Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have theoretically agreed to three debates. But the value of those debates will be dramatically limited because the Commission on Presidential Debates, which runs them, is a private organization controlled by elites from the two major parties whose goal is to protect their standard-bearers.
And under the guidance of the commission, presidential debates have become echo chambers for the two major party candidates to repeat familiar talking points and lob rehearsed one-liners, rarely deviating from their scripts.
Each cycle, the CPD decides not just the time and location of the debates, but the format and who will ask the questions. Meanwhile, the Republican and Democratic campaigns also negotiate a joint “Memorandum of Understanding” laying out a host of details about how the candidates are to be treated. Although the CPD claims that the MOUs are not binding on the organization, the contracts themselves specify that if the commission does not abide by them, the campaigns reserve the right to seek an alternative sponsor.
That means Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will find the terms to their liking — and the American public will be cheated out of its best chance to see the major candidates engage in a robust discussion of the issues facing the country.
But these debates could be far better. Among the most often-cited possible improvements: They could allow for longer response times; require candidates to ask each other open-ended questions; invite third parties; and be moderated by panelists who are experts in various subject areas and who are free to aggressively follow up on candidate responses, pushing them to dig down into policy questions.
The single easiest change would be to pick knowledgeable, confrontational moderators. By contrast, Jim Lehrer, a milquetoast PBS anchor who serves on the CPD’s board, has been chosen to moderate the debates 12 times. His performance in a 2012 Obama-Romney debate — where he asked overly broad questions and repeatedly allowed both candidates to simply talk over his attempts to intervene — was appropriately savaged by media critics.
One could just imagine how such a weak moderator would try, and fail, to corral the bombastic Donald Trump in his debates with Hillary Clinton.
Where the CPD-run debates excel is in serving the goals of the party elders and lobbyists who run the commission and who value the smooth functioning of their political parties over the public interest.
Run by Party Elites and Lobbyists, Sponsored by Corporations
In 1988, the CPD wrested the stewardship of general election presidential debates away from the fiercely independent League of Women Voters (LWV), which had run the events from 1976 to 1984.
The CPD is nominally a nonpartisan organization, but its co-chairmen, Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr., and Michael McCurry, are senior Republican and Democratic Party figures, both of whom leveraged their time in politics to later work for corporate interests.
Fahrenkopf chaired the Republican National Committee for six years before joining the Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm Hogan & Hartson. From 1998 to 2013, he was the president of the American Gaming Association, a lobbying group for for-profit gambling interests.
McCurry is a former Clinton White House press secretary who today works for the D.C.-based corporate and political communications firm Public Strategies Washington. Although his current client list is not public, he was employed on the “Hands Off Internet” campaign in 2006, working for telecommunications companies to kill net neutrality.
The commission’s board of directors is composed of an entire strata of America’s elites including Howard G. Buffett, the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, Newton N. Minow, a former chairman of Citigroup and Time Warner — and Jim Lehrer.
The debates themselves are consistently sponsored by private corporations. This year’s sponsors have yet to be announced, but in the past, they have included AT&T, Anheuser-Busch, Southwest Airlines, J.P. Morgan, Ford Motor Company, and the Washington, D.C., international law firm Crowell & Moring.
The CPD has not included a third-party candidate in a presidential debate since Ross Perot ran in 1992. Since 2000, its rules state that only candidates who consistently poll over 15 percent in national polls should be included.
A Stilted and Stage-Managed Format
Under pressure from the Democratic and Republican campaigns, the CPD has become notorious for picking the most nonadversarial and noncontroversial panelists possible, so that campaigns will not object or threaten to boycott the debates.
The debates for the 2012 general election debates featured no black or Latino moderators. Politico noted that the average age of the chosen debate moderators was 69, and none were drawn from new media.
“In order to be considered as a candidate for moderator you have to be soaked in the sphere of consensus, likely to stay within the predictable inner rings of the sphere of legitimate controversy, and unlikely in the extreme to select any questions from the sphere of deviance,” media critic Jay Rosen told Politico.
The CPD took the unusual step in 2012 of announcing the general topics of the first, domestic policy-focused debate before it actually took place. The goal, CPD Executive Director Janet Brown told U.S. News & World Report, was “to have the candidates come prepared for a more in-depth conversation.” But the topics listed – the economy, health care, the role of government, and governing — tipped the candidates off that they wouldn’t have to prepare at length to speak about issues like criminal justice or surveillance. And few would describe the debate that ensued as an “in-depth conversation.”
The MOUs sometimes limit audience participation. In 1992, audience members in a town hall-oriented debate were allowed to ask questions and then follow up, giving them the ability to express their pleasure or displeasure over the answer. Four years later, follow-up questions were banned. In 2012, even the moderator of the town hall debate was not allowed to ask follow-up questions.
But when Obama and Romney debated that year, moderator Candy Crowley showed a flash of independence by real-time fact-checking Romney’s claim that Obama didn’t call the Benghazi attacks terrorism for 14 days.
“He did in fact, sir,” she said.
And with those five words, she set off a firestorm of criticism, primarily from Republicans, for stepping outside the agreed to boundaries – actually taking a candidate to task for a false statement with a follow-up statement.
The campaigns also insist on banning open-ended candidate-to-candidate questioning. This form of cross-examination would make candidates directly confront each others’ political positions and philosophy, potentially departing from talking points and scripts. Every MOU that has been made public banned this form of questioning, although moderator Jim Lehrer did allow the candidates to directly question each other about each others’ responses in 2012.
The value of letting candidates ask each other questions was demonstrated in a non-CPD primary debate in 2008, when John Edwards set off a lengthy discussion about money in politics by directly asking Obama why his campaign had become the top recipient in the country of health industry dollars.
Narrow Debates Bound Between the Two Parties
By aggressively resisting the presence of third-party candidates, CPD debates are limited to the ideologies of the major campaigns. The result is that if neither party wants to address an issue, it doesn’t get addressed.
For example, after the first Gore-Bush debate in 2000, the Washington Post wrote an editorial titled “The Campaign’s Missing Issues,” noting that there was no debate between the candidates on issues like “free trade, the independence of the Federal Reserve and engagement with allies,” as well as other topics like capital punishment. The newspaper had a simple explanation for their absence: “because the two candidates … agree.”
The 2012 debates featured a single question about the controversial drone program, with moderator Bob Schieffer asking Mitt Romney his position on their use — given that we “know President Obama’s position on this.” Romney replied that he agreed with Obama and that “we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.”
Without the presence of either a moderator — or a third party — to challenge both candidates on such an important issue, there was no actual debate.
There is also a problem with the lack of depth. From 1984 to 2000, for instance, the amount of time candidates were given for their initial responses to a question shrank from 4.5 minutes to two minutes
In 2012, the CPD tackled this problem by dividing the debates into six 15-minute blocks, where candidates would have two minutes to offer their initial response to a question and then engage in follow-up debate for the remainder of the time.
But it still let them hew closely to their scripts. For instance, Lehrer asked Romney. “What is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? Is there too much? And in your case, Mr. President is there – should there be more?”
The question was so incredibly broad it could have served as the basis of a 90-minute debate by itself. But Lehrer went on to say, “And we’ll go for a few minutes, then we’ll go to health care, OK?”
In the high school or collegiate debate circuits, spending a matter of minutes on topics of such import and then quickly moving onto another gigantic topic would be unheard of. But in our televised debates, it has become the norm.
Fixing the Debates
Reformers have suggested alternatives.
One proposal sponsored by the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project at American University’s Washington College of Law suggests that any candidate should be invited to participate who achieves enough ballot access to theoretically win the election and who is registering at 5 percent in national polls (the same amount needed to receive federal funding) — or who the majority of Americans tell pollsters they want included in the debates.
In 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan would have made the cut. This year, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson is easily crossing the 5 percent threshold. Green Party candidate Jill Stein is just shy of it.
The more parties that are represented, the broader the debate. Neither Clinton nor Trump, for instance, are calling for an end to the drug war, significantly reducing the military budget, taxing carbon, ending the death penalty, or establishing a publicly run universal health insurance system – despite the fact that nontrivial numbers of Americans, and some third parties such as the Libertarian and Green parties, want to see these options explored.
Today, most debate questions are developed by a small set of moderators and panelists chosen by the CPD, who derive them primarily from mainstream media campaign coverage. This encourages groupthink and prevents outside-the-box questions. The Citizens Debate Commission — a coalition of public leaders across the political spectrum — has proposed that a panel of moderators quiz the candidates.
Generalist moderators would be replaced with a “diverse panel of academic, civic, artistic, religious, media, labor and business leaders” — subject matter experts and representative of different American communities who would ask questions that matter to them, and could fact-check responses in real time.
Rutgers University historian David Greenberg authored an article shortly after the first Obama-Romney debates advocating that approach. Choosing subject matter experts as panelists would elevate the risks for candidates but would better serve the public interest, he told The Intercept. “You’d just get more unpredictability and originality” in the questions, he said, and greater depth in the questioning. He used the example of a criminologist asking candidates about the policy tradeoffs between harder policing and black incarceration rates — something few television news anchors would be prepared to tackle.
Although no general-election debate has ever used this format, the LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC) held a forum with the Democratic presidential candidates in 2007 to press them on issues of gay and lesbian equality. The panelists were not just journalists, but also leaders who had worked in the community. For them, the issues being discussed were personal, and it showed in their sharp and persistent questioning.
When Obama insisted that he supported civil unions but wanted religious faiths to be able to decide what was marriage or not, HRC President Joe Solmonese followed up: “But on the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where that comes across as sounding separate, but equal?”
Lesbian rocker Melissa Etheridge asked Bill Richardson if being gay is a choice. He replied that he thought it was. Etheridge was taken aback. “I don’t know if you understand the question. Do you think a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, ‘Ooh, I want to be gay?'” Richardson replied that he wasn’t a scientist, leading to more umbrage from Etheridge.
There is also the idea of having the American people, rather than moderators, choose the questions.
In the spring of 2016, a broad spectrum of groups and individuals, including Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist, National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill, and Wikipedia Co-Founder Jimmy Wales sponsored what they called an “Open Debate” – where the questions were generated by 400,000 Internet votes – for Florida’s Democratic and Republican primaries for U.S. Senate.
Every question that was asked by the debate’s moderators was drawn from the 30 questions that received the most votes — a sort of Reddit for democracy.
The questions reflected popular issues such as overhauling the campaign finance system, ending “Too Big To Fail” banks, combating climate change by keeping fossil fuels in the ground, and tackling student debt.
The Open Debate Coalition is currently in negotiations with the CPD to urge it to adopt their program.
And while contemporary presidential debates strictly limit the time allotted to candidates to address the questions placed before them, and allow little interaction between candidates on the major issues, the report of a working group led by Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center this year suggested diminishing the role of the moderators and allowing candidates to interact directly with one another.
The group suggested what it called the “chess clock” format where candidates simply have to stay within their total block of time. Jamieson and her colleagues suggested that in a two-candidate debate each candidate receives 45 minutes of total speaking time, with three minutes maximum allotted to any question, answer, or rebuttal. Each time they want to speak, they hit their chess clock. When their 45 minutes are up, their time expires.
The goal is to “increase the direct candidate clash about substantive issues,” Jamieson told The Intercept.
Robert Rosenkrantz and John Donvan wrote an op-ed in February suggesting the debates instead adopt the same format they have used more than a hundred times with leading public intellectuals and academics, government officials, and other thought leaders in their popular debate series Intelligence Squared.
These debates are done in the Oxford-style format, meaning that there is a resolution put before the debaters – say, “The United States should ban handguns,” and the debaters spend the entirety of their time debating that one resolution.
“We propose a miniseries of hourlong debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees, each on a single resolution crafted to expose their fundamental differences,” they wrote.
Although it may seem unorthodox in today’s frantic debate environment, this proposal actually has its roots in American history. The first of the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates revolved entirely around the two candidates’ views on the future of slavery.
One could imagine similar, single-issue debates around a number of topics today: immigration reform, money in politics, the Middle East, and economic inequality.
Great article. I can not believe people are not upset about who control is and sponsors our debate system.
It’s also upsetting about how they treat 3rd party and Independent candidate’s.
Your article should be front page news.
Sounds like the FED
Over 350 years before the first presidential debate the Bard of Avon described them with amazing accuracy: “a tale told by [two] idiot[s] full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
As George Carlin called it,’the illusion of democracy’.
If someone spit in your face and called you the N word would you open your wallet and give them 100.00 dollars?
This is exactly what you do when you buy from advertisers on Fox news.
They know it is white nationalist.
You dont just vote at polls you vote with dollars.
In states that have they say no state tax but tax everything you buy at say 6 percent you make 20,000 30,000 you pay a lot bigger percentage of your pay than rich 1,000,000 plus, so you pay for your own killing and imprisonment not them.
Vote with your feet get out of there.
If you work where they advertise on fox news find a new job every white person there now you are only hired because they have to comply with laws find a new job.
You can sign a petition requesting that the debates be opened to all four candidates at http://rootsaction.org/featured-actions/1262-petition-to-open-up-the-presidential-debates
What will a better debate get us? It will get us a president who promises us the world and then do the exact opposite once in office. Is it the weekend yet?
debates that don’t suck:
1 debate in space — candidates debate from orbit
2 debate under water —- candidates debate from inside submarines
3 mystery shopper format — candidates have to work cash registers in a big box store worrying about “mystery shopper who is really debate moderator and will ask hard question.” [Note: there is no mystery shopper, we just want to make them work 8 hour shifts at a big box store.]
4 riddle of the sphinx — candidate must answer the question of the sphinx or the sphinx kills them. Great way to narrow down choices. (Hillary: “That’s a very interesting question…..” Donald Trump “Spinxes love me, you’re gonna see, sphinxes really love me”)
5 monty python holy grail bit —- (in case candidates still left after sphinx riddle debate)
MY MOST CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE IDEA YET:
6 alex trebec “jeopardy” style debate —- this is the best idea. In Alex Trebec debate, candidates phrase answers in the form of a question, and when they say the wrong thing, Alex Trebec says “I’m sorry that’s not the correct answer.” This is a great way of arriving at good policy, because basically once Alex Trebec says what the right answers we, as Americans, will know what to do: follow that policy.
What are you, like fifteen or something?
Geez, when the hell are you going to stop making a complete ass out of yourself?
Huh, you little dick-sucker?
You need to believe in yourself.
If we only read the “progressive” media, we still wouldn’t know there are 3rd party candidates for president. But let’s blame someone else for screwing up politics.
There are quite a few progressive outlets that take the third party candidates seriously (See Counterpunch, FAIR). It’s the mainstream media that ignores them.
All elections should be sponsored by the government, anyone can run, pay $500, just to keep it for serious candidates. Have local runoffs, regional, state, then national. Everyone is given equal time in the media, that increases as they progress. This would be a candidate that was picked by the people, not a candidate that is first picked by rich powerful people who who make sure everything a candidate stand for protects the powerful, disregarding the public. Problem is the ones in power will never change a good thing, where they are in power. It will take a uniting of the masses to force change. Lets go.
I’ve decided; If Gary Johnson isn’t allowed in the debates-I’m not voting.
they will be impressed by your lack of participation I am sure.
Gary Johnson thanks you for —- wait, you won’t even vote for Gary Johnson though? Maybe Gary Johnson wouldn’t thank you then.
Yep, you’re fifteen – I’m now sure of it…and you’re a little dick-sucker.
I know there are people who love you Victoria — reach out to them okay? No matter what you have done, some people will never give up on you.
Sending a virtual hug your way — everybody, come on, let’s tell Victoria she is loved and matters.
Yes, it is a rigged system – from top to bottom – as Donald Trump has the balls to say outright.
Why not at least give him credit for that?
Haven’t you seen, The Emperor Donald has no balls.
How did they do that, one may wonder … I’m glad you asked:
Wikipedia: “In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a “memorandum of understanding” that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.””
*snip []…
“In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity labeled the CPD a “secretive tax-exempt organization.” CPI analyzed the 2004 financials of the CPD, and found that 93 percent of the contributions to the non-profit CPD came from just six donors, the names of all of which were blacked out on the donor list provided to the CPI.[14]
In August 2012, an informal group called Help the Commission on Presidential Debates, as a reaction to the CPD website having no contact information,[15] offered to print out comments sent to them and hand-deliver the printouts to CPD.[16] They claim success in getting the CPD to post an e-mail address,[17][18] but since then attempts to hand-deliver printed comments have been met with threats of arrest.[19]”
If America is going to be a worthy and legitimate democracy, then it must be law that any broadcaster or comm network hosting a presidential debate, MUST ALLOW ALL CANDIDATES. If it takes 8 hours to get thru this, then so be it, people are accustomed to working 8 hours and the networks and candidates should have no legitimate reason to complain.
Hmmm. . .but would Jill Stein and Gary Johnson be welcome at this party?
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/files/2015/03/arabia-mccain-polesi-1024×712.jpg
I just love this picture so much. . . so telling, so illustrative, so completely perverted and messed up. Nancy Pelosi – ardent Democrat, champion of women’s rights! and John McCain, militant war hero and ardent anti-ISIS patriot! going to kiss the arse of the new Saudi King, notable financier of ISIS terrorist groups, head of the most repressive country in the world when it comes to women’s rights! Oh dear. . . Pelosi and McCain, what do you have to say for yourselves, you godawful ass clowns?
I mean, it’s so beautiful, so telling, such a snapshot. It should be the Time-Life image of the decade, really, if not of the 21st century. Utterly at odds with corporate media narratives, so hard for the Democrats and Republicans to explain away.
This is really what it comes down to – America the Empire vs. America the Democracy. See all the pressure on Obama over Winston Churchill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxb8FwhzK8
We can have a robust democracy, or we can have an authoritarian empire – we can’t have both. That’s the real choice at hand.
Winston Churchill is the only non-US person with a US naval vessel named for him that also oversaw spying operations against the US. (Unless you count Churchill as a US citizen- or don’t count Jefferson Davis, Confederate Generals and/or Tecumseh.)
But would Jill Stein and Gary Johnson be allowed at this party?
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/files/2015/03/arabia-mccain-polesi-1024×712.jpg
I really love this photo – so perverted, so messed up, so telling. A Time-Life image of the decade, if not of the entire 21st century – here we have Nancy Pelosi, leading Democrat, champion of woman’s rights, and John McCain, leading Republican, anti-ISIS war patriot, chortling together as they go to kiss the arse of the new Saudi King, who happens to be the world worst abuser of women as well as the leading sponsor of ISIS! Fascinating, really.
Obama is in front of them in the que, but this photo shows where Congress sits; bloated arms deals, oil money, screw human rights, snicker snicker. It’s a replay of the last days of the British Empire:
Churchill: “I speak to you in a solemn hour, for the life of our country, of our Empire”
Obama: “I love Winston Churchill, I love the guy. . .”
(This might get posted twice, but it’s worth saying several times).
There’s one man for the job:
Bob. Costas. The walking wiki-frickin-pedia.
That sounds so unbearable that it might be funny.
In the middle he’ll say “that reminds me of Mickey Mantle….” out of nowhere.
Costas is a great guy- and I’ve met him and got his autograph. I do think he’s quite Russophobic, so he might not be a good moderator on foreign policy.
How do you allow a private organization run by elites from only two political parties to determine who will be allowed to speak in a presidential debate?
Just ponder that for a little while and then splain me what kind of “democracy” does this?!
The kind of democracy where the government does not directly control the media’s political speech. You seem to be in favor of either socialism or repealing the first amendment. Socialism isn’t bad, don’t get me wrong.
Soooo…you’re OK with corporate control of government? They did that in the 1930s in Europe, especially in Italy, Spain and Germany. Then, in the resulting WW2, they made millions while drafted kids (not their own, of course) got killed and wounded cleaning up their mess.
But you make sure that the gummint keeps its hands off medicare, now.
This is what Jill Stein and Gary Johnson should do regarding all three debates:
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson should get together on a stage with an audience and have podiums similar to the ones Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be using.
They should use their best detectives to find out what the backdrop of the “official” debate will look like and do their best to replicate it.
On the nights of the three debates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson should answer any questions given to Clinton and Trump and have any little to and fro they like.
Then with the magic of editing they can find a team of techno geeks to “place them into the debate” easy peasy.
Next the debate with all “four candidates” can be sent out on social media and be passed around. And believe me, it WILL get passed around. Their creative involvement in the debate will also become a topic of conversation in the MSM, especially if it hits top websites and creates a buzz.
Regardless of what the “official” Presidential debate commission wants to happen on those nights, Stein and Johnson should magically insert themselves into the action and let the chips fall where they may.
This will accomplish several things.
One, it will show the American people how corrupt the “official” debate commission is.
Two, it will introduce the voting public to all four candidates whether or not the “corporate” media likes it or not.
Three, the results of including Stein and Johnson in a “manufactured debate” will very possibly have an affect on the polling leading to the election and may sway enough voters to change the election results away from the MSM’s desired outcome.
It is worth a try.
Brilliant idea! Jill, Gary, I’ll donate $100 to each of you if you do it.
This is not about who wins the presidency. This about how we do democracy.
VERY DOABLE.
VERY.
Democracy Now! Is doing exactly that very 4 years
http://m.democracynow.org
That’s a great idea
So have the campaigns and the people do basically what only CNN had the resources and the will to do in 1980. I like it.
Sometimes there is little in our democracy that seems very democratic, isn’t there?
This inspires petitions, Mr Jilani.
If we are supposed to “be the change we want to see in the world,” then what change is it we want to see if we vote for Trump? What hell is it we are watching unfold in the world right now, dirty tricks? Politics is a big hall-of-mirrors feedback loop. Why petitions when we have the chance to vote? Obviously we cannot beat sense into people through threats and violence; I still persist in believing our biggest problem right now is our lack of education on the whole.
Incidentally, you do realize this country was never a democracy, right? Neither by name nor definition. I tend to believe we have kind of failed at “democratic republic” as well.
I’m surprised a bit by the confidence that the Republican representatives will do everything they can for Trump. Will they? The way it sounds recently, some of them have out the long knives for him. Who’s on that committee? I don’t know, but I’m thinking this might just turn out to be the most comically biased debate moderation in the history of history.
Hilarious. Best comment on the page. Historically challenged American uses the word history twice in the same sentence. Americans — especially American SocPups — citing history never disappoint.
In another thread he makes a brilliant quip suggesting the population of Brazil move to Uruguay. He knows Uruguay is in South America too! (Makes me wonder if he’s really an American.)
I’m thinking Wnt might be one of the most highly regarded opinion spreaders in the department. I bet he just wings it sometimes, and doesn’t even use his opinion-generator app.
Holy cow agent smith. Did he strike a chord?
Debates made sense in the distant past, when candidates had a single stand on the issues. Now the campaigns have multiple stands on every issue, each one targeted to a particular audience. So a national debate no longer makes sense.
For example, Facebook allows the candidates to tailor an automated personal message to each person on their platform, designed to appeal to that person’s idiosyncrasies. That’s why you see Neocons flocking to Mrs. Cinton’s campaign; she has crafted a sales pitch designed to appeal exclusively to them. If she broadcast the same message to the general public, it would cause a massive national panic. Obviously she wouldn’t do that.
Presidential debates still have their place in history, and the US can continue to point to the Douglas-Lincoln debates as a validation of the US political system. But such idiosyncratic curiosities from the past have no place in present day America.
Like everything else this time the debates, if they can even be called that, suffers from the same nonsense the rest of this year has come to expect. God know what might transpire if a real debate broke out, you know like those in college when everything hang in the balance on actual content and wether it could be backed up by the sources inspiring lively replies with substance. Give me 20 minutes with each and I’ll know who has actually prepped and can stand up my meager scrutiny. Anyway there’s always Netflix to keep us amused because these won’t mean a fucking thing.
Bravo…a very good article..
Did I miss any mention of Perot?
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should be included in at least the first debate.
At least they would ask the other candidates pointed questions.
Yes..
“f
t
?
?
30
Why the Presidential Debates Will Suck Even Though They Don’t Have To
Zaid Jilani
Aug. 16 2016, 10:58 a.m.
Photo illustration by The Intercept. Getty Images.
DONALD TRUMP AND Hillary Clinton have theoretically agreed to three debates. But the value of those debates will be dramatically limited because the Commission on Presidential Debates, which runs them, is a private organization controlled by elites from the two major parties whose goal is to protect their standard-bearers.
And under the guidance of the commission, presidential debates have become echo chambers for the two major party candidates to repeat familiar talking points and lob rehearsed one-liners, rarely deviating from their scripts.
Each cycle, the CPD decides not just the time and location of the debates, but the format and who will ask the questions. Meanwhile, the Republican and Democratic campaigns also negotiate a joint “Memorandum of Understanding” laying out a host of details about how the candidates are to be treated. Although the CPD claims that the MOUs are not binding on the organization, the contracts themselves specify that if the commission does not abide by them, the campaigns reserve the right to seek an alternative sponsor.
That means Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will find the terms to their liking — and the American public will be cheated out of its best chance to see the major candidates engage in a robust discussion of the issues facing the country.
But these debates could be far better. Among the most often-cited possible improvements: They could allow for longer response times; require candidates to ask each other open-ended questions; invite third parties; and be moderated by panelists who are experts in various subject areas and who are free to aggressively follow up on candidate responses, pushing them to dig down into policy questions.
The single easiest change would be to pick knowledgeable, confrontational moderators. By contrast, Jim Lehrer, a milquetoastPBS anchor who serves on the CPD’s board, has been chosen to moderate the debates 12 times. His performance in a 2012 Obama-Romney debate — where he asked overly broad questions and repeatedly allowed both candidates to simply talk over his attempts to intervene — was appropriately savaged by media critics.
One could just imagine how such a weak moderator would try, and fail, to corral the bombastic Donald Trump in his debates with Hillary Clinton.
Where the CPD-run debates excel is in serving the goals of the party elders and lobbyists who run the commission and who value the smooth functioning of their political parties over the public interest.
Run by Party Elites and Lobbyists, Sponsored by Corporations
In 1988, the CPD wrested the stewardship of general election presidential debates away from the fiercely independent League of Women Voters (LWV), which had run the events from 1976 to 1984.
The CPD is nominally a nonpartisan organization, but its co-chairmen, Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr., and Michael McCurry, are senior Republican and Democratic Party figures, both of whom leveraged their time in politics to later work for corporate interests.
Fahrenkopf chaired the Republican National Committee for six years before joining the Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm Hogan & Hartson. From 1998 to 2013, he was thepresident of the American Gaming Association, a lobbying group for for-profit gambling interests.
McCurry is a former Clinton White House press secretary who today works for the D.C.-based corporate and political communications firm Public Strategies Washington. Although his current client list is not public,he was employed on the “Hands Off Internet” campaign in 2006, working for telecommunications companies to kill net neutrality.
The commission’s board of directors is composed of an entire strata of America’s elites including Howard G. Buffett, the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, Newton N. Minow, a former chairman of Citigroup and Time Warner — and Jim Lehrer.
The debates themselves are consistently sponsored by private corporations. This year’s sponsors have yet to be announced, but in the past, they have included AT&T, Anheuser-Busch, Southwest Airlines, J.P. Morgan, Ford Motor Company, and the Washington, D.C., international law firm Crowell & Moring.
The CPD has not included a third-party candidate in a presidential debate since Ross Perot ran in 1992. Since 2000, its rules state that only candidates who consistently poll over 15 percent in national polls should be included.”
Sorry, cut and paste fail..
Yes, was my answer,
“The CPD has not included a third-party candidate in a presidential debate since Ross Perot ran in 1992. Since 2000, its rules state that only candidates who consistently poll over 15 percent in national polls should be included.”
This 15% threshold reminds me of the story when the parents told the children do not eat any of the chicken during the meal when our guests get here. And then when dessert is served it is announced if you did not eat any chicken you cannot have dessert.
The thing is, the Presidential ‘debates’, like the press coverage of campaigns, is NOT intended to examine the candidates positions and proposed policies. It is intended to convince the American populace that where the ‘two’ parties agree on something, THERE IS NO DEBATE, the mutual position is the only rational one, and that where the ‘two’ parties disagree (microscopically), the two positions cover the ENTIRE spectrum of rationality.
And that, more than any of the voter suppression measures (both the ones built into the system at the deepest levels that ‘both’ parties find comfortable, and the ones the disagree on) is responsible for the low rates of voting. Most of those who stay home see (usually accurately) no effective difference between the ‘two’ parties, and even those who want to see important issues at least debated find nothing inspirational in the (often empty) posturing and word salad utterances on those issues.
PS, the reason for the ‘quote’ marks around the plurals when referring to the ‘parties’ is because they are effectively one party, the Party Of War, Elite lobbyists/lawyers, and coRporations, aka POWER, and, just as in the USSR, if you’re not a member of the Party, the mechanisms and arms of the state are focused on crushing you out of society.
I give you an “A”, on that comment.
There is only one way to bring a sense of reality to these three upcoming debates.
It is to simultaneously televise them split screen with a World Wrestling Exhibition.
I believe the threshold to participate in the debates is 15% in polling with five different polling organizations, not 5%.
Did you see the Greenwald pieces on how the polls in Brazil were manipulated to make it seem there wasn’t broad support for impeaching Temer, or having a new election? Exactly the same manipulation as was highlighted in the first report (the limiting of the offered choices) is used to make sure that only the DemocRepublican candidates get to participate (in effect, making the election process two primaries, with no real election)
Yes, as the article states:
“The CPD has not included a third-party candidate in a presidential debate since Ross Perot ran in 1992. Since 2000, its rules state that only candidates who consistently poll over 15 percent in national polls should be included.”
5%, 15%, 50%. Doesn’t matter, really, it’s what the PTB wants, that matters.
The Golden Rule: People( MSM, Wall St. PTB) with the gold make the rules
Because the MSM is scheduling them on Friday nights and such. They don’t want anyone seeing Hillary’s sick, weak a$$ get destroyed. Trump will probably make a comment and she will cough for 10 minutes.
Not to mention she laughed about getting a child rapist off. She sold Uranium to Russia and gives the Saudi’s our tax dollars for millions in speeches for her foundation. Evil b*tch is using our money to send weapons, security, ect to the Saudi’s, while Bill shows up and speaks for 30min and gets $250,000.
Lol……we aren’t stupid.
Any party that believes in the Federal Reserve and income taxes are Tyrants.
Imagine when you turned 18, your mom and dad said if you stay here and do as we say, while never being self dependent, and I will give you $100 each wk? Vs. Not getting any money, but having complete freedom to do as you like while using your own skills and being creative to make even more than $100 /wk.
Which option do Libertarians choose and which one do Liberals and Socialist choose?
The problem with Libertarian ideology is that Libertarians seem to think the roads and bridges and emergency services and ports and water treatment plants and sewer lines and water lines and public schools just magically appear out of thin air.
Put a Libertarian down in the middle of a wilderness – with no such “socialist” infrastruture, and your Libertarisn will be nothing but a pre-industrial, pre-agricultural hunter-and-gatherer – yes, that requires a lot of skill and creativity – but there isn’t enough wilderness left to support that lifestyle for very many people, is there?
Put a Libertarian down in a city, they’ll say, “I should have the freedom to not pay for sewer services, I’ll just use a chamber pot and throw my feces and urine out in the street each day. Worked in medieval Europe, didn’t it? Freedom from government regulation!”
What are you talking about Libertarians not wanting to pay for services? Actually, that completely goes against the belief of Libertarians because getting a service or taking something from someone without authorization is stealing.
2nd of all most EMT (emergency services) are private companies. 3rd of all, my city forces me to pay for police services when I do not want them at ALL!! If I get hurt and an ambulance is called, I work so I have money to pay for that. No problem. I don’t vote for Democrats and Republicans to steal from people to pay for my services.
4th example, my city has a Democrat Mayor that signed onto agemda 21 for tornado relief funds from Obama. He then took a raise and cut back our garbage pickup to 1 day/wk from 2.
Do you think I can start a trash pickup in my city? Hell no because these tyrannical criminals have a monopoly on it, and will not give any license (thanks to regulations).
Not only that, do you enjoy Flouride in your water? Edward Bernays came up with this because it is an extremely toxic poison that is a bi-product from making Aluminum. Also came up with Virginia Slims are for women and market it for them. The Democrats are the party of slavery.
If you vote for someone to steal from others, that makes you an immoral accomplice to the crime.
YouTube some Doug Casey “best anarchy speech” and learn something.
Minimal government, not no government. Libertarians are not anarchists. Certain things just make sense for the government to do for everybody. Roads, pipes, police, electricity, these should be socialized. But for government to subsidize certain crops, to enmesh itself in health care in such confusing ways, outlawing competition and allowing trusts, to invade other countries and spend billions to control oil…
The government should do what needs to be done by the government and no more.
Why did you leave schools and hospitals off your list?
The only “tax” I would agree with is the gas tax for the roads. The only problem with this is the fact that this fund is completely drained by the criminal Governments that have looted it along with social security.
So you believe that the state has the right to steal from you to pay for police protection services? I do not need nor want police services AT ALL! I know my rights, I carry protection, and I will use deadly force if my life is danger. I do not need a government criminal in a Police Fraternity to help me or my family.
Government – a group of criminal gangs that have a monopoly on force in a geographical territory.
Gas tax would be overseen by a local or state representatives, not the Fed. Also, the gas tax wouldn’t be stolen from you. It is your choice to pay for gas, ride a bike, or be creative and invent something to revolutionize the industry.
The government being involved with the roads and stealing the gas tax, is keeping innovations from happening. If government in the early 1900’s would have had the regulations today, Henry Ford would not exist.
Kinda like how Education is still becoming more expensive, even though the technology cut the cost 90%. It’s only still expensive because government subsidizes it so schools can charge what they want.
If college was really about Education, Nick Saban wouldn’t be a public school teacher making $5 million a year. Fucking joke what college/ education has become. It’s all about dumbing everyone down and erasing history.
I think these debates may be interesting. Trump will not stand for a biased or uninformed moderator to assist the Democrat candidate in misrepresenting facts unlike Romney and additionally because the reports of Hillaries neurological illness make me want to watch to see if she can hold it together all 3 debates
“Trump will not stand for … misrepresentation [of the] facts.”
The man can’t even properly represent his own opinion on any range of subjects without drastically flipping his stance or fabricating evidence to support his claims, yet we’re now expected to believe he’ll be the public’s watchdog, blowing the whistle on Hillary’s lies during the debate? I should hope he works on his own ability to make a point and stick with it first before we crown him the champion of morality in governance and public service.
This will be an unsubstantive debate filled with vociferous platitudes and bombastic bloviating and, as usual, the things that need to be addressed in terms of the Presidency will continue to go unaddressed, because both major party elites agree that it’s what is best for all of us common people.
An interesting article and some long form journalism. I didn’t the see the dates for the debates. Maybe I’ll have to look again. It seems like basic information in any article on debates.
Some comments:
First, it isn’t the moderators job to “corral” the candidates. The moderators simply moderate. The desire to inject oneself or one’s opinion into the debate should be resisted. This is the candidate’s night. They are the ones with their reputations and futures on the line. These debates aren’t really debates in the sense of high school debating club debates. They are a time to showcase the candidates that most voters will never meet in person, and of course, their policies.
Secondly, the format has been commercialized to the point of obscenity. The forum is more reminiscent of a game show than a political process for a great nation. I might expect Pat Sajack or Vanna White to come out and offer to let one of the candidates “buy a policy.” Which is an annoying but accurate depiction of how America has devolved into a state of corporate crapulence.
In the the first debate on domestic issues, I expect Hillary to bludgeon Trump on trickle-down economics. I would be inclined to hand her the bludgeon. Trump gratuitously opened himself up to this attack when he invited the Heritage Foundation to set his economic policy. He should expect a severe pummeling, especially on the “Death Tax.”
They will clash over the second amendment, BLM and police violence with Trump claiming to be the “Law and Order” candidate. Hillary will tout her prison/police reforms and claim to feel compassion for minorities. I do not know how they will handle the legalization / decriminalization of marijuana. That part will be interesting.
Domestic policy involves immigration issues, which will be explosive. Hillary wants amnesty. Trump wants a wall. Hillary will remind people that Trump was mean to “a Gold Star Mother.” Trump will dodge and weave. The issue of admitting refugees will come up. Trump will tout his vetting plan and say “we must be tough but fair.” Hillary will tell us sob stories about migrants.
There will probably be mention of corruption and whether this thing or that thing is “rigged.” This will be interesting to watch.
and so on . . .
Who needs a moderator? Give each of them a microphone and a pile of rotten fruit, and let the debate begin. Even better, have them wrestle in a mud pit – that would at least be entertaining, and we wouldn’t have to endure all the question-dodging or the outright lies.
That’s ok. I’m already bored shitless! These two candidates are both dogs! Skip the debate process, for all I care!
Let Amy Goodman moderate those debates.
Like her or not, you have to admit Amy Goodman is a partisan advocate for certain viewpoints. You might as well have Ann Coulter as the moderator.
Too bad we can’t resurrect Edward R. Murrow from the grave and have him do it. . . but it turns out, the most-trusted news sources in the U.S. these days are not from the U.S.:
Outsourcing seems to be the best option. . . let’s see, BBC political reporters – here’s this guy Nick Robinson grilling BBC UKIP leader Nigel Farage in great style, let’s get him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTXYlJNZ7tU
Oh, wouldn’t you just love to see this guy grilling Trump and Clinton in that manner?
What would you both say to John Oliver to moderate one?
The BBC is more trustworthy than US media- but far less neutral and trustworthy than it was. They clearly took sides in the Scottish Independence Referendum and the EU Referendum (both for staying in). Further, after Lord Hutton got upset with them over reporting the UK government sexed up the dodgy dossier (since confirmed by numerous reports), the BBC has undergone a shift away from being critical of the government. (They still are more neutral than the US media, and do report on stories that go against the grain, such as the Opposition hiring snipers on the Maidan.)
of course they’ll suck. the entire media discourse sucks so why wouldn’t the debates? like they’ll take a day off from being corporate bingo callers for a night?
also, not having jill stein (or johnson for that matter) to ream both major candidates…though she is a little too nice anyway. shame, since i’d like to see her bring up trump and bill’s flights on epstein’s pedoplane.
all i really hope for is enough snide tourette-induced remarks from trump to make hillary drop her WASPy passive-aggressive mask and show the true vicious lunatic underneath. fingers crossed.
Gary Johnson is damn close to making the debates, despite the insanely high bar of 15% that has been set.
If he makes it to the stage with Clinton and Trump, all bets are off.
I thought I liked Gary Johnson as well, until he said he would support the TPP. He is a sale out as well. Regardless what he said he did as governor, he supports Globalist Corporate Courts with unelected judges to destroy our Soverignty. Look at the history of who his VP is.
Could not agree more. I want to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein debate. If you’re on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win 270 electoral votes, you should be able to be in the debates. The current arbitrary rules only guarantee that we’re going to be stuck with two stale major parties.
“……. even though they don’t have to.”
I do not know what made you include these words
even though you didn’t have to.
The corporate owned “debates” (ruffling of feathers)
is, as you clearly show,
a tightly controlled pretense to reinforce the illusion
in the faking U$A (and elsewhere)
that spouting bullcrap
and swallowing bullcrap
is the highest form of evolution.
Yet, the vast majority of voters in the faking U$A will again
endorse (swallow the results of)
one bullcrap spouting candidate or
the other bullcrap spouting candidate.
Every single child in school should have to learn about the Commission on Presidential Debates and its history!
By the time today’s children grow old enough to do anything about it, all resistance will be futile. Rise up and take our country back now.
A challenge to the current polling format would seem to be in order as well.
The polls chosen to determine the threshold for inclusion are from mainstream corporate media organizations who only mention Stein (if at all) and Johnson in follow up questions after the binary Clinton/Trump question.
Pollsters not wanting to give voters a choice beyond the two major parties that both serve the establishment is hardly equitable, and likely to skew the results.
Similarly, all of the major media organizations whose polling has been chosen to determine eligibility are without any doubt failing to cover Stein or Johnson equitably or fairly, exactly in the same manner they refused or skewed coverage of Bernie Sanders in the primaries.
This bias does not make them trustworthy sources, and knowledge of this bias is widespread.
Otherwise, I fully support the suggestions by 24b4Jeff.
And along the lines of what he said, the corporate establishment debates are unworthy of support by viewers as currently structured, so all who oppose their rigged format should refuse to watch.
I know I won’t be watching.
Imagine if the 91% who did not vote for either of the two “choices” we are being given showed up at the debate venues and protested the corrupt, crooked and cooked sham of a process.
> The Open Debate Coalition is currently in negotiations with the CPD to urge it to adopt their program.
given that the cpd is “controlled by elites from the two major parties whose goal is to protect their standard-bearers,” i think they should also ask for a pony
There are a couple of mentions of involvement of religion in this article but no mention of atheists.
It’s time that bias be addressed and anywhere religious input is deemed appropriate that atheist input be equally represented!
As to third party candidates, why can they not organise debates and invite the DNC and RNC candidates to attend, and emphatically highlight their absence if they choose not to.
With only 9? of US citizens having been involved in nominating Clinton and Trump I suspect an independent 3rd Parth candidates debate might be very well received.
9% not 9?
Standing in polls is too easily manipulated; it should not be a criterion for inclusion at all.
Ballot access is more plausible, despite the bias in access laws (written and reinforced by Democratic and Republican legislators) and the fact that, for alternative parties and candidates, it’s a moving target. But even requiring candidates to be on ballots with at least half the Electoral College votes is harsher than it needs to be. If you’re eligible to win 1/4 of the EC votes (which rounds up to 135), you’re eligible to finish behind no more than two other candidates; even a three-way tie would use up 405 votes and leave only 133 for all others.
One way forward is other debates — though if the duopolists skip them because the alternatives are there, that limits how effective those added debates can be in restoring fairness. Speaking of fairness, though, even if there isn’t much of a Fairness Doctrine left at the FCC, they do still have a “lowest unit rule”. What if we modified that to say that broadcast stations only had to offer that lowest ad rate to candidates who showed up to debate anyone else on the ballot, and could charge full prices to those who didn’t?
And in the meantime, maybe we can find one or more networks (or build one for ourselves) who would do what CNN did in 1980 when Carter and Reagan froze John Anderson out of the second debate. CNN showed Carter and Reagan debating — but after they both got a chance to make remarks or answer a question, CNN stopped the tape and host Daniel Schorr let Anderson have the same opportunity. Don’t believe me? Well, CNN’s Website does seem to have forgotten this itself — but look it up here:
http://radiogoldindex.com/cgi-local/p2.cgi?ProgramName=Presidential+Debate
and in the OCR text (pretty close to accurate) from the October 29, 1980 Kokomo (Indiana) _Tribune_ here:
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/2647632/
I would certainly like doing that- or scheduling my own debates on the same night as the CPD ones. Our conditions? Any participants must be:
-Qualified under the constitution
-On the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes (If the electoral college is still in use).
As for other debates, I’d love to hold debates- particularly to embarrass those who refuse to debate, such as Lindsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi and Patrick Murphy. If they don’t show up- the opponent gets a free platform!
How about this for a reform: Do away with them entirely. No amount of scripting or arranging is going to result in an equitable, fair situation because two significant candidates (Green and Libertarian) are not even allowed on the stage. The rational for their exclusion is a real-world example of Catch 22: They are excluded from exposure because they do not have a magical 15% share, and don’t have a 15% share because they are excluded from exposure.
And why 15%, indeed? In Germany, for instance, representation is allowed when one has 5% support, so there is a precedent for lowering the figure to that level – in which case BOTH candidates would be on stage. It would appear that the setting of a 15% threshold is just another example of the elites arbitrarily narrowing the scope of the process to deny access to anyone other than the two Party candidates.
Great comment. You nailed it.
Access to our election process will always be denied to third party candidates until we narrow the scope of the rope around our elites throats.
I kind of like the idea of ballot access being the determinant of eligibility: If you’re on the ballot, you’re in the debate. And since states control ballot access, maybe they could make participation in a public debate with all the other candidates on the ballot a requirement. And maybe one of those states could be California…
First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Great suggestions. Would love to see third parties included and almost any of the suggestions for ways for improving the questions asked and how the candidates can be pressed for more thoughtful,complete answers and meaningful distinctions between them clarified.