove of documents or had to appear at multiple hearings. The primary reason Trump accomplished so little was because he is a lazy narcissist with a singular focus on self promotion. Hard to pass legislation when you fail to ever draft any, or even have your lemmings do it for you.

Part of Trump's inability to deliver the things he promoted, specifically healthcare and infrastructure, is that he had no competent people on his staff that could translate his promises into the basis of legislation. Oddly, as much as he was able to bully politician's into personal support, he had no ability to get them to act on his legislation...unless of course they wanted it too. If he was so incompetent with the staff he had then can you imagine if he ever got in again! There isn't an honest, competent person that would come within 6 inches of being in his Cabinet or inner circle.

 

[Callen]

I think the DNC is just protecting Trump, or more likely doing his bidding. Trump does not want to get back on that debates stage at this time! I think if he is not the candidate, which is highly likely in my view, you will see the debates back on.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I think it's important for people to get the chance to see the candidates on the debate stage to see how they will lead the country and articulate their policies. Over time they have become less and less interesting watching the likes of Wallace in the last one.....seriously, that was a pathetic view of a debate. I think any rational human being could admit the bias was overwhelming. The debates must be totally unbiased with both candidates being asked hard questions and the moderators cannot interject their own personal bias into the equation. Afterall, if the left wants fair debates, what's their objection to other venues?....

Generally speaking, I have no real reason to disagree with you. Which amplifies my point a bit on the usefulness of these debates.

But what you bring up is a matter of not just the venues and hosts, which is a problem in itself as anything but non partisan, but also the nature of the questions which seems to checklist the response from the candidates. Abortion, Gun Control, Immigration, Foreign Affairs, Military Spending, what have you.

What does not happen is actual debate outside of the usual soundbites and responses Republicans and Democrats almost have to give.

And it makes me question the value of the "debate" that all things considered is not a real debate.

 

[redbeer]

Generally speaking, I have no real reason to disagree with you. Which amplifies my point a bit on the usefulness of these debates.

But what you bring up is a matter of not just the venues and hosts, which is a problem in itself as anything but non partisan, but also the nature of the questions which seems to checklist the response from the candidates. Abortion, Gun Control, Immigration, Foreign Affairs, Military Spending, what have you.

What does not happen is actual debate outside of the usual soundbites and responses Republicans and Democrats almost have to give.

And it makes me question the value of the "debate" that all things considered is not a real debate.

I think the handlers of politicians know and understand the importance of a "good" soundbite, because then it will be played over and over across many different news outlets. So, I'm sure they take and practice the soundbites for each major issue, which should come up during the debate. Sounding and seeming confident and presidential shows the practice....pretty much showmanship. Myself, the debates don't sway my opinion of any candidate either way, because of the theatre. There are plenty of information on any candidate which can be researched to come to a decision based on policy issues they have previously voted upon or spoken about......the debates and the theatrics we watch are like watching criminals lying under oath, for they're all full of shite.