Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Democratic Primaries

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Uncle Joe

(60,315 posts)
Mon Mar 16, 2020, 11:26 PM Mar 2020

Keep Audiences Out of Debates--Forever [View all]



Sunday night’s crowd-free Biden-Sanders showdown was the most serious and substantive yet.

(snip)

Presidential debates, much less their precise format, are far from enshrined in the American political tradition. There were no such debates until the 1960 bout between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (though the Republicans held a debate between their primary opponents in 1948, and the Democrats followed course in 1956). Then, after the 1960 duel, whose telecast might have won the election for the dashing JFK, no debates took place for the next 16 years.

The custom was revived with the contest between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976. The event was sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a truly nonpartisan organization, which set the rules, selected the moderators, vetted the studio audiences, and instructed them to be quiet. The League sponsored the next two debates as well (Carter vs. Ronald Reagan in 1980, Reagan vs. Walter Mondale in ’84), but then pulled out before the 1988 contest, complaining that the campaigns were demanding too large a say in setting the rules and packing the hall. The group’s trustees released a statement:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

(snip)

But Sunday night’s contest showed that, in the absence of a crowd cheering on the combatants’ more pandering tendencies, a debate can be a useful exercise after all—a way to gauge the candidates’ views and character.

(snip)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/debate-audience-coronavirus-biden-sanders.html




I agree with the author's take that being audience free added to the quality of the debate.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Couldn't agree with you more COLGATE4 Mar 2020 #1
Yup- I endorse this. NBachers Mar 2020 #2
I agree with that. drray23 Mar 2020 #3
Absolutely! The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2020 #4
I agree customerserviceguy Mar 2020 #5
K and freaking R! Wednesdays Mar 2020 #6
There was a fascinating interview with Justice Sotomayor with Trevor Noah where fierywoman Mar 2020 #7
A few weeks ago, I would have said "hell no" The Mouth Mar 2020 #8
I think part of it was because there were just two participants, but it was clear that the lack WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2020 #9
I agree mcar Mar 2020 #10
For once we agree on something. William769 Mar 2020 #11
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»Keep Audiences Out of Deb...»Reply #0