Should Biden debate Trump with Joe Rogan as moderator?

[admin_270 847]

Trump has said he would. Should Biden debate Trump with Joe Rogan as moderator?

[MysteryKnight 21]

Joe Rogan is obviously extremely popular online, so a debate moderated by him is sure to be seen by a lot of people, specifically undecided voters and people who identify as apolitical. However, I question whether he can be neutral in his moderating. I also refuse to give the spotlight to a guy who has made transphobic remarks among many other problems. So my answer is no. 

[Patine 470]

4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Trump has said he would. Should Biden debate Trump with Joe Rogan as moderator?

I don't think it really matters. The percentage of effective undecided in this election is likely not high enough to go through great efforts for a debate.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

I don't know who Joe Rogan is, but I want only three presidential debates and one VP debate.

[Actinguy 862]

The President doesn’t get to choose the moderators, neither does the challenger.  They are chosen by an independent commission.  This is the way it has been my entire life.

[vcczar 1,224]

The more debates the better. 

[Patine 470]

6 hours ago, Actinguy said:

The President doesn’t get to choose the moderators, neither does the challenger.  They are chosen by an independent commission.  This is the way it has been my entire life.

Why aren't there more of the independent commissions to choose more important things, rather than partisan slog boards making all the pinnacle choices.

[Actinguy 862]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Why aren't there more of the independent commissions to choose more important things, rather than partisan slog boards making all the pinnacle choices.

Actually, independent commission may be a bit of a misnomer.  While they are independent from the candidates, they were established by a bipartisan agreement between the Republican and Democrat parties in the 1980s.  

 

[Patine 470]

15 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Actually, independent commission may be a bit of a misnomer.  While they are independent from the candidates, they were established by a bipartisan agreement between the Republican and Democrat parties in the 1980s.  

 

Which probably wasn't optimal for Perot in 1992.

[Actinguy 862]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Which probably wasn't optimal for Perot in 1992.

Perot's mental breakdown, desire not to speak to voters who didn't already agree with him, and a poor choice of a VP is what wasn't optimal for Perot.  Also: he dropped out.  Which also wasn't optimal. ;c)

Yet despite all of this, Perot did join Clinton and Bush in all three debates, and he was even deemed the winner of the first one.  Stockdale was in the VP debates as well.  

[Patine 470]

8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Perot's mental breakdown, desire not to speak to voters who didn't already agree with him, and a poor choice of a VP is what wasn't optimal for Perot.  Also: he dropped out.  Which also wasn't optimal. ;c)

Yet despite all of this, Perot did join Clinton and Bush in all three debates, and he was even deemed the winner of the first one.  Stockdale was in the VP debates as well.  

What I specifically mean is that there were no Proto-Reform Party figures who had any sway in debate locations, times, and moderators, was there?

[Actinguy 862]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

What I specifically mean is that there were no Proto-Reform Party figures who had any sway in debate locations, times, and moderators, was there?

Nope.  But as far as I know (I was seven years old) it was a fair fight at the debates -- and Perot was even allowed to bring graphs and visual aids to show the TV audience.  

Again, he was deemed the winner of at least one of the debates.  This suggests there wasn't a mass conspiracy against him, at least not one that included the media.

[RI Democrat 39]

Not unless the overall shape of the race were to change in Trump's favor. Debating has been Biden's weak point (though he was better in the ones later on in the primary calendar), and right now he is ahead - he wouldn't be well-served by agreeing to any extra debates beyond the more-or-less-required three.

Trump is also a subpar debater, but there aren't likely many Trump supporters who are going to change their minds this late in the game because of a lie or a gaffe in a debate - he does that kind of thing all the time and people are either reconciled to it or not. Biden, on the other hand, may have some lukewarm supporters who could decide to stay home if he performs badly in debates.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Perot's mental breakdown, desire not to speak to voters who didn't already agree with him, and a poor choice of a VP is what wasn't optimal for Perot.  Also: he dropped out.  Which also wasn't optimal. ;c)

Yet despite all of this, Perot did join Clinton and Bush in all three debates, and he was even deemed the winner of the first one.  Stockdale was in the VP debates as well.  

 

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Nope.  But as far as I know (I was seven years old) it was a fair fight at the debates -- and Perot was even allowed to bring graphs and visual aids to show the TV audience.  

Again, he was deemed the winner of at least one of the debates.  This suggests there wasn't a mass conspiracy against him, at least not one that included the media.

I remember the 1992 election. I was in Middle School. I don't think either major party was involved in any mass conspiracy against Perot. In fact, Perot had a real shot to send the election to the US House (he never had a shot to win). Perot randomly dropped out when he was outpolling Clinton and Bush, and then rejoined the race, but couldn't win many people back, since he seemed indecisive. 

It's absolutely impossible for a 3rd party to win with the EC in place. Even Theodore Roosevelt was banking on sending the election to the House and winning that way, and he was really just a 2nd Republican nominee and not a 3rd party.

[admin_270 847]

48 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's absolutely impossible for a 3rd party to win with the EC in place.

It is looking increasingly difficult for the 1st party to win with the EC in place. 

[vcczar 1,224]

15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It is looking increasingly difficult for the 1st party to win with the EC in place. 

Yeah, they should just get rid of it and couple this change with a more transparent process and one that gives equal time, or closer to equal time, to any 3rd party that has at least 1 million supporters in the previous election. Additionally, there should be more transparency about candidates, although no new restrictions for running for president. 

[Defiant 84]

Personally, I'd rather see more solo town halls  (with more time to answer questions and with follow up questions) than debates, where both sides are trying to spout cheap soundbites and regurgitate talking points in 90 second intervals.  (It's even worse during primaries, where you could have 5-10 candidates on a stage.) 

[admin_270 847]

5 minutes ago, Defiant said:

Personally, I'd rather see more solo town halls  (with more time to answer questions and with follow up questions) than debates, where both sides are trying to spout cheap soundbites and regurgitate talking points in 90 second intervals.  (It's even worse during primaries, where you could have 5-10 candidates on a stage.) 

And *real* town halls, where a significant % of the questions aren't soft balls, and there's opportunity for significant follow up.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

And *real* town halls, where a significant % of the questions aren't soft balls, and there's opportunity for significant follow up.

I don't like soft ball questions period. I think a town hall should have two parts: First part -- 1/3 questions from supporters. 1/3 from undecideds. 1/3 from opponents. For the second party,  I think the nominees should ask each other questions. The moderators should just keep things going smoothly or drop facts or clear up questions, and perhaps add follow up questions. Fact checking should be done on both candidates. If a candidate fibs, they should be corrected as soon as they are proven wrong, and then respond to being corrected. I'd also like to see a debate score tracker that is partially based on candidates passing fact checks, on answering a question and not avoiding it, and on providing a substantive response. Ideology won't matter so much as how fully, clearly, effectively and in depth one responds. The scorekeepers would be agreed upon by the candidates, similar to how a jury is selected by opposing lawyers. There will also be an audience response score that will be independent of the debate score. 

[Hestia11 572]

56 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't like soft ball questions period. I think a town hall should have two parts: First part -- 1/3 questions from supporters. 1/3 from undecideds. 1/3 from opponents. For the second party,  I think the nominees should ask each other questions. The moderators should just keep things going smoothly or drop facts or clear up questions, and perhaps add follow up questions. Fact checking should be done on both candidates. If a candidate fibs, they should be corrected as soon as they are proven wrong, and then respond to being corrected. I'd also like to see a debate score tracker that is partially based on candidates passing fact checks, on answering a question and not avoiding it, and on providing a substantive response. Ideology won't matter so much as how fully, clearly, effectively and in depth one responds. The scorekeepers would be agreed upon by the candidates, similar to how a jury is selected by opposing lawyers. There will also be an audience response score that will be independent of the debate score. 

I think the PMQ style like in GB would work well for what you're describing where they go back and forth and question each other and whatnot. Obviously a bit modified, but it would work.

[Patine 470]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

to any 3rd party that has at least 1 million supporters in the previous election. Additionally, there should be more transparency about candidates, although no new restrictions for running for president. 

You realize this would still immensely hamstring new parties, even if they were founded with great initial support, unless they were a merger of two or more smaller parties, or, possibly, but maybe not even covered by this prerequisite, a significantly notable schism off of a much bigger party - all three of which are the major genesis factors of new parties that can grow to significance and even government in more robust and politically healthy multi-party systems in many other nations.

[CPE 97]

I am surprised that people still think there will be debates, I have my doubts at this point to be honest with you.

[admin_270 847]

1 hour ago, CPE said:

I am surprised that people still think there will be debates, I have my doubts at this point to be honest with you.

Yes, I have heard this sentiment in various places. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but my guess is there will be debates.

What do you think would be the mechanism to cancel the debates?

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

On 9/16/2020 at 3:44 PM, vcczar said:

 

I remember the 1992 election. I was in Middle School. I don't think either major party was involved in any mass conspiracy against Perot. In fact, Perot had a real shot to send the election to the US House (he never had a shot to win). Perot randomly dropped out when he was outpolling Clinton and Bush, and then rejoined the race, but couldn't win many people back, since he seemed indecisive. 

It's absolutely impossible for a 3rd party to win with the EC in place. Even Theodore Roosevelt was banking on sending the election to the House and winning that way, and he was really just a 2nd Republican nominee and not a 3rd party.

I didn't know he lead at one point. That's insane.

[Patine 470]

22 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I didn't know he lead at one point. That's insane.

Why insane, of all descriptives. I mean, he had some bad ideas - then again, so did Bush and Clinton.