I suggest THUNDERDOME!

I would like them to do away with the use of pundits or t.v. anchors moderating the debates. It would be nice to have a “professional” moderator (maybe those who moderate national college level debates) to show people how a moderator should act and handle a debate.

Let the Vice-Presidential candidates ask questions of the Presidential candidates.  Then the Presidential candidates get to ask questions of the Vice-Presidential candidates.  Three minutes to respond, and no rebuttals by the other side.  And the questioning goes for ten hours, to simulate a day’s work.  And it goes on for two weeks, or until the first punch is thrown.

To build on tdeinlv’s suggestion, perhaps each candidate could be paired with a debater from a good college team.  The candidates answer each question initially, but the college students handle all rebuttals.

I have to admit, I’ve been struggling to stay awake during the debates and only manage to make it through because I was afraid that, maybe, I’d miss something.  Had I fallen asleep, the only statement I would have regretted missing McCain waxing weird over Obama fining parents for not getting insurance for their children.  I’m still scratching my head on that one.

I’m given to understand that in the Ancient Days, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters.  I do not know anything about the moderators in those days.  It seems as though (and I don’t know this for a fact) changes to the format have made the debates more show bizzy rather than less.  Research is probably called for.  Lots of research.

I would like them to do away with the use of pundits or t.v. anchors moderating the debates. It would be nice to have a “professional” moderator (maybe those who moderate national college level debates) to show people how a moderator should act and handle a debate.

There are no moderators in college debates. No one is there asking questions. The judge (not moderator) does not interact with the participants, but rather is a passive observer. The only things that a Presidential debate and a college debate have in common are the name and the fact that people talk. And that’s the way it has to be. A real debate has a proposition that is to be affirmed or negated. A Presidential debate is a joint press conference that allows candidates to discuss their views on issues and to respond (sometimes) to their opponent’s answers. For that format, an ideal moderator is someone who interviews people for a living—a journalist. Getting a college debate judge (usually a communication or rhetoric professor with little personal charisma) to moderate a debate would be a disaster.

Well you can blame George Bush (the real one, not the shrub) and Mikey “Foster Equality” Dukakis for this debacle.

Until the 88 election, debates were run by a neutral third party, the League for Women Voters. But the two candidates decided the League was a little too neutral and wasn’t serving the candidates needs so the two parties created this bogus Commission for Presidential Debates to make sure the “debates” served the needs of the campaigns and parties, not the needs of the voters.

I’d still like Obama to start off “John McCain agrees with ME about yadda yadda…” Not “I agree with John McCain”  Change the frame!

I enjoyed the first debate more than any in a long time because it seemed like they were able to engage in more back and forth and actual discussion.  The vp debate was ridiculous, as was this one.  How can there be a debate with no follow up, or response?  What’s the point of even having one if they don’t have the chance to engage the issues?

Regarding Biden’s strategy towards lies vs. Obama’s, I do think you need to consider the messenger.  Biden was dealing with someone everyone knew was a lightweight, and wasn’t a trustworthy source.  He had also obviously made a decision earlier on that it would be more of a risk to engage with her and come off as condescending or bullying then to just let her ridiculous assertions stand.  McCain, on the other hand, is still seen more or less as a reliable source.  Most people, I believe, at least assume that he knows what he’s talking about.  So it is important to spend some-not all-of the time calling him out for being dishonest and setting the record straight.

Yes, please bring back the League of Women Voters debates!

Truth is, we should all know by now that the debates are just another form of campaigning. I hate to be a pessimist but do you really think that the parties would agree to changing something that has worked to allow them to push through their talking points? They got rid of a neutral third party that was running the debates for crying out loud!

The LWV doesn’t want to touch the current debate setup with a shitty stick.

How about this? If either candidate takes public financing, part of the deal is that the debate format is decided independent of the candidates’ wishes. Formal contract. Or, if you create a ‘for President’ committee, part of the deal with the FEC is that you sign up for debates. That’s the only hook I can see working.

I’ve always thought that the right wing masquerade of “toughness” masked an actual sensibility of “give me an easy time, for I deserve to make my way easily in the world, and if you speak to me harshly, I will sue you! (the adult version of crying).”

Worst debate moment of my adult life was when Bush used the expression “Massachusetts Liberal” multiple times in the final 2004 debate and Kerry didn’t respond by daring Bush to admit that he’d just tried to slander the state without which there wouldn’t even be a USA. I remain convinced to this day that undecided dumb-dumbs looked at Kerry’s inability to muster up even a tepid defense of his home state (and arguably the founders of American Democracy), and assumed he wouldn’t stand up for them either. And they were probably right.

These debates might be boring, but thank Secular Humanar* that Obama hasn’t been such a milquetoast. Today, Obama mocked McCain for being too chicken shit to say to his face what he’s been saying to the depraved, but happily dwindling crowds of McCain supporters. That was awesome.

In summation, I want to associate myself with Amanda’s post. It is correct.

*The god of secular humanism.

While I agree with your point 1005 I guarantee that the Obama campaign would be no more willing the change the format than huggy bears circus would.  I’ve run into both campaign this year and Obama’s operation is at least as tightly, if not more, as st.bbq’s.  I’m not running down Obama per se, only saying his effort to control the message very tightly doesn’t leave one with the impression that a looser format would be welcome.

This issue is much bigger than the debates but the debates are one good place to start the reform.

Let suggest one other change, the criteria for admitting presidential candidates should be revised.  I think that third party candidates should be allowed to participate.  This country was set up to be a two ring circus.  And don’t get me wrong, ronpaul is a complete and utter ass.  As for the other third party folk I have to admit I have no idea about them.  Shame on me.  But wouldn’t we better served allowing them into the fray at some level?  Wouldn’t they challenge these two party dinosaurs to do more than excerpt their stump speeches?

I’d hate to see it happen this year but I think in the future it’s a topic worth consideration.

If there’s any reform that I would REALLY like implemented, its: “force the candidate to answer the frickin’ QUESTION, GODDAMNIT!”  I’m not sure how to do that, without giving the moderator a cattle-prod, that is.  Well, maybe something milder will work, like a gong and a long hook.  But I wish someone would at least TRY.

Not surprisingly, I agree with Dana.  I don’t think debating skill tells us much about who would be the best Pres.  And, it was actually McCain who suggested a series of townhall meetings which might have been more of what you’re looking for.  Obama didn’t want that, because he throught McCain was too good at that kind of thing. 

I also agree with Jesse (other thread).  Who are these people who are undecided and need these debates to decide?  You got two non-choices.  The socialist liberal guy who doesn’t like America and probably won’t protect it, and the socialist liberal guy who “loves” America so much he’s likely to take us on all sorts of new warlike adventures overseas.

Bleeech.

I also agree with Dana, which is neither surprising nor unsurprising.

What was making me climb the walls last night was watching Obama get visibly frustrated with the way that McCain kept regurgitating the same tired lies and nonsense.

Unfortunately, Obama was a bit guilty of the same. What frustrated me most about the debate is that in spite of the format limitations and Brokaw’s miserable handling of his role, Obama still had the opportunity to respond more capably than he did. 

Take the Pakistan back-and-forth.  Obama answered the question with clarity; McCain responded with distortion. Obama demands the opportunity to respond, and is grudgingly granted it. So what does he do with his response time? Repeats himself!  He didn’t really address McCain’s mischaracterizations beyond reiterating his initial statement.

Seemed to me like there were several examples of missed opportunities like this. And that happened not because of the format, but because Obama was pursuing the exact same strategy McCain is being criticized for: sticking to safe, tested talking points.

I tend to forgive this in Obama as part of his overall, cool-as-a-cucumber demeanor, but it still doesn’t make it a debate.

The socialist liberal guy who doesn’t like America and probably won’t protect it

  Libertarian used to try to argue in earnest and get us to take him seriously, but has apparently given up.

You got two non-choices.  The socialist liberal guy who doesn’t like America and probably won’t protect it, and the socialist liberal guy who “loves” America so much he’s likely to take us on all sorts of new warlike adventures overseas.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read, and I’ve read the entire Sweet Valley High series.

I’ve run into both campaign this year and Obama’s operation is at least as tightly, if not more, as st.bbq’s.  I’m not running down Obama per se, only saying his effort to control the message very tightly doesn’t leave one with the impression that a looser format would be welcome.

Well, yeah, don’t forget that it was a bipartisan (Bush & Dukakis) decision to reformat the debates in the first place.  Of course the candidates are going to want the format that makes them look as good as possible.  The argument is that the debates should be run for the benefit of the voters, not the candidates.

I liked the Canadian debates this year. The moderator asks a question to one of the party leaders, and then everyone around the table gets to ask follow ups on each other and make corrections and such and the moderator just tries to keep it from becoming wild cross talk.

I’d LOVE something like that old French show (I think it was “La moment du verite”) where the person came out and was grilled by a panel of questioners who were known to have ideological biases. So the first set of questioners were from Conservative newspapers, then Socialist, then Moderate, or some such.

Of course, they also took 3 hours to do it. While I agree with Dana that debates as they currently stand don’t tell us much, I do think some kind of longer discussion where we got to see how the candidates think and explain themselves would be great.

I never expect to see it happen, though. Too risky.

Yeah, dude. Like, Obama totally hates America and apple pie and stuff.  And of course McCain is just gonna blow shit up in Terkistan and what not.  We know Real American Values™ here on Main Street Sixpackton.  You know, stuff you big city liberals hate what with your lattes and women “voters” and racial “tolerance”.

Anyways, two sides of the same coin baby!  Gold standard, etc.

I’m old enough to remember the LWV debates. They stunk too—they had panels of questioners and the candidates just made a speech in response to each question. It was like a joint press conference but without follow-ups. Believe it or not, the Commission’s debates are actually marginally better because at least they only have one moderator and vary the format.

Also, the format of the second debate was actually the Democrats’ fault. Bill Clinton was the guy who insisted on including this insipid “town hall” format, because he always looked better when you could see him relating to voters.

The Commission may be a product of the parties but there are actually some decent people there who would prefer to have better debate formats. The problem is the campaign operatives don’t want to get blamed for any gaffe that the candidate makes. So they resist most proposals that the Commission makes for better debates.

The best debates were in 1992, which was actually the one year the Commission got a lot more control of the format. (The reason was with 3 campaigns involved (Perot had qualified), the Commission exploited the inability of the parties to agree to impose their own rules.) That’s when they went to the single moderator, and they finally allowed the candidates to talk to each other rather than just giving speeches one after the other.

This complaint came up in class today.  I stated my preference for a fistfight.

they’d spend so much time correcting lies that they wouldn’t have time to be affirmative

In a live, time-constrained debate, there’s a certain advantage to the debater who’s willing to use lies, half-truths, distortions, and any number of bogus appeals.  Folks in the fight against creationism have even named the strategy of throwing out more falsehoods than your opponent can answer as The Gish Gallop, after Duane Gish, the creationist most famous for using it.

Something that would be fun and informative would be a tracking graph similar to the one CNN ran, but based on whether the audience thinks the candidate is answering the question or dodging.