how do we stop debaters from just flat-out lying?

Normally through ads, surrogates or the candidates themselves call out each other for lying. What we have now is a truce in which candidates are free to tell their lies. Media fact-checking will have no effect on the level of lying. The candidates will continue to claim media bias. So to answer your question, we can't at least until the primaries are over or most of the candidates drop out.

 

It's like smacking the dog for licking his balls. It's what they do.

 

What if we stopped having televised debates altogether, or stopped having debates in a format that was designed in the 1960s?

Look, I hope you all recognize that if Trump said monarchy was his economic plan, his supporters would find a way to rationalize it. So what if he lies? The more lies and nontruths his supporters believe, the harder it will be for their children to get good jobs because they won't be able to add simple numbers together.

 

It is a little naive to pretend that they are going to stop lying at the debates because they tried to fact-check them on spot. It looks that all of the GOP candidates had a rehearsed line on how they would stand-up to the liberal media, represented by leftist NBC.

What we really need is for the media to do their job on a daily basis, not only when the spot is on them. We need corporate media to stop treating GOP lies as "opinion", when there are pretty clear and demonstrable facts that contradict them. No more of that "both sides lie" and "the other party says that" rhetoric. Only when the GOP really fears telling bold-faced lies on national TV will we see real progress on the debate on fringe ideas moved back to where they belong.

 

Most will never have no fear of this. a proportion of their base believe that things have been declining for the past 30 or 40 years and national tv & other media are part of the decline.

 

It don't matter. To the tea party all NBC is bad NBC.

Eff it, let them have their "Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin" debate so they can talk about the real issues. Like Hillary, email, Dear Sydney and Benghazi.

 

Apparently when they fact-checked Fiorina recently she went off about the liberal media attacking the messenger (while acknowledging they were correct) - how the heck do you fight that kind of "logic", basically "how dare the big bad scary corporate media check my facts, the heathens"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a-defends-her-gop-debate-remarks-claims-us-h/

You want larger truth in your message, don't lie to make it sound more dramatic, and maybe learn what "misspoke" means

This one isn't even that bad as current standards go.... or even as Carly's go - but I remembered reading it the most recently.

 

How do we stop moderators from asking horrible questions?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/twi...gopdebatedemands-after-rnc-demands-new-rules/

Anne Caprara @anacaprana
Any candidate who is feeling sad during the debate will get a hug by a Ronald Reagan impersonator #GOPdebatedemands

7:06 PM - 1 Nov 2015s

 

If the Republican candidate gets nothing but softball questions during the primaries, how is the one who wins going to be able to handle real questions during the general election campaign?

 

Obviously, tough questions need to be asked of all the candidates from both parties. The cnbc moderators did a horrible job. I actually think that some of their questions weren't that bad, but they were worded wrong. All moderators need to ask tough questions regardless of bias, otherwise the voters learn nothing valuable.

 

In these particular debates, I don't think much of anything can be done. This is a GOP shitshow from top to bottom (getting shittier all the time; I see that Donald "The Great Negotiator" Trump is now going to negotiate directly with broadcasters about the debates.). Come the debates between the presidential candidates, there is one not unimportant variable that'll be in play: the candidate from the other party. It would be nice to think that debate moderators would be well-enough versed on the issues that they could correct obvious, egregious lies. I'll not hold my breath waiting for that to happen, however. But opposing candidates can call each other out on lies. That, of course, can quickly devolve into a game of "he said/she said" (perhaps quite literally in 2016). Look, I don't relish having to debate a chronic bullshitter; reminds me of conversations I used to have with Dear Ol' Dad. But someone better at this kind of thing than me should be able to blunt the worst of the excesses. As others have said, all politicians do this, to an extent. But I don't honestly believe anyone will lie themselves into the White House next year.

 

BENGHAZI!

 

Isn't CNBC the home of that Santelli prick whose comments about "losers" defaulting on mortgages started the whole "takers" baloney & helped launch the Tea Party movement? Jeez - that load deserves to be drop-kicked to Jupiter.

 

While I know this is tongue in cheek, I think there is something worth unraveling here. Does this touch back to Romney's campaign where he walked right into Candy Crowley's fact check and caused all kinds of damage to this campaign? Maybe some of the Presidential hopefuls hit on something that avoids that kind of catastrophe? It you bluster and lie long enough the news media will stop pushing back because they don't want to turn it into something that looks personal to the viewer? It's not a good theory but debaters (sp) know there was a certain amount of give and take in a debate. However, if you grandstand and bluster enough, there may be a point where the moderators will have to relent in order not to look antagonistic or biased. It makes you look tough and appeal to voters. This particular panel just wasn't prepared for it.

Considering social media has made it easier to self-select and a lot of my GOP/Tea Party friends have created a universe that is wedded to its own self-fulfilling prophecies. I mean all one has to do is look on Facebook to your slightly racist family member to see it. (Democrats have their own self-reassuring echo chambers):

• http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...o-protect-themselves-from-the-muslim-invasion
• http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...border/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
• https://www.facebook.com/NationInDistress/?fref=photo
  
• http://conservativetribune.com/sick-move-obama-made/

And that is with no attempt at trying from only 2 friends on Facebook. While the articles themselves are dumb, the comments are downright ludicrous and the looney conspiracies are cringe-worthy. But they are also votes and people who are fed up. These people don't trust anyone who doesn't parrot Fox and views everyone else as "Libtards" or bleeding heart liberal. When we hear that person bluster and lie, others hear someone standing up to the "Libruhl meeedjia". It wins votes....possible enough for a nomination.

However, conservatives may be content to stay in a bubble and yell about Benghazi, but it doesn’t help their cause in the long term.

 

@BreakingBurgh: #GOPdebatedemands
Everyone gets a 50/50, a Call A Friend, and a Ask The Carefully Preselected Audience.

#JebCanFixIt #GOPDebate

 

@BlueRootsRadio: The #gop candidates are complaining about hours & working conditions of the debates. What should they do? Form a union! #GOPdebatedemands

 

R.I.G.H.T.

And you guys love the WSJ because it the best paper in the country until you get to the editorial page.

 

The Crowley comments did not do anything to Mitt Romney's campaign.

The second presidential debate was October 16, 2012. According to Nate Silver, Barack Obama was projected to win 287 electoral votes, win 64.8% of the election scenarios, and win 50.1% of the vote.

Four months earlier, Obama was projected to win 299 electoral votes, win 68.7% of the election scenarios, and win 50.8% of the vote.

The noise that preceded the second presidential debate was due to three factors:

1) The primary elections ending and the less-attentive portions of the electorate learning about the campaigns through the two party conventions;

2) The artificially-low Romney polling due to the Obama campaign's summer ad bombardment (which Obama campaign managers later said did not pay off);

3) The shift from "registered" to "likely" voter models that occurs right around the start of September each election year. Such a shift will "lose" the Democratic party a few points for various reasons you can read about here.


Aside from highlighting why we should be careful trying to understand trends versus noise, the thing to take away is that debates do not have long-term effects on vote choice and - before I get inundated with VFish wannabes harping about how this debate or that debate mattered, consider this:

1) Fewer people watched the most well-watched presidential debate in 2012 than watched the 1980 debate.

2) We have had tens of thousands of televised debates at the presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, congressional, and subnational legislative level in the last few decades. Debates do not shift voter attitudes.

3) People cover debates because we like to see action, movement, and chaos in what is very predictable behavior. People do not change their minds easily. It's easy to demonstrate. What would it take to convince VFish that Obama's economic record was good? Or dapip that Obama's economic record was bad? Or Timon and Mastershake that drone strikes were good national policy? Or Bill Archer that FIFA is free of corruption? These are straw men examples, but we reach conclusions and form opinions for reasons that are not easy for a stranger to easily shift.

In short: do not count on Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders to expose Republican lies during a debate. Or vice-versa. Or count on the media to fact-check. Or even rely on voters to care.

We all know who we're voting for already. We have a year to rationalize it. Good luck, everyone!

 

This thread would be much more useful if someone -- anyone -- would at least be intellectually honest enough to admit Dem candidates lie through their teeth too.

No, I'm not going to post an example from the Dem debate.