If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Group secretly trying to rework Presidential Debate rules." You hope for a Lincoln/Douglas slugfest, you prepare yourself for a Sarah Palin Fortune Cookie Hour   (politico.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, Commission on Presidential Debates, Presidential General Election Debates, Mike McCurry, Anita Dunn, independent candidates, Joel Benenson, Ron Klain  
•       •       •

1322 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2013 at 8:37 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-27 10:50:25 AM
2 votes:
You actually want people to watch? Let someone other than a Republican and a Democrat on the stage.
2013-11-27 09:05:03 AM
2 votes:

give me doughnuts: JoePragmatist: All you need is people that'd ask real questions and not let politicians dodge them. (Read: non-American journalists). Is have paid good money to watch someone hold Mittford's feet to the fire about his tax returns, Romneycare, specifics his amazing tax plan that let him cut trillions in taxes and increase the defense budget, etc.


Get a moderator from the BBC. The accent alone would make all the candidates sound like idiots.


Get Clive Anderson. He already has experience in directing professional clowns to make asses of themselves on camera for popularity points that don't matter.
2013-11-27 08:54:39 AM
2 votes:

bluenovaman: I'd be happy if they were asked real questions.


and I would be even happier if they then had to answer the question that was asked and not just roll over into talking points which skirt the question.
2013-11-27 08:44:20 AM
2 votes:
How about turning off the microphone of the candidate who is not responding.  Romney would have been comical in the first debate if he were ranting off mic.
2013-11-27 08:41:22 AM
2 votes:
how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.
2013-11-27 10:56:05 AM
1 votes:
Presidential debates were of questionable quality before, but ever since the major parties took over the debates (via the Commission on Presidential Debates, which consists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats) it's become a total sham. The League of Women Voters used to run them, but then they let Perot on stage in '92 and that upset the major-party applecart, so they couldn't have that happen again. You will have exactly two choices, and you will like it. 

Anyone on enough ballots to win should be on the debate stage. In 2012, that would have given us 3-5 candidates.
2013-11-27 10:10:33 AM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.


I was thinking that their should be real-time fact checking.
2013-11-27 09:37:49 AM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: odinsposse: Hobodeluxe: how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.

Ineffective. Being a career politician makes you psychopathic enough that you can easily beat a lie detector. Hooking up someone like Romney to that machine would just create pages and pages of a perfectly straight line.

the threat of electric shock should make that trickier. they're not used to instant consequence.


Psychopaths have explicitly demonstrated no ability to fear or anticipate electric shocks, even when they know they are coming:

For his first paper, now a classic, Hare had his subjects watch a countdown timer. When it reached zero, they got a "harmless but painful" electric shock while an electrode taped to their fingers measured perspiration. Normal people would start sweating as the countdown proceeded, nervously anticipating the shock. Psychopaths didn't sweat. They didn't fear punishment -- which, presumably, also holds true outside the laboratory. In Without Conscience, he quotes a psychopathic rapist explaining why he finds it hard to empathize with his victims: "They are frightened, right? But, you see, I don't really understand it. I've been frightened myself, and it wasn't unpleasant."
2013-11-27 09:17:14 AM
1 votes:
I have no problem with 2-minute answers as long as the question is structured in such a way that it can be answered in that time. Also, cut off their mic after the 2 minutes and any time they say, "I'd like to go back to something the other candidate said...".

Also change the setting to something like having them sit at a semi-circular table with the moderator in the center, and get rid of the crowd. Standing at a lectern in front of a crowd automatically puts them in campaign speech mode no matter how hard they might try to avoid it, so take them out of that setting. Also keep all of them on screen at all times (with TVs being 16:9 now it shouldn't be a problem) so we can see how they behave when they're not the center of attention.
2013-11-27 09:17:03 AM
1 votes:
Real-time, in-debate fact-checking on big screens. Candidate's platform is lowered by one inch each time they are caught in a lie.
2013-11-27 09:16:01 AM
1 votes:
First off, wow!  Newton minnow is still alive.  He must be a hundred years old by now.

Regarding debates, now about no moderator?  These are supposed to be intelligent people.  Let 'em argue free form.  Even if they spend the entire time going back and forth about a single issue, it would be more beneficial than canned answers to obvious softball questions.
2013-11-27 09:06:16 AM
1 votes:

Cat Food Sandwiches: What we have now could hardly be considered a "debate", but rather a series of two-minute talking point recitations.  Just throw out a question and let them have at it for 10 minutes.


How about we get informed moderators who ask decent follow up questions or make them answer the actual question instead of the question they want to answer
2013-11-27 09:02:49 AM
1 votes:

JoePragmatist: All you need is people that'd ask real questions and not let politicians dodge them. (Read: non-American journalists). Is have paid good money to watch someone hold Mittford's feet to the fire about his tax returns, Romneycare, specifics his amazing tax plan that let him cut trillions in taxes and increase the defense budget, etc.



Get a moderator from the BBC. The accent alone would make all the candidates sound like idiots.
2013-11-27 09:00:06 AM
1 votes:
All you need is people that'd ask real questions and not let politicians dodge them. (Read: non-American journalists). Is have paid good money to watch someone hold Mittford's feet to the fire about his tax returns, Romneycare, specifics his amazing tax plan that let him cut trillions in taxes and increase the defense budget, etc.
2013-11-27 08:53:20 AM
1 votes:

Cat Food Sandwiches: What we have now could hardly be considered a "debate", but rather a series of two-minute talking point recitations.  Just throw out a question and let them have at it for 10 minutes.


radio/tv interviews should be the same way, why are they always "almost out of time": on a 24 hour news network, wtf is that?
2013-11-27 08:49:22 AM
1 votes:
What!  You suggest throwing away hours of free talking point distribution time?  I guess you want the campaigns to actually pay for this kind of brand support!
2013-11-27 08:47:36 AM
1 votes:
What we have now could hardly be considered a "debate", but rather a series of two-minute talking point recitations.  Just throw out a question and let them have at it for 10 minutes.
2013-11-27 08:44:19 AM
1 votes:
I'd be happy if they were asked real questions.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report