Next Presidential Debate Changed to Virtual…If It Happens

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

32 Responses

  1. Marchmaine says:

    I could see evolving into a three or four part “Presidential Conference” type of format:

    Session 1 (Remote): Position Statements (3-5 min) to pre-given topics with brief rebuttal (1-2 min)
    Session 2 (Live): Candidates address opposition’s main Positions (3-5 min) with brief rebuttal (1-2 min)… plus Lightning round
    Session 3 (Live or Remote): Alternating closing statements (5-7 min x3) on main topics of choice from above… no rebuttal

    The ‘debate’ format is more of technology limitation from1960s TV. I wouldn’t go 100% canned studio statements – as that rewards a certain sort of preparation over other types – and there’s something mildly useful about seeing the candidates live together, but only to a point.

    I think the biggest miss is thinking that the moderators are a stand-in for Everyman and that they ask important questions that the candidates should answer on their feet… but they don’t and they don’t.

    Give the candidates 7-10 topics, let them prepare their positions in advance and then let the other side rebut on the fly. They basically do this anyway which is why so many questions get re-directed to a pre-planned story (whether it’s on topic or not)… so just eliminate the weakest link – the Moderator. Session 2 should re-frame the Topics based on exactly what the Candidates said in #1… so you’ve got 2 weeks to address the other team’s actual positions/statements.

    The candidates get to tell 7 stories on the same topics (if they don’t, then that’s an answer in itself)… and the opposition comments. It’s not a quiz and it’s not ‘hot topic’ based. And of course, your microphone is only on when it’s your turn to comment.Report

  2. Saul Degraw says:

    Trump is going cray cray this morning and demanding Barr indict Obama and Biden:

    Mike Lee also is tweeting that we are not a Democracy and that the most important things are securing “liberty” and “prosperity.” The problem of course being who gets to define what is and what is not liberty. Or what is and what is not “prosperity.” One thing I have noticed about a lot of white guys, is that when they think of liberty and prosperity is 100 percent about business and making money and nothing else. They seemingly have no interest or passions or inner lives outside of business and money.

    Now I am probably one of the screaming lefties of OT but I am not completely against money. I went to law school at 28 because I decided being a starving artist or struggling adjunct did not seem fun. I went to law school with a desire to work in the private sector and make money, not to be a non-profit lawyer saving the world. But a lot of white guys would seem to react with as if thunder struck them if you told them there was more to liberty and prosperity than making all the monies and being a “master of the universe.” Lee seems to think liberty means “how dare you lessers challenge my world view and notions of aristocratic privilege.” Same with Trump and company. Fuck them all.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Even setting apart Lee’s assumption that democracy is oppositional to prosperity and liberty, even on his own terms, he isn’t proposing prosperity for all or liberty for all.

      The Republicans grasp that their ideas are deeply unpopular, and rather than seek out a compromise with their fellow citizens, have decided to abandon even the pretense of respect for them or their welfare.

      This is why I am deeply worried about our future, even if Biden wins. We will still have a large plurality of Americans who have little to no support for the founding ideals of our country.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        I go back and forth between being worried and not being worried for reasons which I cannot fully articulate. On the one hand, Trump is sinking fast and I think he has quite possibly done more for a catalyst for Democratic politics than anyone else. I have a hard time believing the suburban white women who abandoned the GOP in 2016-2019 are going to go back to voting GOP so easily. I am also not sure the ratfucking is going to be so easy especially when they are so open about it. On the other hand, you are quite right about the large plurality and it is by census tractReport

    • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      [Removed: Not sure if that was sarcasm or what but you will need to rephrase that without the questionable reference] -AndrewReport

      • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

        Sarcasm or sincere?Report

        • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Sarcasm about the totally unnecessary references to Lee’s race/sex which have nothing to do with the argument. If you can’t make a point without unsupported generalizations of that nature it seems like you don’t have one at all.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

            I think Jesse is correct in his pronouncement and it jibes with my observations as well.Report

            • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              My gut is to say that you and the other identitarians just want to be allowed to make racist and sexist comments free of the charge as a sort of ‘good for the goose’ riposte to moronic, offensive generalizations.

              But maybe you do actually believe it, which may be worse. It would mean that you and your positions are just as driven by ‘feel facts’ not supportable by anything falsifiable, and in some cases (like this one) obviously baseless. Why should anyone take anything based on that kind of thinking seriously?Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

            References to a Republican being white and male are entirely necessary since the Republican project is about white male grievance.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Maybe not all Republicans but it appears to me that a good number of them are looking towards apartheid South Africa as a model. They see the United States as country for white, heterosexual, “macho,” and at least nominally Christian males.

              I think a lot of them had a massive freak out in 2008 and 2012 that has not quite calmed down yet. It might still be in fever pitch because they worry that President Biden will lead to President Harris.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                IMO, “Structural racism” is the best descriptor, since few Republicans are overtly racist.

                But they generally have what I call the “Star Trek” model of liberalism, where they are very comfortable with minorities and women in positions of power, but only on condition that the man in the center chair is a white male.

                When that model gets challenged, like in 2008, their world seems to come unglued.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Hear me out: STNG is the propaganda of the structurally racist patriarchy.

                We’re at the point of throwing the baby under the bus first… then eating it.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                DS9 was the best Star Trek. Just saying. I am not so sure about how comfortable they are with minorities and women in positions in power.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                I don’t watch American Television.

                Doctor Who is female this time around and Torchwood had both people of color and LGBTQQIIAAPDM+ cast members who were playing characters like themselves.

                Japan has interesting shows as well, but they’re subtitled and can be difficult for people who don’t like reading to keep up with.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Star Trek Picard is a giant apology tour for Captain Picard, who stood at the apex of the arrogant white male human patriarchy, which of course did absolutely everything wrong. The Federation is an evil, war-mongering clique of privileged racists, and we’d all be better off under Romulan rule.

                CBS has said so, along with “vote Biden!”Report

            • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              No, references only show that the speaker is obsessed with color and sex.Report

  3. Saul Degraw says:

    Comment in moderation.Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    The FBI apparently foiled a plot to kidnap and murder the Governor of Michigan from far-right militia types. Make of this what you will:

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    The debate commission is going to let Biden participate in the debate by himself if Trump refuses. This is not going well for Trump. I think people are pushing back against his “authority” for the first time and he does not know how to react.Report

  6. George Turner says:

    Why would the debate commission even invite Trump when Nancy is saying she’ll invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office before the debate is even scheduled to take place?Report

  7. Never mind the debate itself; there’s nothing to say about them beyond “shitshow”.

    But the idea that things need to be done in person, never mind the risk to anyone’s health, is why we’re at 200+ thousand dead, and rising. The stupid bastard had to be airlifted to the hospital and still hasn’t learned a thing.Report

  8. Philip H says:

    So it now appears that after being unwilling to debate Mr. Biden in a virtual town hall, the President has consented to a real town hall on a dueling channel. One assumes he thinks he can control the message and the coverage better. I can’t decide if I want to watch, and partake in the usual drinking games, or skip it. Either way tomorrow could be a rough night.Report

  1. October 8, 2020

    […] and two layers of plexiglass between them, something we will apparently not be getting at the next varsity team debate. But the entire feeling of this JV debate was one of points not mattering. VP selections and debates […]Report