in an ongoing media spectacle.

What these events ‘ought to be’ is irrelevant.

But I warn you, this will sap a lot of the fun from the victory of a team of convicts over an Ivy League team, both of whom followed the rules for "debate."

One side followed the rules within the context of a ‘debate’, the other within the context of a ‘media spectacle’.

There is a reason why republicans are trained to use techniques like ‘gish gallops’, they are very effective performance techniques.

All of which is almost irrelevant to what happened at that debate.

The first one was the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate. People who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won because Nixon looked sweaty and nervous, but those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won. It's all about the optics, the performance and the spectacle. Now that we've got big screen HDTVs and instant Internet and a history of 60+ years of glammed-up TV spectacles that's all we want and all we expect. I wonder what the collective verdict on the debate would have been if it had only been on the radio? Would people still have focused on Biden's vocal hesitations or would they have listened to his actual words?

the need for Democrats to replace him. So, I think the political commentators at NPR don't care what the audience thinks, only how their review will play with the other commentators. I suspect our national punditry are mainly talking to each other, not the public.

I have seen many of these armchair debate critics make claims of what should have been said. Amazingly some of them fail miserably when interviewing candidates under circumstances where they control the narrative.

for sixty years is unacceptable and no amount of "what it should be" will change that.

Crying about a flood of bullshit and lies from history's most documented, unhinged, and prolific liar is the definition of ridiculous because absolutely nothing else was ever on offer.

If you didn't anticipate that then you cannot be counted on to be a reliable source on which direction the Sun will rise in tomorrow.

The campaign and candidate have to be a lot better and any pushback on that reads as either delusional or an insistence from the one doing the pushing back that better is not in the cards and the only play is to somehow sneak past the graveyard.

If the latter is the case then we really need to have some tough conversations and have them quickly so I'm sticking with the expectation of serious and immediate improvement and that doesn't just mean sounding better reading a prepared speech during daylight hours.

But in case I wasn't clear, what I was trying to talk about was why the major media talked about a debate for weeks and then reported on a performance, and reported only one side at that. We all anticipated an event in which one man would talk policy and facts while the other man pelted him with food, verbally. So we all knew that, but the media didn't anticipate it. I have been trying to figure out the reasons why, as well as wondering whether it's possible to communicate with the media on just how destructive their current practices are. Because the media aren't really the Republican Party. They're a separate entity, and they think they're doing a terrific job. So I keep wondering whether we can extract the media from their present practice, which is making sure we all hear every word ttc has to say, thus giving him enormous amounts of free publicity.

He is also supported by the entire advertising industry that has always supported the Republican party. The Republicans do not care about governing. They care about winning while Democrats like President Biden come to debates with the idea these platforms exist to discuss policy differences. It is like a professional wrestling match where the masses come to watch cruelty and deceit on full display.

I did not watch the debate. But nearly the entire commentary post debate appears to be Biden 'walked slowly, his skin was pale, he mis-spoke and corrected himself, he stammered, he coughed, his voice was weak, etc.'
Pure media manipulation. None of these things are important.
I remember when Dubya was running for office the first time. I had made a commitment to myself to learn about how our government works in more detail so first up was an early GOP debate in probably late 1998. There were a lot of candidates on stage and Dubya was at the far left. I listened to the whole painful thing. Bush did not answer one single question, he just leaned on the podium, bobbed his head and yucked at his own jokes like he did throughout his Presidency. Next morning, reviewing the on line national news, every single major news organization was crowing about Bush's masterful performance. It has been this way ever since.

More recently, I sort of half listened to the NYT talk show on NPR on which a young reporter positively vibrated with admiration for Vivek Ramaswamy, a short-lived Republican candidate. Energy! That's what this kid reporter thought we needed. If only Rs had some brain cells to direct their energy, of which they admittedly have plenty.

And welcome to this madhouse.