"By the time debates are held, many voters have made up their minds about who to vote for, and most of those who haven’t aren’t very swayed by the debates. The events can hurt candidates, though, making them high risk and low reward.... [O]ne debate misstep... can live on in viral social media.... In some states, Democrats running for statewide office are refusing to debate their election-denying opponents. But the bigger trend seems to be that Republican candidates around the country are declining debate opportunities, driven by skepticism of and hostility toward the media outlets that often host, moderate and air the debates.... In midterm years.... the debates themselves might remind voters there’s an election in their state at all and inspire them to make it to the polls. And there are arguments that regular debates in which candidates spontaneously answer questions on important issues in front of voters are good for democracy as a whole. Still, the trendline is clear. The number of debates have declined so far this year. The question is whether one day they disappear for good."
From "Why Candidates Are Debating Less Often This Election Cycle" (FiveThirtyEight).
Every time a candidate gets away with ducking debates, it encourages others. They can always claim they don't trust the moderators to be fair. The moderators are not fair.
But I think there need to be debates. The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time. It's a low standard.
Posts
67 comments:
But I think there need to be debates. The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time. It's a low standard.
The problem is that our political class wants lower standards.
Just like public school teachers want to do away with standardized tests for their students.
The bar exam and LSAT are being removed.
Universities in general are moving to race based grading.
Both wings of the uniparty support this movement.
Democrats want to hide - like Biden did prior to the 2020 election - and get "elected" anyway.
What do democrats have to offer? Lies, abortion, lies, abortion.
Is ducking debates worse than refusing to talk to the press?
They're running cover for Fetterman and for Kari Lake's opponent.
Why do they call it "election-denying" when it's really "result-questioning"?
The questions are dumb. Try something informative like "Are there any cases where what you'd do in home life would differ from what the government should do?"
The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time.
Now explain Biden, Harris and Fetterman.
This change was several decades in the making. Debate questions went to panels and moderators rather than one-on-one free-for-alls. The questions were often explosive -- Dukakis' campaign ended when he brushed off the "If your wife Kitty was raped and murdered would you support the death penalty?" question. Then Chris Wallace told Trump to "Shut up." At the same time Biden campaigned from his basement while wearing a mask.
A made up show will either repeat boring talking points or favor one candidate over the other.
Go back to unmoderated one-on-one debates or don't bother.
If a Democrat gives a debate answer that is a shining example of their insanity - the GOP might pounce.
The media must protect the precious democrat from GOP pouncing.
Early voting takes away any rationale for debating. Might as well just let someone register as a party voter, then count that vote for that party in perpetuity.
"The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time. It's a low standard."
Indeed. We as a nation consistently vote for people based on how they look, or how they're marketed to us via the media coverage (positive or negative) and their own ad budgets. We base so little of our own vote on what the candidates actually think, and how they defend or come to those thoughts.
We're always just so ready to give them a job for life that can dramatically affect our lives without so much as a live Q&A. We would interview an assistant manager of a shoe store more vigorously than we do a state AG, or Governor, or a US Representative or Senator.
There's an easy solution. Do away with the moderators, all you need is a timekeeper. The candidates will give opening statements, followed by rebuttals. Then, the candidates will ask each other questions.
The candidates can then respond to the questions as they deem fit, unencumbered by left-wing, biased questioners.
The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time. It's a low standard.
You've just set a standard our own President doesn't meet.
How is that the standard for running for office, but not also the standard for remaining in office?
The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time. It's a low standard.
You've just set a standard our own President doesn't meet.
How is that the standard for running for office, but not also the standard for remaining in office?
American debates aren't debates. American reporters aren't reporters. American questions aren't questions.
Readering said...
Is ducking debates worse than refusing to talk to the press?
Only if the press acts like a praetorian guard for the ruling uniparty.
The moderator states a topic, such as inflation or health insurance or immigration.
Each candidate speaks for two minutes, without interruption.
Each candidate speaks for one more minute, without interruption.
The moderator stops a candidate if the candidate talks too long.
The moderator states the next topic .....
Because Progressives are running away like the cowards they are. Look at Katie Hobbs is running scared of Kari Lake, and would only go to Progressive PBS for easy questions...and then RAN away from people outside asking her questions. If she can't stand the heat she should get the hell out of the fire. What a joke most of them are. They are losers who cheat. How else can you explain what is going on??
"...It's a low standard." Not low enough. We need the Fetterman Standard: if you can fog a mirror, you're in.
I believe that the 538 article fundamentally misstates the GOP position on Presidential debates. The GOP is refusing to participate in any debate organized by the so-called Presidential Debate Commission because the Commission is refusing to allow direct candidate/party input on the selection of moderators. I believe the position of the GOP is that candidates can make their own choice to debate or not via direct negotiation with or among the various candidates, or with other possible sponsoring organizations. So the GOP is not refusing to debate, simply refusing to cooperate with one specific organization among many that might organize a debate.
Debate should continue but there should be no moderators. If a candidate is worth his or her salt they should be able to ask the other candidate questions themselves and have a discussion. I think there should be a clock like in chess. Each of them gets one hour to talk. The clock runs when their mouth runs even if they’re talking over each other.
Debates are just another area where the so-called press and journalists are grasping and clawing to remain relevant, when they are not relevant or needed anymore.
Rory - exactly.
Lets skip the voting and just assume we are all good Democraticals. Obey. The policy.
Republican candidates around the country are declining debate opportunities because they have wised up to the biased "gotcha" moderators. Dems are refusing to debate because an arrogant belief that they own the seat (because it is reliably Democratic) or because they think they can win with a Biden Basement strategy.
How dare Republican candidates demand that the moderators be someone other than leftwing Democrat hacks!
A lot of people don't understand just how big an impact the second debate in 2012 had on the GOP base. Watching the moderator jump in to defend Obama, and Romney wilt rather than push back, is one of the major influences that led to selecting Trump in 2016.
Q: Why can't they agree to neutral rules such as each candidate gets to unilaterally pick a moderator?
A: Because Democrats know they would be giving up a big advantage by doing so.
"Why Candidates Are Debating Less Often This Election Cycle"
Because the media let's them get away with it
The moderators are not fair.
And more to the point they’re not fair in only one direction, accepting Democrats’ lies at face value while throwing “gotcha” questions at the GOP. Debates favor the glib, not the thoughtful, and as long as moderators exvludively favor the Democrats why should Republicans be bothered? The issues in this election are crime, the economy, the cost of energy, K-12 education, vaccine mandates, and, waaaay down the list everywhere that isn’t a college town, abortion. That all but last strongly favor the GOP may be distressing to Democrats and people who lean towards the Democrats, but that’s no one’s fault except the Democrats’.
"But I think there need to be debates. "
But not ones run by corrupt local or national media with a partisan agenda. So your next point should be who is now a competent organization to organize a legitimate debate.
Take the shot.....Drink the KoolAid. We'll take care of that ballot, comrade.
And look! As the helpful press runs defensive cover to excuse political cowardice, incompetence, abysmal performance and a complete lack of an effective grasp on the issues.
Society runs on good information. If society is fed bad information, then bad choices are the result. Bad governing is what we have.
Like it or not, nature and humanity alike decide the winners based on their merits. The Progressives want their outcomes to be based on Progressivism - hard data, merit, capability, competence - these are all of little consequence.
Rory -
It's also virtually useless to have candidates. Vanishingly few Democrats in Pennsylvania care that Fetterman is not physically up to the job, they know he will support whatever policies the national party supports and don't care about anything else. Washington's warning against factions has been turned on its head.
By the time debates are held, many voters have made up their minds about who to vote for, and most of those who haven’t aren’t very swayed by the debates.
Heh. Reread about the Nixon/Kennedy debates. One article said they caused a 7 percent swing in Kennedy’s favor.
Anything can happen during a debate.
The only debate I ever enjoyed was Carter-Ford, when the sound went out (at least in Houston) and my two friends and I, well into our cups, provided our own questions and answers. Frankly, the experience with debates questions why the Republicans waited so long to tell the debate commission to stuff it. The moderator should only state the question and time the answer. Period, no participation. The questions should be agreed to by each party. No surprise questions that always seem to come to Republicans. Even knowing the question doesn't put cogent words in your mouth for the five minutes (sans notes or teleprompter) you have to speak or the three minutes you have to rebut.
There is a lie at the core of that essay- that is is the Republicans refusing debates this cycle. The truth is the opposite. However, debates of today are a waste of time. The moderators are the ones picking the questions and controlling the terms of the debate which they do to protect the Democrat candidates almost all the time. The debates today don't need moderators at all- just a simple algorithm that cuts off the mics after a set period of time so that the candidates get the same amount of time to question and to answer each other. For example, 1 minute to pose a question to ones opponent, and the opponent gets 2 minutes to answer, then reverse. 90 minutes total. Otherwise, no other rules.
Seems right. Republicans refuse because the debate forum is partisan, Democrat.
Democrats refuse because every time there is a discussion on the Democrat agenda, it always fails on the battle field of ideas.
Which Republicans have refused to debate? We know Democrats refuse and we know the reasons: Debates expose their destructive records and their distance from mainstream Americans.
Debates traditionally are a better deal for the person trailing in the polls--if someone has a decent lead, the downside is greater than the upside. That dynamic is almost always there. So somebody usually has to be pressured into debating. As you say, the more politicians who skip it, the easier it is to skip.
Also people like Fetterman, who don't want to be unmasked as not up to the job. (And it's a good sign for republicans that more republicans are resisting debates.)
The number one debate decliner was the Democrats in Arz. Of course, 538 then turns that into R's declining debates!
But i agree about biased moderators - almost always leftists. Trump should have refused to debate when Chris Wallace was announced. OR he should have set down conditions that severely limited Wallace's ability to steer the debate. And interupt.
There are two good ways to debate. Have the two candidates just ask each other questions ala Lincoln Douglas OR have each side choose questions the other side needs to answer. Cut out the ability of the moderators to interupt, editorialize, and set the agenda by determining the questions.
There is a lie at the core of that essay- that is is the Republicans refusing debates this cycle. The truth is the opposite. However, debates of today are a waste of time. The moderators are the ones picking the questions and controlling the terms of the debate which they do to protect the Democrat candidates almost all the time. The debates today don't need moderators at all- just a simple algorithm that cuts off the mics after a set period of time so that the candidates get the same amount of time to question and to answer each other. For example, 1 minute to pose a question to ones opponent, and the opponent gets 2 minutes to answer, then reverse. 90 minutes total. Otherwise, no other rules.
These aren't debates. These are parallel or rapidly sequential interviews. These are "gotcha" traps by biased and ignorant celebrities claiming to be neutral and well-informed analysts.
"Why aren't you winning?"
"What do you say to a fraction of unnamed activists who used a slur to refer to you, or your supporters?"
"Do you favor an extreme proposal nobody has actually put forward?"
"Can you muster the human decency to say anything at all nice about your opponent? "
"You say the proposal will not work; don't you CARE about the problem? "
How do you feel? Can you empathize? Does suffering matter?
Lincoln and Douglas would be ashamed of our nation's modern politicians
I’m not aware of the Republican candidates refusing to debate. Sure would be nice if they could name some names.
I never understood the "without notes" thing
If I were running office at the debate I would be taking notes on what my opponent said to coherently organize my rebuttal. If it were against the rules I'd do it anyway. What are they going to do, end the debate? My opponent can take notes too, here's a pen and a pad, off we go. Every presidential debate I have ever watched candidates on both sides simply ignore many of the really stupid things their opponent says when they could (or I could) easily demolish them highlighting these really stupid remarks, quoting and directly responding to them
When, in the real world, is a leader ever going to be in a situation where they have to give remarks without notes? They all have and use notes at press conferences, diplomatic meetings, 24/7 they have notes and use them. Why not at a debate?
An interesting alleged quote after the first Nixon/Kennedy debate
“ Reacting to the vice president’s on-air appearance, Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley reportedly said, “My God, they’ve embalmed him before he even died.””
I was a supporter and donor to Martha McSally in 2018 and 2020. She declined to debate Sinema and Kelly in those election campaigns. I could not understand it as she was quite knowledgeable on policy. She was being given terrible advice in my opinion. Now, Hobbs is doing the same thing but the PBS station in Phoenix is going to let her avoid the debate and give a half hour speech. She even refuses to answer questions from supporters. I doubt she will do any better than McSally but she has a D after her name so PBS will do anything they can to help.
Too many risks in a debate. Makes it difficult to control the narrative. There doesn't seem to be a voter backlash for the lack of debate so therefore it is as our most things a cold-hearted business decision.
"The candidates must prove that they are lucid and informed enough to speak on their own, spontaneously, without notes for a decent chunk of time."
One would think. Unfortunately, few care if "their" candidate has anything upstairs. It's become tribal.
This article does a poor job living up to the headline and explaining why there are fewer debates. There's this:
But the bigger trend seems to be that Republican candidates around the country are declining debate opportunities, driven by skepticism of and hostility toward the media
But it only links to anecdotal info. One link offers this college professor:
Over the last several years, Hopkins said polarization has increased and certain Republican candidates have been “abandoning the idea that the news media can be a neutral outlet.”
Really? Republicans are the ones abandoning the idea that the news media can be objective? Let's ask...The News Media...
Here’s an Oct. 13 item from “Nieman Reports,” whose stated mission is to “promote and elevate the standards of journalism”:
“Journalistic Objectivity Is Overrated”
https://niemanreports.org/articles/herschel-walker-nina-totenberg-objectivity/
It seems to me that this is really about the declining power of the media. As Ann Althouse quoted Biden in an earlier post, 'There are no editors anymore,' he said. 'The ability of newspapers to have much impact is de minimis.'" It is not debates per se that candidates are dodging but debates moderated by media figures. It should be able to find an alternative; after all, Lincoln managed to debate Douglas without moderators.
Ferrerman and Hodges are ducking debates. It’s going to be interesting how it works out. We’re in PHX right now, and Lake is pushing that Hodges is too scared to face her in a debate real hard. There was a recent skit where someone dressed up in a chicken outfit and danced to a chicken song to it. Hilarious. If Hodges, in particular, can legitimately (because she is Secretary of State in charge of elections) win, then I expect to see esp moreDem candidates avoiding debates in the future.
Esp since the only thing that a lot of Dem candidates have going for them this year is abortion and a lot of money. They really can’t afford to meet their opponents and be asked about voting for a recession and steep inflation, which they all did this last year.
"In some states, Democrats running for statewide office are refusing to debate their election-denying opponents."
Ah, yes, the "election-denying opponents." Kari Lake immolated some journo the other day for asking about "election-denying," complete with page after page of examples of Democrats "denying" the results of elections. I think all that was left of the journo afterwards was a small pile of ashes on the floor.
Their positions are indefensible
We saw how wallace ran interference for bixen 2 years ago
"I never understood the "without notes" thing. If I were running office at the debate I would be taking notes on what my opponent said to coherently organize my rebuttal."
It's "without notes" in the sense of a closed book exam. Using scratch paper during a closed book exam is fine, and I believe in these debates they have paper and pen to take notes. You just can't bring in prepared material. So we have a chance to see what they can do on their own... even if it's nothing more than prepared statements to slot in.
Another propagandist. Providing cover for democrats.
David53 said...
Heh. Reread about the Nixon/Kennedy debates. One article said they caused a 7 percent swing in Kennedy’s favor.
To pick one current example, As soon as ballots are ready, you can request, receive, vote and cast your mail-in or absentee ballot all in one visit to your county election board or other designated location.
Fetterman and Oz aren't going to debate until 25 October.
The great fiction writers and psychological warfare experts at the CIA have crafted powerful narratives implanted in our minds for 50 years. Today the Dems have mass money poring in to create brilliant TV commercials destroying opponents. Believe me the horror stories told about Herschel Walker are running every 10 minutes. It’s enough to make The Pillow Guy seem small potatoes. In this Mid-term debates would only allow voters seeing the real man who is not a monster. And there is always the possibility of a wrong think slipping out to mess up those 50 year works of Psyops mind control.
Looking back, it’s possible Trump never becomes president, if not for the eager move by political novice Rick Lazio, invading the newly minted Yankee fan personal space during their only debate for a NY senate seat.
Debates give us a chance to see a somewhat less filtered version of the candidate.
For example, I watched a bit of the debate between Evan McMullin and Mike Lee and came away with the impression that McMullin, whatever his politics or purpose, is a really, really creepy dude.
Blogger SusanS said..."There's an easy solution. Do away with the moderators, all you need is a timekeeper."
Yes to this, and the rest of your post.
Moderators are one more example of the media trying (and usually succeeding tto impose their views on our politics. They are a detriment to the process.
The top issues for voters are crime, inflation, energy costs, illegal immigration,etc.
The moderators ask about abortion, the environment, gay rights, diversity, etc.
The media says the Democrat won.
Rinse and repeat.
What boatbuilder said…👆🏽
All of these debates are a farce anyway. Not just in the sense of being biased.
They are a farce because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with how a candidate would do on the job. No decision or action taken by an office holder is done on the fly in 30-60 seconds. Nothing is done off the top of their head (or "top of mind"). Everything is prepared, everything written down. The only thing these "debates" show is a person's skill in being fake, in giving a performance.
Republicans avoiding debates?
Here in Washington state, dim bulb Patty Murray (D) - running for her fourth term - has refused all debates with challenger Tiffany Smiley.
Meanwhile, Murray's campaign gets the Seattle Times, Starbucks and the Seahwaks to tell Smiley to cease and desist using (1) an actual Seattle times headline; (2) photo of Starbuck's store and (3) her injured veteran husband wearing a Seahwaks jersey in TV campaign ads.
"There are also valid reasons candidates might decline to debate...."
Yes, like that the other side won't agree to have any honest moderators, only left wing hacks
"By the time debates are held, many voters have made up their minds about who to vote for, and most of those who haven’t aren’t very swayed by the debates.
That's a great argument against early voting.
It's a lousy argument against debates
The events can hurt candidates, though, making them high risk and low reward
Um, no. It's a zero sum game. So if it's high risk for both sides, then it's high reward for both sides
In some states, Democrats running for statewide office are refusing to debate their election-denying opponents.
You mean they condemn all Stacy Abrams supporters, and everyone who pushed the Trump Russia collusion Hoax?
Oh, those "election deniers" are ok?
So, the reality is "some Democrat candidates hold such extremist views that they refuse to participate in debates, for fear that letting the voters see them will destroy their candidacies.
FIFY
But the bigger trend seems to be that Republican candidates around the country are declining debate opportunities, driven by skepticism of and hostility toward the media outlets that often host, moderate and air the debates
Gee, Mr. "only Republicans can be 'election deniers'", why is it that Republicans might not trust you?
It's a puzzlement!
If you dont' want debates to disappear, vote against any Democrat who refuses to debate, because NONE of them have legitimate grounds.
If the Republican refuses to debate because (s)he says (s)he can't trust the organization putting on the debate, look at the history of that organization. Do they pick Democrat leaning "moderators"?
Then vote for the Republican, to punish those who refuse to set up honest debates.
Mark said...
The only thing these "debates" show is a person's skill in being fake, in giving a performance.
Which is about 95% of the job of being a politician. Schmoozing people you hate, who hate you, to try to come to an agreement that gets you what you want.
Political debates should be run like a chess match. Each candidate can ask questions or just make statements. However, while they are talking, their alloted time is running down, and the other candidate's microphone doesn't operate while they are speaking and controlling the clock. Suppose each candidate gets 60 minutes of speaking time, then we'll encourage more brevity and cogent replies rather than meandering streams of consciousness with interruptions from the opponent or the moderator. This method is self-regulating. No more blaming the moderators for being biased because the candidates determine what is asked.
I cannot imagine any reasonably aware voter deciding to vote for or against a Presidential candidate based on his/her performance in what now passes for a "debate". Anyone who would vote on that basis should be disenfranchised.
The Godfather said...
I cannot imagine any reasonably aware voter deciding to vote for or against a Presidential candidate based on his/her performance in what now passes for a "debate". Anyone who would vote on that basis should be disenfranchised.
Joe Biden said in one of his debates against Trump that he was going to work to shut down all fracking, or something along those lines.
Anyone downstream of the fracking industry should have listened to that, and said "I can't vote for Biden because he said that"
So you are entirely wrong
Post a Comment