PBP: Trump vs Clinton - Battle in Hofstra: Holy crap what have we done

I suppose those are topics.

 

I'm inclined to believe this wont be the firework show a lot of people think it'll be, Trump for the most part avoided gaffes in the 1900 GOP Debates, except for the time he talked about his wang, but I don't see Clinton bringing that up like Marco did.

It's also crazy to be grading on such a curve that a major party nominee bringing up the size of his penis in a presidential debate triggers nothing more than a meh reaction from me.

 

http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

This was back in 1988. it has only gotten worse since. And those that don't want Johnson on that stage are just as bad.

 

A fraud? So it's better to never have the two candidates on the same stage, directly addressing one another? These debates are the only time that will ever happen. Without the debates it's nothing but mass media bullshit.

 

Lets remember, these are not actual "debates".

It is basically 2 people espousing talking points one after the other.

 

To me, the ideal format would be Trump and Hillary asking each other questions.

 

No they aren't real debates, but it's as close as we are going to get.

 

That's all it is now.

Johnson's support should have put him on the stage. The reason he isn't is because both parties are afraid of having part of their support siphoned off.

 

I imagine everyone here can find better use of their time on Monday.

 

I'm not watching the debate. It will be content-free, as is everything that is touched by Donald Trump. The only item of interest is how people view this content-free exchange, which I won't learn by watching the debate. If The Economist covers with a live blog, I will follow along with that.

 

I spat out my cereal when I read this.

 

James Fallows writes up a in-depth debate preview every four years. Haven't read the latest installment yet (it's on the list for the weekend), but I've read them all in the past. They're always worth reading. Here's a link:

When Donald Meets Hillary - The Atlantic

 

I'm definitely leaning towards not watching. These debates are turning into a shallow cash grab for the networks.

The first clue that the whole thing is a joke is the fact that they have live audiences. Live audiences serve no purpose to what is ostensibly a civics exercise. Audiences favor the candidate that knows how to work a crowd. The enthusiastic applauses, the groans, the occasional booing all play into this reality TV aspect of who's winning and who's losing.

I'd feel more inclined to watch if it was a more intimate academic setting like a Charlie Rose interview. The debates as we have them today do very little to educate voters. If anything it confuses us more because there's is no factual framework. It's like watching a soccer game with no goals, no lines on the field, no score keeping ...

 

I hope they tell those people to zip it. They sure didn't in most of the primary debates ...

 

Fair enough ... I guess I was longing for a more intimate and in depth process that is a hybrid between a debate and an interview.

But even if we're talking a straight up traditional debate, what we have falls short.

First of all a moderator needs to set a clear parameters of what we're discussing. It's not enough for a moderator to lob a question and let the debater do as they wish. You need a clear, specific and consistent topic. You can't just ask 'what would you do about Syria?' That's too broad and open ended.

Once the parameters of that topic are set you need to enforce rule #1 of debating : He who asserts must prove! In other words when you make a claim like NAFTA was a disaster you have to give some reference as to what the assertion is based on. Whether it's a congressional study, an academic study, a think tank study or just basic facts as best as you know them like how many jobs were lost, how much GDP was lost etc ... Basically any substance that the viewer can reference if they're interested. If the debater is unwilling to prove their assertion, it's the moderator's job to ask a follow up question.

And that leads me to another rule that I'd like to see enforced ... Stay on topic! If the debater is still unwilling to try to prove their assertion after the follow up question you cut them off and move on. It's also important that rebuttal time only get used to counter specific things that the last debater said. You can't change the subject and interject unrelated talking points. This is what leads to confusion. If you can't use your rebuttal time correctly you lose it.

Of course a more forceful moderation will just offend the mouth breathers because whenever they don't understand something it must be the lame stream media conspiracy with their big words and facts ... Me on the other hand I belong to Walter Sobchak school of debating ... " Mark it zero Donny!!! Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules!"

 

Trump will doubtlessly show up for the first debate.

Reading this, I'm thinking 50/50 he shows up for the second.

 

So Trump is the green-sky candidate? I can see that.