• AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    10 months ago

    Moderators are incompetent hacks with no political knowledge.

    They should have a panel of the top general, most recent american economic Nobel laureate (or some equivalent), most recently retired surgeon general and attorneys general write the questions which are then presented by a moderator, then the author of each question responds to their answers and if required asks a single follow up question to each debator.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      More importantly, if the candidates are non-responsive they should shut off their fucking microphones.

    • robotemoji@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think this is a great point. All the moderators are media personalities without a background so they can’t really claim expert knowledge on the issues. But the panel of experts I think is spot on to create this basis of expertise or fact. The single follow up used to be the norm. e.g. “candidates have 2 minute responses with a 30 second follow up” (strictly adhered to time)

    • Uranium3006@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      also give them the authority to mute a candidate’s mic for breaking rules, like talking over someone else when they don’t have the floor. perhaps you can have a separate umpire type character. record what’s going in the mic and release it 7 days later for transparency but don’t let it get messy

      • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Since they changed the rules where candidates are allowed to address each other its been a slow decline to Jerry Springer status.

    • cabbage@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ten years… So that’s essentially two debates:

      Clinton v. Trump, 2016 Biden v. Trump, 2020

      One might be tempted to believe the problem is more with one bumbling fascist fool and the decay of American democracy than with the format as such.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 months ago

    If the debate were actually a debate, I would consider watching them.

    The intelligence squared series is a great example of what a debate could be. I’m utterly disinterested in what talking heads have to say about who won or lost. I want an actual score at the end.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    They’re not debates. They’re ridiculous slapfights that no one cares about.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    The debates stopped being controlled by an independent 3rd party and started being controlled by the DNC and RNC.

    Simple.

    The last real debate was in 1984.

  • ember@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    At what point do we start blaming the people for selecting them to run?

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I doubt we’ll have em much longer, doesnt seem like not participating hurts any candidates chances.