• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Presidential debates set.

techs

Lifer
http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/07/26/obama-and-romney-to-star-in-presidential-debate-trilogy/

Obama and Romney to star in presidential-debate trilogy

Don’t look for podiums, opening statements or surprise topics at the debates if President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney follow the plan organizers released Wednesday. The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates said debates would be 90 minutes each and feature topics that would be announced ahead of time so voters and candidates alike can study the subjects. “The debates are the most widely watched political programs of any kind,” debate planners Frank Fahrenkopf and Mike McCurry said in a statement. “These format changes are designed to promote substantive dialogue before, during and after the debates about the major issues of the day. They will permit citizens and candidates to come prepared for a series of voter education forums that inform and engage the public.”

Moderators for the televised events are set to be announced in August.

The first debate, scheduled for Oct. 3 at the University of Denver, is set to focus on domestic policy. Organizers plan six, 15-minute segments that would open with a question, a two-minute reply from each candidate and then a discussion. They want the candidates to sit at a table with the moderator, rather than standing on podiums.

The second, scheduled for Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., would take the form of a town hall-style meeting. Planners say the questions would come from undecided voters selected by pollster Gallup. Each candidate would get two minutes to tackle the question, with a moderator facilitating a follow-up discussion

The final debate would take the same format as the first, but would focus on foreign policy topics announced ahead of time. That is scheduled for Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to meet Romney’s yet unnamed running mate for a debate on Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Ky. The event would be divided into nine, 10-minute segments devoted to foreign and domestic policies. Each candidate will be allowed a two-minute response with a moderator dividing the time.

“There are serious issues facing this country and the public has the right to expect a serious examination of those issues during this fall’s debates,” organizers said. “The (Commission on Presidential Debates) believes this can be accomplished best by focusing big time blocks on major domestic and foreign topics.”
 
Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to meet Romney’s yet unnamed running mate for a debate on Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Ky. The event would be divided into nine, 10-minute segments devoted to foreign and domestic policies. Each candidate will be allowed a two-minute response with a moderator dividing the time.

That's the same place the Cheney/Leiberman (sp) debate took place.
 
I will watch all of these, and I will complain about them afterwards. These debates have less and less substance every election cycle. A real debate wouldn't have campaigns setting "pre-defined topics" beforehand, nor would they control many of the other seemingly pointless minute. (podium designs? Seriously?) I'm also disappointed to see that no third party candidate is to be included in any of the debates.

In conclusion, waah! I don't get what I want! (which is a legitimate informative classical debate)
 
I will watch all of these, and I will complain about them afterwards. These debates have less and less substance every election cycle. A real debate wouldn't have campaigns setting "pre-defined topics" beforehand, nor would they control many of the other seemingly pointless minute. (podium designs? Seriously?) I'm also disappointed to see that no third party candidate is to be included in any of the debates.

In conclusion, waah! I don't get what I want! (which is a legitimate informative classical debate)

your standards are set too high.
 
The first and third sound more like conferences than debates. The town hall meeting format sounds like it has the best chance of keeping me awake.

Personally I have my fingers crossed for a Joe Biden/Chris Christie VP debate, but I don't think Christie is stupid enough to lash himself to this sinking ship. Binden has been doing a wonderful job with his campaign speeches this year-good explanations of policy (for the wavering/undecided) and plenty of red meat rhetoric to pump up the already persuaded. Obama made a very politically smart move picking Biden as VP.
 
Here's a preview:

President Obama: blahblahblahblahbain, blahoutsourcingblahblahflipflopblah

Romney: blahblahblahjobsblah, blaheconomyblahblahfailureblahblah

Thanks for watching folks
 
Debates used to be more interesting, but lately it's gotten very boring. The candidates get questions on pre-screened topics. No matter what the specific questions are, each candidate will simply go into a pre-set speech of talking points prepared by advisers. You just can't get any new useful information from these.

I'd like to see a moderator take them to task when they start babbling on about something without addressing the question that was asked.
 
your standards are set too high.

Maybe so, but even a mediocre high school debate team could do better than these jokers. We've had some serious presidential debates before, but that was so long ago that even the most outdated textbooks still in use would tell you all about them.
 
Debates used to be more interesting, but lately it's gotten very boring. The candidates get questions on pre-screened topics. No matter what the specific questions are, each candidate will simply go into a pre-set speech of talking points prepared by advisers. You just can't get any new useful information from these.

I'd like to see a moderator take them to task when they start babbling on about something without addressing the question that was asked.

Damn straight. Unless a question is deliberately and unquestionably biased, then a straight answer should be expected. I would even respect a candidate answering "I don't know enough about subject X to give a proper response", but usually they just shift it to hit their list of talking points.
 
Watching someone try to debate Obama is going to be amusing. Mitt will probably be able to maintain his composure better than GWB did, and at least sound like he's not lost talking numbers and policy, but still...

Good luck Mittens, you're going to need it.
 
The longer form of the debate definitely helps Obama.
Mitt has said virtually nothing about what he is going to do. He will have to say something to fill up the time and its easy to screw up the more time you have.
 
The longer form of the debate definitely helps Obama.
Mitt has said virtually nothing about what he is going to do. He will have to say something to fill up the time and its easy to screw up the more time you have.

none of these debates help the American people
 
Romney's lack of clarity on his platform is a calculated move - it's not an issue of him not having actual ideas of what he wants to accomplish. He will have plenty to say if he decides it's worth the risk to do so.

In 2008 I was surprised at how soundly Obama trounced McCain in their debates; taking on a multi-decade veteran of the Senate in foreign policy and other affairs and coming out on top is a remarkable feat. The guy is unflappable, whereas at times McCain sounded exasperated or actually angry. I do think Romney will do at least marginally better in that regard, though.
 
The real problem is the standards for entertainment were set impossibly high by the Republican primary debates this time. Having a few people in each debate with radical views to start and a need to grab attention by saying something extreme made for some extremely good political circus. Then add in the Fox News crowds in attendance applauding the execution of innocents, booing a gay soldier, etc., and it was a hoot. No way this lives up to that.
 
I actually have higher hopes for these debates tan the previous ones.....namely, that there is supposed to be a longer discussion than just the usual 30 second - 1 minute sound bite talking point. I recall that a few years back in one of the european political debates (I want to say germany but can't remember for sure) they had a debate where they just sat at a table and discussed policy for an hour or something like that, ie, something where actual details and not just sound tidbits and talking points were discussed. I've wanted to see something more like that here and this might be a step in the right direction.
 
none of these debates help the American people

They're not meant to. The candidates are chosen by and for the corporate system. The more shares you own the more these chosen candidates speak for you. For everyone else it is just a typical plutocratic hell, except the average person watching the debate cant understand that it is absolutely the same as watching a wrestling show on tv.
 
What's the point? We already know everything they have to say.

In the Information Age we do not need debates to find out what these guys stand for anymore.
 
I will watch all of these, and I will complain about them afterwards. These debates have less and less substance every election cycle. A real debate wouldn't have campaigns setting "pre-defined topics" beforehand, nor would they control many of the other seemingly pointless minute. (podium designs? Seriously?) I'm also disappointed to see that no third party candidate is to be included in any of the debates.

In conclusion, waah! I don't get what I want! (which is a legitimate informative classical debate)

I really want to see presidents have to stand before congress, weekly, and defend their actions in an open, public setting, as the PM does in Great Britain.

Not only is it highly entertaining, it's actually engaging the issues in a useful manner.

seeing the debates run this way would be great, too. You really get to see if the rubes running for office are effective or not
 
Back
Top