Home | About | Donate

Why the Presidential Debates Will Suck Even Though They Don’t Have To


#1

Why the Presidential Debates Will Suck Even Though They Don’t Have To

Zaid Jilani

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have theoretically agreed to three debates. But the value of those debates will be dramatically limited because the Commission on Presidential Debates, which runs them, is a private organization controlled by elites from the two major parties whose goal is to protect their standard-bearers.

And under the guidance of the commission, presidential debates have become echo chambers for the two major party candidates to repeat familiar talking points and lob rehearsed one-liners, rarely deviating from their scripts.


#3

In other words it will be another political theater debacle. If they refuse to open debates to third and fourth parties we can expect there will be no democracy in the elections.
I'm sure I will gag if I watch them, so likely I'll take a drive or find some sci-fi to watch. These two scum bags can bark at each other in meaningless ways without me.
Jill Stein 2016


#4

Presidential "debates"--full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...


#5

It is a misnomer to call this dog and pony show debates when nothing could be further from the truth! Kind of like two thugs debating how to murder you!


#6

What the debates seem best at doing is providing brief moments that can affect the outcome of an election. For example, Reagan's "There he goes again" comment against Jimmy Carter in the 1980 debate. And, Al Gore sighing in the first debate against George W. Bush in the 2000 debate. Also, overall impressions of style can be critical. For example, Bill Clinton showing empathy in the Town Hall debate against George H.W. Bush in 1992. Then sometimes candidates have an off night as Barack Obama did in his first debate against Romney in 2012. Fortunately for Obama he got his game back in the last two debates. The main thing about the debates this year is whether Trump can appear to be qualified to be president. Reagan succeeded in meeting this challenge in 1980. Trump is at a big disadvantage going in. He has never been in one-on-one debate while Clinton has been in many and has often performed extremely well, probably besting Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, both who were very good at debating. But anything can happen.


#7

"...the CPD run debates...value the smooth functioning of their Political Parties over the Public Interest."

Which is why I will ignore them.


#9

The debates will likely suck and be full of sound and fury signifying nothing because nobody is trying to pin the candidates down for answers to questions about the issues that should be "on the table" -- climate change and all related environmental problems, all the war mongering and actual fighting, the fragility of the currency and economic systems, the rapid evolution of germs with total medication immunity just to name a few -- problems the next president will probably be confronted with.

I wish those citizen panel candidate Q&A sessions supposedly consisting of "regular," not media people, could be made up of well informed people like those who post in places like this who could ask non-softball questions.