Presidential Debates

I think our Democracy would be well served by increasing the number of presidential debates. Maybe something like five debates, in depth, each on one of the top five issues as determined by a Gallup Poll.

 

As a political junkie, I agree with you. I think the reason they only have three right now is they have so many primary debates before Iowa even happens. The debates are actually getting a late start this year with the first one for the Republicans, I think in August. They have started in April or May before, especially in 2011, and I think 2007 and even 2003. I believe the Republicans do have 9 confirmed debates through the primary season, with the option of adding three more. I'm not sure about the Democrats since it seems to be one or two horse race.

 

​

A GOP debate might be easily mistaken for a singularly drab Sun Myung Moonie wedding!

 

How in the world are you going to debate one topic for an hour or more?

Presidential candidates are rarely an expert in more than one area, whatever they have done for a living, so they are not qualified to have extensive debates. If presidents could do that then they would not need advisors.

 

I respectfully disagree. I think three debates are enough if the right questions are asked. I hope the issue of police brutality is front and center in 2016 presidential debates.

 

That's a state issue, not a presidential issue.

 

I would be fine with one if they were allowed to just lay out their platform over a wide range of issues with no time limit and none of this 90 seconds to pick each other's eyes out like crows crap they do.

 

They are not "debates." They are individual interviews with the people standing next to each other. What a joke.

 

I don't think there enough non-partisan mediators that would make the debates fair or balanced.

The best way is to go back to the Lincoln-Douglas style debates and let each candidate talk on his/her own accord for a set number of minutes.

 

I think the Democratic debates will be more interesting at first than the GOP debates, because there's going to be way too many people on stage in the GOP debate for anybody to get much out of it. It'll be interesting to see how much government takeover Hillary is going to embrace once Sanders promises the world.

 

Do you have a better idea?

 

That is the saddest commentary on the quality of our electoral system I have heard in quite a long time.

 

Spooky is probably right. The candidates rehearse the debates for hours getting ready. All most candidates want to do is get in a good punch line that will be talked about on the news. They are not looking to sway people with ideas, solutions or even visions, they want a "There you go again," punch line that will swing millions of votes there way.

 

No time limit? None of those egocentrics would not shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up. They'd have to be pulled off the stage with a cane like in the old Vaudeville show days. By the time the clown car emptied and each said their piece, we would heading into the 2020 election. At least 3/4's of this circus are just trying to sell books and are using this running for POTUS stuff as a platform to do that...jeez!

 

That is the beauty--no rebuttal. The more you talk, the more you give the next guy ammo to attack you without being able to respond. By the time we got to the last couple, everybody would be in bed asleep anyways.

 

No, what is sad is that you think every presidential candidate should be an expert on every single issue that faces the US.

Talk about unrealistic.

I can't imagine any president getting about 900 doctorate degrees before they run for office but it looks like you can.

lol

 

Since it has been happening in more than one state, I'd say it's a PRESIDENTIAL issue.

 

Agreed.

 

How many GOP candidates for President are there now? I can think of: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabebee, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorona and Ben Carson. Am I missing any?

 

Christie isn't in yet as far as I know. Kasich just said he was virtually certain. Perry, Santorum, and Jindal all have announcement dates for the next couple of weeks. Trump has made statements, but might be playing. Walker seems like a near certainty.

 

There are at least 36. (See post #3)

The most efficient approach would be to have them all talk simultaneously rather than sequentially.

 

Which one is your horse?

 

I don't have one. I don't know if Gary Johnson will run again, but he'd be the Republican closest to my beliefs. I voted for him in 2012 and there's a good chance I'll vote for him again in 2016 if he runs. Rand Paul is probably the closest declared candidate to my beliefs. Ted Cruz would probably be next after Paul. I'm for drastically cutting the size of government and outside of Paul/Cruz I have my doubts that anybody else would be willing to do that.

 

It's a function of the idea that the President should control policy rather than enforce the law. His legislative power is limited to a veto, but you sure wouldn't know that these days. The executive has become a monarchy.

It's been that way since 1787, and was reenforced by Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, T Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, F Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. In fact, pretty much all of them, with few exceptions.

It just keeps on getting worse.

 

Would you care to actually identify the actual post where I said that. It is usually not acceptable in a discussion to make things up. I believe you are actually the person who originated the thought that a presidential candidate needs to be an expert to be able to discuss an issue for any reasonable amount of time. Of course with the current crop of Republican candidates it is pretty obvious why any in depth debate on issues would be worrisome to Conservatives.