Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forumKeep Audiences Out of Debates--Forever
Sunday nights 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 groups 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 nights contest showed that, in the absence of a crowd cheering on the combatants more pandering tendencies, a debate can be a useful exercise after alla 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.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
COLGATE4
(14,840 posts)The no-audience format does a great service to the candidates and, more importantly to the voters.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
NBachers
(18,136 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
drray23
(7,965 posts)It forced the candidates to focus on the debate rather than producing zingers for the audience to get applause.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
The Velveteen Ocelot
(120,903 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
customerserviceguy
(25,185 posts)No "zingers" to get laughs made the debate much more substantive. However, Colbert's show without an audience was worse than with a live audience.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Wednesdays
(20,313 posts)I'm tired of the debates becoming a circus.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
fierywoman
(8,108 posts)she put forward the idea that broadcasting the Senate actually worked against anyone working with anyone else because the truth is, since the broadcasts, there's never anyone in the chamber and the speakers tend to pander to the camera and it's audience.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
The Mouth
(3,285 posts)But it's pretty bloody obvious now.
Good post, K&R
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
WhiskeyGrinder
(23,879 posts)of an audience made them rely more on substance and less on playing to the live audience.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
mcar
(43,512 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
William769
(55,830 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden