Question, are presidential debates good for voters ????

[Telstra]

In my opinion, its a no.
Its NOT good for voters(people), but its good for media owners and entertainment businesses.

How about you ???

 

[rareboy]

Debates tell us nothing. They are just spectacle.

In the US, they've just become another competitive game show.

 

[Telstra]

Debates tell us nothing. They are just spectacle.

In the US, they've just become another competitive game show.

Yes, its like a game show.
Democracy is getting stupider and stupider ....

 

[Sausy]

I wouldn't quite agree but when you have to split the difference over two nights with ten candidates each... sometimes there is a lot more show than real illumination. Three or four even would be much more preferable even over two nights, you can get into greater depth instead of rushing through people trying to make their mark, and often trying too hard to make a lasting impression.

 

[SeaCore]

I'd rather see something a bit more conversational. Like disagree and present your points but not in a competitive setting where there's some kind of goal to win. Or at least do both. And especially trying to establish some common ground where it exists.

Debates are fine. They're high pressure and can demonstrate how well candidates handle pressure. But there needs to be more than just that.

 

[Telstra]

Its official,
cnn, msnbc, fox ... etc are mostly fake news

 

[Rickrock]

Debates are good in that they introduced me to candidates that I did not know, however, more sustenance would be an improvement.

 

[Dominus]

So easy for you guys to criticize. Why not present an alternative that can accomodate this many candidates?

 

[Telstra]

So easy for you guys to criticize. Why not present an alternative that can accomodate this many candidates?

because it was their fault for making trump president.
Have you noticed they gave trump 99% of FREE airtime ?????

 

[CoolBlue71]

The problem with the debates is that they are corporate-sponsored and on “news” networks which are heavily corporate-sponsored.

The Night #01 debates in Detroit, Michigan, which were live on Wednesday, July 30, 2019, had an obvious bias coming from CNN. Months ago, Jake Tapper did a propaganda piece for the benefit of the health-insurance industry. So, it did not surprise he asked questions, particularly of Medicare for All, which were framed in a way to make it sound like Medicare for All is not to become reality—that, from CNN’s perspective (it is owned by AT&T and one should consider its sponsors), Medicare for All does not meet with their approval.

The debates were taken away from League of Women Voters quite some time ago. That was a mistake.

 

[SeaCore]

So easy for you guys to criticize. Why not present an alternative that can accomodate this many candidates?

Youtube. I mean really, embrace the new mediums that we have.
AMAs on Reddit.
Creating direct responses to the other candidates stated approach and posting it to your website. It is easy to criticize because there's a lot of options available.
Online debates with digital moderators. That could possibly work even better because of the ease of muting someone that isn't letting another person get their point across.

 

[rareboy]

I'd rather see something a bit more conversational. Like disagree and present your points but not in a competitive setting where there's some kind of goal to win. Or at least do both. And especially trying to establish some common ground where it exists.

Debates are fine. They're high pressure and can demonstrate how well candidates handle pressure. But there needs to be more than just that.

These aren't debates though.

They are just 10 candidates yelling talking points at one another. There is no substance or time to explain any details.

 

[Sausy]

The real term for what these are would be glorified press conferences. With ten people on stage per night over two nights limited by time and circumstance, depth and real perspectives and fully thought out responses are impossible. They serve a purpose but the formats have to be significantly improved.

 

[Telstra]

These aren't debates though.

They are just 10 candidates yelling talking points at one another. There is no substance or time to explain any details.

funny enough, Yang put all the substance in a very time limit including reality star president Lol

 

[TX-Beau]

In my opinion, its a no.
Its NOT good for voters(people), but its good for media owners and entertainment businesses.

How about you ???

Yes, no question.

 

[TX-Beau]

The real term for what these are would be glorified press conferences. With ten people on stage per night over two nights limited by time and circumstance, depth and real perspectives and fully thought out responses are impossible. They serve a purpose but the formats have to be significantly improved.

People do not decide who to vote for based on deep, thoughtful, responses. People vote based on their emotions. You don't need tons of time to engage voters, you need to understand why people choose a candidate and how to inspire that.

 

[Sausy]

People do not decide who to vote for based on deep, thoughtful, responses. People vote based on their emotions. You don't need tons of time to engage voters, you need to understand why people choose a candidate and how to inspire that.

In this era, the last thing you should want is for people to primarily make an emotional connection. Obviously, there has to be some of that in the sense you get attracted to a candidate you can relate to. But it has to be a bit deeper than just an emotional connection. CNN can do a lot better than trying to sometimes channel the political version of Celebrity Death Match.

 

[TX-Beau]

In this era, the last thing you should want is for people to primarily make an emotional connection. Obviously, there has to be some of that in the sense you get attracted to a candidate you can relate to. But it has to be a bit deeper than just an emotional connection. CNN can do a lot better than trying to sometimes channel the political version of Celebrity Death Match.

One would certainly like that to be the case, and no doubt there are people who do think, and even when we disagree, I do think you are one of those - unfortunately the history of our process is that people overwhelmingly vote their emotions. Clinton, the cheater, was loved because he was loved, Clinton, the worthy was hated because she was a wonky theorist. Obama was loved because he made people feel all tingly, and Trump squeaked by, because he made racists feel vindicated.

Let's face it, Hillary was a lousy politician because she wanted to talk about theory, and Trump got his support by playing on emotion.

 

[Telstra]

ok question time,
about the debate, why don't they ask the same amount of questions to each candidates like the Miss USA competition instead of let the candidates argue with each other ?? That would be more interesting to watch to see who has the best answers.

 

[mikey3000]

Youtube. I mean really, embrace the new mediums that we have.
AMAs on Reddit.
Creating direct responses to the other candidates stated approach and posting it to your website. It is easy to criticize because there's a lot of options available.
Online debates with digital moderators. That could possibly work even better because of the ease of muting someone that isn't letting another person get their point across.

Yeah but we can no longer trust YouTube to actually post opposing positions anymore.