There is no point to these debates. It's just a shouting match. Just get candidates one-on-one and ask them specific questions and then ask follow-up questions.
Unfortunately we absolutely need to have these debates. The only way we'll find out what Trump really knows or whether Biden is actually mentally sound is if we put them on stage together without editing and without their teams being able to pick the interviewer. I do actually think that the insanity and childishness came largely from Trump, but democrats, who were just running corrupt and vacuous candidates, responded by losing their minds and getting just as crazy.
The people elect the politicians. Since the 2000 election the better candidates lost handily in almost every primary due to being yacked over by noisier goats. The people are electing those who talk dominantly even though actual executive work requires talking diplomatically.
@henryvalentino-hernandez6235this is what all debates devolve into without rules. It has more to do with the human condition than individual moral fiber and it's especially not unique to politicians.
That's partially true, @@chamuuemura5314. It's certainly true of the Republicans post-2012. But I disagree that it's generally true since 2000. McCain and Romney were absolutely among the sanest and most reasonable Republicans in 2008 and 2012, and it doesn't get less bombastic than Gore and Kerry. Meanwhile, though I didn't vote for either in the primary, Clinton and Biden are both decorum snobs who have to be ruder to not appear like wimps against a strongman.
There's a lot more behind this than a simple rule change. Our cultural fixation on entertainment and drama drives out rational discourse. Also, the virtues of trying to understand alternate viewpoints are not being taught.
No, ma’am. Respectfully, That’s not correct. Or at least not completely. Don’t put it on the people. At the end of the day, like everyone else, these career politicians and pundits are responsible for their own actions.
Why can't they just cut off the mics if the candidates' time runs out to or if the candidates start to derail the debate? IMO, I blame the moderator and the organizers for not putting their foot down when things start to go unhinged. But hey, people now would rather watch grown children argue than watch boring politicians talk about what's best for our future in this country.
They should bring that rule back! Like watching the moderator tell Obama to address the McCain, they both seemed so uncomfortable, and the moderator was just smiling. You know I used to watch British parliament on C-Span in the early morning. The Prime Minister has to go in front of parliament and get asked questions from parliament. One thing I noticed about the back and forth questioning and answering is that they all had to refer to each other in the third person. I remember a politician saying something like, "The Prime Minister promised this, but as of now he has not delivered. Will the Prime minister admit that he has failed in his promise?!" and the Prime Minister was like, "I am sorry that MP feels that way, but I think if he bothered to look at the data publicly available, he would in fact realize that I am delivering on my promise!" You need something to separate politics from becoming personal. It's a work place after all, and most people can't yell at each other about a problem at their job and not have the company be completely dysfunctional. They need to rescind that 2008 rule. Had no idea there was a rule change 😬
@@_beulah well I am sure the UK has its problems but you have not had a failed coup yet so this good. Although I do have a question about free speech, like how far does it go? Like in the US, if you ask me as an African American can the KKK march in my city, it's like I don't care, first amendment idiots can do what they want. But it seems with the war in Gaza, there may or may not be limits on free speech in the UK, I can't tell from the British news. It's fair either way in the UK wants to do it, was just whether free speech is the same in the UK.
@@_beulah your politicians absolutely eat each other alive. Like the time Margaret Thatcher was asked if she would consider. Becoming governor of the United Kingdom..
@@_beulah it's a total disaster no wonder the UK is heading towards failure. I wonder how Brits keep listening and getting answers from their parliament
@@jmhorange Ooh as a Black British person this is interesting. AFAIK we don’t really have many organisations as overtly racist as the KKK, but there is the English Defence League, which is a group that is very English nationalist (and there is a lot of racism in that movement). There have been protests supporting either side (Israel and Palestine) in London and elsewhere and from what I know, people have been able to protest about whatever they want. There have been some arrests for hate speech (anti-semitism, islamophobia etc.) but one of the reasons you’ll see the news being biased towards one side is that a lot of it here is state funded, so they usually follow the government line on difficult issues.
Vivek: I’m the only one not bought and paid for so I can say this… Christie: Whoa ho ho…. Pence: Now Vivek, listen here, I - DeSantis: (unintelligible) Haley: If there’s one person here Vivek tha- Christie: Ho Ho whoa there buddy boy- (somebody can’t tell who): your Chinese investments Viv- Vivek: The simple fact of the matter is this: climate change is a hoax. Christie: Put your stupid hand down, Vivek… “We have to take a commercial break”
@@neckenwiler It is cathartic to watch Trump insult other Republican clowns like Jeb! and Ted Cruz. Trump should be nowhere near power but it is entertaining to see him talk smack motivated solely by ego.
I remember a couple years ago looking up old debates on my own just out of curiosity and was shocked how chill they were. Especially the 2004 debates with Kerry and Bush 43. I swear we were a better people back then. We all watched The West Wing back then now everyone watches Tik-Tok.
We used to watch debates to see what the candidates' positions were on issues & to determine who we wanted to vote for. Now it's a spectator sport where we watch to see if our "side" is going to win or not.
Nowadays with both candidates and most voters being committed to ideologies there's not much doubt about where they stand on most issues though there should be some more effort to still appeal to moderates.
Forget debates. Let a group of voters from each party give the candidates a list a priories before the debate and let them prepare a five minute presentation on how they’d tackle it. After each gives their position open it up to a panel of voters and let them defend it like a doctoral thesis
@@studies-tb1ql Well you said yourself 2 "world wars," not civil wars... The topic of the video is politness in debates and respect between the coutry's politicians, not world peace. Thus I say the coutry'ssociety within the coutry is getting more devided. Since 1958 France has had the 5th republic. It has been almost 70 years. I was not alive to see the world before that so obviously I am not talking about the world wars, dark ages or the roman empire... It is nice to disagree for disagreeing but I don't see how you could possibly ague that since 1958, debates between politicians did not lose in politeness and respect. I am not saying that the world is worse now than ever before, but it is easy to watch any past presidential debate and watch the ones of today to see that this is true. Before politicians calmly criticized their opponent's ideas and projects, now they call each other crooked rotten liars that should be sent to jail. Not hard to see the difference.
The other problem is that the moderators always try to squeeze in too many topics each debate. The first modern presidential debate (Dewey vs. Stassen in 1948) was an entire hour devoted to one question ("should Communist Party USA be outlawed"). If you only have 2 minutes to speak on each topic, instead of contributing meaningfully to the conversation why not throw in some zingers that ensure you'll be remembered?
The actual length of 15 minutes per topic (in order to get to, do 6 topics) may be a bit too rushed/simple but not really unreasonable amount of time for amount of topics.
A couple of points. None of the older clips seemed to be from primaries where there are more candidates and it is harder to get your voice heard. People will hear you in a 1 on 1 but not necessarily when there are ten people on stage. Second, social media and media coverage of debates has also had an effect on the way debates are run. It is much easier now to clip and share “takedowns” meanwhile the media only focuses on short moments like these in their coverage. Finally, in 1 on 1 debates there should definitely be a debate where it is just the two candidates talking to each other with no questions from the audience and very little input from the moderator only to introduce a new topic every fifteen minutes or so. In this form candidates will get a chance to explain, attack, and defend their positions
If you watch any republican primary debate prior to 2016, they are incredibly civil and substantive. 1% the number of personal attacks you get now. The 2012 republican primary debates are a breath of fresh air in comparison to what we get now. It just goes to show, it is possible to talk substance even on a crowded stage.
Modern debating is a sham, it’s about yelling and “winning”, not about a passionate but opposing discussion on important topics. There’s little to no reason to watch them anymore.
It's been ruined since at least the 80s. It's not been a debate since forever. There's no fact checking, and no point or scoring system. They don't even honor time slots and for some reason they leave all mics hot and refuse to cut mics.
You can not have fair fact checking because those hosting the debates are compromised politically. Take 2020 for example. Any number of things said about covid could have been “fact checked” as false and now many of these things will have turned out to be true. It just needs to be respectable again.
Fact checking in a debate is a bad idea because then whoever decides which facts to correct on-air and which to let go has undue power. This was demonstrated in one of the several 2020 debates where the moderators kept fact-checking Trump but not Biden, supposedly because Trump’s lies were “bigger”. It should be up to the voters, not a moderator, to determine if a candidate is lying when they say the moon is made of green cheese. Their opponent can also call them on their lies if they so choose. It is simply not a moderator’s place to inject themselves into the debate.
Yh, I think people are forgetting the infamous Michael Dukakis/corporal punishment question (which was allegedly set up by Bush’s campaign manager Lee Atwater). It’s a pretty scummy moment, and shows these debates weren’t always sunshine and rainbows before.
Social media changed everything not Trump, Today everyone judge a person on just a 15 sec clip in TikTok. Earlier people used to sit down and watch the entire debate and then formulate their opinions…
They're often presented through cable television outlets even when simulcast on network television and moderated by network reporters/anchors. The name of the game on cable tv is to entertain even with the news. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future instant-replay and slow-mo is part of the immediate post debate analysis.
I’m one of those that whenever I wanted to improve my oratory in English I would go and watch old debates and speeches by e.g: Bobby Kennedy or Reagan and enjoy them. Now this debates are hard to watch, regardless of the party. But the opinion analysis here was very good, I hadn’t thought about it.
I'd stumbled upon those black and white debates in the past, but didn't know why they were so pleasant compared to today. Think this Pandora's box could ever be closed?
Donald trump simply ignore the rules the two major parties had already agreed upon, but the moderators were given no authority to moderate the debate, not even to turn off the microphone or kick the candidate out after repeated violations.
The 2012 and 2008 debates look super respectful and intelligent compared to today. Especially 2008. John McCain was actually making some good points! I haven’t seen a Republican make a good point in more than a decade.
Same as democrats. I have no clue how did democrats evolve from Al Gore and Obama, to Harris and AOC. As a Gen Z GOP voter, I’m kinda shocked that in 2008 and 2012 debates, both candidates were talking about real issues and solutions. Sadly the old day was gone.
Wow look at the past what a bunch of class acts who didn't like their policies and agree on all of them but respected eachother. Miss those days we'll never get that back ever again 😢
It's a real shame. I can hardly sleep at night with the state of things. A presidential debate used to allow for decorum and polite discussion between people of essentially the same view. Nowadays I have to count sheep. Its terrible.
The first debates were genius, utilize a new widespread tech (TV) to influence more people to be informed on policy when voting. Shame what it turned into on both sides.
Is that the platform of a.school debate? Cause arent those like designed to never actually try to solve a problem but to just vomit points out at light speed?
@@Khronogithe point of debates isn’t to solve a problem. they’re competing for the presidency, the point is to show the audience both sides. maybe on the senate floor they’ll come to an agreement, but not during the presidential election
A parallel to reflect on: before 2002, before the Oxley 2002 law was created, honor and honesty were a competitive disadvantage in some markets because some companies altered their financial statements to appear more stable and thus attract more investors. This has changed since this law was created; now those who do so lose credibility and, with it, the trust of their stakeholders, causing their shares to plummet. A smart law. Maybe we can do something similar with debates, where it seems that respect and civility are competitive disadvantages. Not necessarily a law, just a measure to discourage such behavior, such as counting the number of times a candidate interrupted his candidate and the moderator, or that the candidate be required to remain silent and listen to his opponent's response when he is called upon, discouraging him from doing so unless he really knows what he is going to say.
Maybe part of the problem is that the New York Times, the English-speaking world’s most prestigious newspaper, now overlays their TH-cam clips with background music reminiscent of kids programming
Seems an apt representation of the breakdown of our society as well. Everyone just wants to get their opinion or last word in these days, whether in person or social media. Civil discourse seems to be a thing of the past. They need to bring these rules back & set a good example. Not to mention it's hard to actually hear what candidates think when they're all talking over each other or just throwing insults.
The problem is that the left went too far left, candidates didn't fight as much cus the policy wasn't so different, dem and reps held most of the same policy and value structures. The reason there's less in common is because the New Dems decoded to have much less in common.
@sam512 they only hated trump so much cus of how far left they had gone. I think they call it trump derangement syndrome. They just got too ideological, now they're tying to reel it back a bit and be more centrist but it's gonna take a while to earn people's trust again.
I agree Social media and Mainstream don't help Either I'll admit Trump doesn't control himself at times in Debates and Twitter It's Entertaining but at the same time We should probably look more Professional lol
Allowing ad hominems before the most ad hominem president of all time will go down in history as one of the major political blunders of the 21st century
No, far earlier than that - when the two major parties decide what the rules are. There used to be an independent, non-partisan, non-profit entity that sponsors and hosts the presidential debate, such as the league of women voters - the last one to do so. When the two major parties decided to dictate the debate rules for their own benefits at the expense of the public service that the debate should provide, the league of women voters decided to decided to quit and publicly explained why they quit.
This leaves out a lot of detail. Namely, that general election debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (previously the League of Woman Voters), which did change its rules in 2008, but has nothing to do with primary debates. Primary debates are run by the DNC/RNC and whichever network they are airing on, and have never had rules about not addressing fellow candidates directly. Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton had a nasty personal spat in 1992 during a Democratic primary debate where they addressed each other directly.
Well said this is an overly simplistic video. It’s largely up to the moderators as well, in the current election cycle look at the Fox Business debate shown here and compare it to the other three debates (Fox News, NewsNation, and CNN), all of which were very well run.
Phuck the media and the Commission on Presidential Debates for making this change and for not fixing it the second they, along with the entire world, realized it was a monumental mistake.
Any debate in the US about returning to this ? It was both more interesting to listen to, more respectful, and also proved a lot more conclusive in bringing national civil peace. I believe
eh, they were celebrities even when RADIO was invented. FDR was known for his fireside chats n all. i think the problem is more that we’re voting for candidates over policy because there’s often little to no policy to speak of
Many and many hyped him up as a potential president for decades, Oprah and others asked him if he will ever run, at first he didn't see the need; until Romney lost. Also the political apparatus favors big money and donors for the longest time and since the mid 2000s the parties stifle any 'problematic' or 'outside' voices during their primaries. Trump was the one who broke through that because he didn't need donors to fund and had enough name recognition and attracted attention.
This is a reflection of a major change in media over the years. There is more and more media available to us, and anyone who wants to stay relevant needs to compete for people's attention. The former president is master of that.
shout out to major news corporations actively deteriorating our democracy in the name of profit and shoutout to NYT for putting playful quirky music over our downward spiral into dystopia
Not sure if they changed it to get more attention from people resignating in politics (and (not) going to vote) or what's behind that. - Here in Germany you can see tendencies going in that direction as well. And this really scares me. Not discussing about important topics but only personal attacks. - And "your" former president Trump makes all this even worse. When voting for this guy think about what our joungest learn from that man!
To be fair, in the old days there was the occasional barb or insult toward another candidate. Remember the "You're no Jack Kennedy" moment in '88? Or when Bob Dole was Ford's running mate in '76, and in a debate he claimed that all four major U.S. wars of the 20th century to that date were "Democratic wars" started by Democrats? That being said, in those days there was none of the crosstalk, bickering, and petty insults on a level that would have embarrassed the commentators of "The McLaughlin Group." One more symptom of a broken political system.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
There is no point to these debates. It's just a shouting match. Just get candidates one-on-one and ask them specific questions and then ask follow-up questions.
WITH FACT-CHECKING!
stop blacks and muslims refugees and migrants to the UK and europe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or you and your childrens will regret!
Unfortunately we absolutely need to have these debates. The only way we'll find out what Trump really knows or whether Biden is actually mentally sound is if we put them on stage together without editing and without their teams being able to pick the interviewer. I do actually think that the insanity and childishness came largely from Trump, but democrats, who were just running corrupt and vacuous candidates, responded by losing their minds and getting just as crazy.
Someone needs to sort through what they are saying. Rambling isn't a debate.
This seems like Donald trump just bullied his way to presidency....
It's a reflection of our society, people are more interested in seeing a spectacle than actually listening to serious important things.
So we don't blame the politicians but the people. So what will stop their complaining so they can get better candidates if they are so tired?
The people elect the politicians. Since the 2000 election the better candidates lost handily in almost every primary due to being yacked over by noisier goats. The people are electing those who talk dominantly even though actual executive work requires talking diplomatically.
@henryvalentino-hernandez6235this is what all debates devolve into without rules. It has more to do with the human condition than individual moral fiber and it's especially not unique to politicians.
R they serious important things? It’s bs getting the respect it deserves
That's partially true, @@chamuuemura5314. It's certainly true of the Republicans post-2012. But I disagree that it's generally true since 2000. McCain and Romney were absolutely among the sanest and most reasonable Republicans in 2008 and 2012, and it doesn't get less bombastic than Gore and Kerry. Meanwhile, though I didn't vote for either in the primary, Clinton and Biden are both decorum snobs who have to be ruder to not appear like wimps against a strongman.
There's a lot more behind this than a simple rule change. Our cultural fixation on entertainment and drama drives out rational discourse. Also, the virtues of trying to understand alternate viewpoints are not being taught.
It’s the money. The organisers want the views, they let anything go
I couldn't agree more. You are right on target sister. It's really sad to see smh.
So true, spot on, rational discourse is increasingly seen by many as "weakness" and shouting as "strength"
No, ma’am. Respectfully, That’s not correct. Or at least not completely. Don’t put it on the people. At the end of the day, like everyone else, these career politicians and pundits are responsible for their own actions.
Well said
Why can't they just cut off the mics if the candidates' time runs out to or if the candidates start to derail the debate? IMO, I blame the moderator and the organizers for not putting their foot down when things start to go unhinged. But hey, people now would rather watch grown children argue than watch boring politicians talk about what's best for our future in this country.
I think they started doing that in 2020, not 100% certain though.
@@brockturner3112 Pretty sure they muted Trump in the second debate.
That's the problem...most people have only saw that little snippet of everyone arguing at the debate. It's good content, unfortunately.
@@kelseydalziel3514i’ve watched every debate since the 60s and it’s quite clear when debates were better.
Because then candidates won't show up.
They should bring that rule back! Like watching the moderator tell Obama to address the McCain, they both seemed so uncomfortable, and the moderator was just smiling. You know I used to watch British parliament on C-Span in the early morning. The Prime Minister has to go in front of parliament and get asked questions from parliament. One thing I noticed about the back and forth questioning and answering is that they all had to refer to each other in the third person. I remember a politician saying something like, "The Prime Minister promised this, but as of now he has not delivered. Will the Prime minister admit that he has failed in his promise?!" and the Prime Minister was like, "I am sorry that MP feels that way, but I think if he bothered to look at the data publicly available, he would in fact realize that I am delivering on my promise!"
You need something to separate politics from becoming personal. It's a work place after all, and most people can't yell at each other about a problem at their job and not have the company be completely dysfunctional. They need to rescind that 2008 rule. Had no idea there was a rule change 😬
To be absolutely fair, as a Brit I can tell you that our Parliament quite frequently descends into chaos as well XD
@@_beulah well I am sure the UK has its problems but you have not had a failed coup yet so this good. Although I do have a question about free speech, like how far does it go? Like in the US, if you ask me as an African American can the KKK march in my city, it's like I don't care, first amendment idiots can do what they want. But it seems with the war in Gaza, there may or may not be limits on free speech in the UK, I can't tell from the British news. It's fair either way in the UK wants to do it, was just whether free speech is the same in the UK.
@@_beulah your politicians absolutely eat each other alive. Like the time Margaret Thatcher was asked if she would consider. Becoming governor of the United Kingdom..
@@_beulah it's a total disaster no wonder the UK is heading towards failure. I wonder how Brits keep listening and getting answers from their parliament
@@jmhorange Ooh as a Black British person this is interesting. AFAIK we don’t really have many organisations as overtly racist as the KKK, but there is the English Defence League, which is a group that is very English nationalist (and there is a lot of racism in that movement). There have been protests supporting either side (Israel and Palestine) in London and elsewhere and from what I know, people have been able to protest about whatever they want. There have been some arrests for hate speech (anti-semitism, islamophobia etc.) but one of the reasons you’ll see the news being biased towards one side is that a lot of it here is state funded, so they usually follow the government line on difficult issues.
"Will you shut up, man" is still my favourite Biden moment.
I would hate to be the transcriber for one of these debates.
> No, you said [unintelligible]
> Time for a commercial break.
Vivek: I’m the only one not bought and paid for so I can say this…
Christie: Whoa ho ho….
Pence: Now Vivek, listen here, I -
DeSantis: (unintelligible)
Haley: If there’s one person here Vivek tha-
Christie: Ho Ho whoa there buddy boy-
(somebody can’t tell who): your Chinese investments Viv-
Vivek: The simple fact of the matter is this: climate change is a hoax.
Christie: Put your stupid hand down, Vivek…
“We have to take a commercial break”
@@Christopher-b5f3m Ron DeSantis doesn't talk anymore
It would be like transcribing the Scatman ten times and all are five times fast
Debates are worthless now.
I found the 2016 republican primary debates pretty funny. Trump is hilarious as long as he's not in charge of anything.
@@neckenwiler It is cathartic to watch Trump insult other Republican clowns like Jeb! and Ted Cruz. Trump should be nowhere near power but it is entertaining to see him talk smack motivated solely by ego.
stop blacks and muslims refugees and migrants to the UK and europe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or you and your childrens will regret!
@@neckenwileronly when you get to watch the 13 minute highlight reel. The other hour and a half is worthless.
US presidential debates are slowly turning into South Asian parliamentary debates. It's quite something.
Kinda funny how they ignore the moderators but not the commercial break
Their mic won't get cut off if they ignore the moderators
Gotta help the network make that $$.😂
They’re going to cut away for commercials anyway so why would they keep talking if no one is going to see it. Braindead comment
Rule makers in 2008: "Just a little change to shake this up a little bit, this doesn't have horrific ramifications in 7 years from now."
Social Media: Hello. I've been invented to ruin absolutely everything.
I remember a couple years ago looking up old debates on my own just out of curiosity and was shocked how chill they were. Especially the 2004 debates with Kerry and Bush 43. I swear we were a better people back then. We all watched The West Wing back then now everyone watches Tik-Tok.
We used to watch debates to see what the candidates' positions were on issues & to determine who we wanted to vote for. Now it's a spectator sport where we watch to see if our "side" is going to win or not.
Nowadays with both candidates and most voters being committed to ideologies there's not much doubt about where they stand on most issues though there should be some more effort to still appeal to moderates.
Forget debates. Let a group of voters from each party give the candidates a list a priories before the debate and let them prepare a five minute presentation on how they’d tackle it. After each gives their position open it up to a panel of voters and let them defend it like a doctoral thesis
of course the voters are going to choose topics that make their own candidate seem amazing and the other evil
It’s not just the politicians.
The whole world slowly changed to this…
Yes everyone is trashy stupid and loud now
What world do you live in?! sorry for you 😢
The politicians were as bad as today.
I am from France and the exact same thing has happened over a similar time frame. I think it is also that society is more divided now than before.
You serious, Like in last century europe fought two world wars and french republic changed thrice. AND NOW WE ARE MORE DIVIDED :)
@@studies-tb1ql Well you said yourself 2 "world wars," not civil wars...
The topic of the video is politness in debates and respect between the coutry's politicians, not world peace. Thus I say the coutry'ssociety within the coutry is getting more devided.
Since 1958 France has had the 5th republic. It has been almost 70 years. I was not alive to see the world before that so obviously I am not talking about the world wars, dark ages or the roman empire...
It is nice to disagree for disagreeing but I don't see how you could possibly ague that since 1958, debates between politicians did not lose in politeness and respect. I am not saying that the world is worse now than ever before, but it is easy to watch any past presidential debate and watch the ones of today to see that this is true. Before politicians calmly criticized their opponent's ideas and projects, now they call each other crooked rotten liars that should be sent to jail. Not hard to see the difference.
@@benoitb.m6461 same humans brother, just the changing priority. we have always and we will always treat each other like S**T
How soon we forget.
Debates should be in a room with no audience. Candidates shouldn’t be playing for an applause
I think the audience is important to make sure there are witnesses to what was said.
It will get broadcasted live either ways
The other problem is that the moderators always try to squeeze in too many topics each debate. The first modern presidential debate (Dewey vs. Stassen in 1948) was an entire hour devoted to one question ("should Communist Party USA be outlawed"). If you only have 2 minutes to speak on each topic, instead of contributing meaningfully to the conversation why not throw in some zingers that ensure you'll be remembered?
The actual length of 15 minutes per topic (in order to get to, do 6 topics) may be a bit too rushed/simple but not really unreasonable amount of time for amount of topics.
at least the three guys in 2008 and 2012 respected each other
They should play this video for the candidates, before every debate. Excellent context for expectations of respect!
That's a really good idea actually. Good point.
Problem is, the "bad" example won that election
They should change the rules back first, otherwise why would the behavior change?
Crazy how the debates for most powerful and most important job in the country end up being some of the worst
A couple of points. None of the older clips seemed to be from primaries where there are more candidates and it is harder to get your voice heard. People will hear you in a 1 on 1 but not necessarily when there are ten people on stage. Second, social media and media coverage of debates has also had an effect on the way debates are run. It is much easier now to clip and share “takedowns” meanwhile the media only focuses on short moments like these in their coverage. Finally, in 1 on 1 debates there should definitely be a debate where it is just the two candidates talking to each other with no questions from the audience and very little input from the moderator only to introduce a new topic every fifteen minutes or so. In this form candidates will get a chance to explain, attack, and defend their positions
If you watch any republican primary debate prior to 2016, they are incredibly civil and substantive. 1% the number of personal attacks you get now. The 2012 republican primary debates are a breath of fresh air in comparison to what we get now. It just goes to show, it is possible to talk substance even on a crowded stage.
please reply event manager phone relays
If debates were like they used to be, I'd actually watch them.
Modern debating is a sham, it’s about yelling and “winning”, not about a passionate but opposing discussion on important topics. There’s little to no reason to watch them anymore.
It's been ruined since at least the 80s. It's not been a debate since forever. There's no fact checking, and no point or scoring system. They don't even honor time slots and for some reason they leave all mics hot and refuse to cut mics.
There is fact checking. It’s just that some candidates now don’t acknowledge the facts.
You can not have fair fact checking because those hosting the debates are compromised politically. Take 2020 for example. Any number of things said about covid could have been “fact checked” as false and now many of these things will have turned out to be true.
It just needs to be respectable again.
Hasn't even been ruined in the 80's you're tripping.
Fact checking in a debate is a bad idea because then whoever decides which facts to correct on-air and which to let go has undue power. This was demonstrated in one of the several 2020 debates where the moderators kept fact-checking Trump but not Biden, supposedly because Trump’s lies were “bigger”. It should be up to the voters, not a moderator, to determine if a candidate is lying when they say the moon is made of green cheese. Their opponent can also call them on their lies if they so choose. It is simply not a moderator’s place to inject themselves into the debate.
Yh, I think people are forgetting the infamous Michael Dukakis/corporal punishment question (which was allegedly set up by Bush’s campaign manager Lee Atwater).
It’s a pretty scummy moment, and shows these debates weren’t always sunshine and rainbows before.
“This guys a choke artist… and this guys a liar” made me burst out laughing
Social media changed everything not Trump, Today everyone judge a person on just a 15 sec clip in TikTok. Earlier people used to sit down and watch the entire debate and then formulate their opinions…
imagine if they only had 1 microphone and they all had to share it and they all got the same time to talk and reply!
They're often presented through cable television outlets even when simulcast on network television and moderated by network reporters/anchors. The name of the game on cable tv is to entertain even with the news.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future instant-replay and slow-mo is part of the immediate post debate analysis.
The rule change was that the candidates could talk to each other directly? This wasn't clear
Those older videos make America look respectable….. now election time just makes America look like a disgusting joke
I’m one of those that whenever I wanted to improve my oratory in English I would go and watch old debates and speeches by e.g: Bobby Kennedy or Reagan and enjoy them. Now this debates are hard to watch, regardless of the party. But the opinion analysis here was very good, I hadn’t thought about it.
I'd stumbled upon those black and white debates in the past, but didn't know why they were so pleasant compared to today.
Think this Pandora's box could ever be closed?
Sometimes I feel like the grown ups are all dead, even as far as back in the 1970s
Donald trump simply ignore the rules the two major parties had already agreed upon, but the moderators were given no authority to moderate the debate, not even to turn off the microphone or kick the candidate out after repeated violations.
The 2012 and 2008 debates look super respectful and intelligent compared to today. Especially 2008. John McCain was actually making some good points! I haven’t seen a Republican make a good point in more than a decade.
Same as democrats. I have no clue how did democrats evolve from Al Gore and Obama, to Harris and AOC. As a Gen Z GOP voter, I’m kinda shocked that in 2008 and 2012 debates, both candidates were talking about real issues and solutions. Sadly the old day was gone.
@ discourse has become dumbed down due to the rise of Trump. He sucks all intelligence from any room he walks into.
Wow look at the past what a bunch of class acts who didn't like their policies and agree on all of them but respected eachother.
Miss those days we'll never get that back ever again 😢
th-cam.com/video/rODJhXytWc0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=56EZolMrKDYRV9am? Like Eisenhower
Or least cared enough about public image to appear respectful.
I think candidates who talk over others or out of turn should get muted.
It's a real shame. I can hardly sleep at night with the state of things.
A presidential debate used to allow for decorum and polite discussion between people of essentially the same view. Nowadays I have to count sheep. Its terrible.
That was painful to watch. Donald should be in prison and it should be taught in schools how dangerous he was to society. A cautionary tale.
And yet he has a better than 50% chance of being re-elected President once again...
What is wrong with people?
West Wing, Season 7, Episode 7, the debate American deserves. Issues and policy, not attacks about character and size of shoes.
The ending was a headache!
This is so funny. How times have changed!
The first debates were genius, utilize a new widespread tech (TV) to influence more people to be informed on policy when voting. Shame what it turned into on both sides.
So true! I didn’t realize it until just now.
NPR should set it up like they used to with Harvard style debates
Is that the platform of a.school debate? Cause arent those like designed to never actually try to solve a problem but to just vomit points out at light speed?
@@Khronogithe point of debates isn’t to solve a problem. they’re competing for the presidency, the point is to show the audience both sides. maybe on the senate floor they’ll come to an agreement, but not during the presidential election
A parallel to reflect on: before 2002, before the Oxley 2002 law was created, honor and honesty were a competitive disadvantage in some markets because some companies altered their financial statements to appear more stable and thus attract more investors. This has changed since this law was created; now those who do so lose credibility and, with it, the trust of their stakeholders, causing their shares to plummet. A smart law.
Maybe we can do something similar with debates, where it seems that respect and civility are competitive disadvantages. Not necessarily a law, just a measure to discourage such behavior, such as counting the number of times a candidate interrupted his candidate and the moderator, or that the candidate be required to remain silent and listen to his opponent's response when he is called upon, discouraging him from doing so unless he really knows what he is going to say.
Wouldn't work. The public would side with their favorite candidates against the moderators.
This is part of the reason you don’t address the other party in UK Parliament debates (mostly).
Exactly when did American politics get so polarized???
Maybe part of the problem is that the New York Times, the English-speaking world’s most prestigious newspaper, now overlays their TH-cam clips with background music reminiscent of kids programming
Seems an apt representation of the breakdown of our society as well. Everyone just wants to get their opinion or last word in these days, whether in person or social media. Civil discourse seems to be a thing of the past. They need to bring these rules back & set a good example.
Not to mention it's hard to actually hear what candidates think when they're all talking over each other or just throwing insults.
I think I now realise why MPs aren't allowed to address each other in Parliamentary debates in the UK...
"Debate." LOL!
“Humans are the most intelligent animal, and also the most silly.” -Diogenes
We in Italy are used to this trash for 30 years... Welcome to the club, Americans.
Half the comments seem to miss the point… the rules of the debate format changed. Thats when the slide began.
The problem is that the left went too far left, candidates didn't fight as much cus the policy wasn't so different, dem and reps held most of the same policy and value structures. The reason there's less in common is because the New Dems decoded to have much less in common.
So trump had nothing to do with it?
@sam512 they only hated trump so much cus of how far left they had gone. I think they call it trump derangement syndrome. They just got too ideological, now they're tying to reel it back a bit and be more centrist but it's gonna take a while to earn people's trust again.
I agree Social media and Mainstream don't help Either I'll admit Trump doesn't control himself at times in Debates and Twitter It's Entertaining but at the same time We should probably look more Professional lol
It is not a debate anymore. It's an argument.
You know what. Ya. That’s exactly what’s wrong with these debates. 😂😂😂
Great video
Allowing ad hominems before the most ad hominem president of all time will go down in history as one of the major political blunders of the 21st century
“Will you just shut up man” 🤣
The U.S. fell as soon as Donald Trump was in the spotlight.
THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING VIDEO I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE
I missed it, what was the rule change? They can talk over eachother?
"It's only on yellow here, wait a minute." 💀
why he kinda 💀
No, far earlier than that - when the two major parties decide what the rules are. There used to be an independent, non-partisan, non-profit entity that sponsors and hosts the presidential debate, such as the league of women voters - the last one to do so. When the two major parties decided to dictate the debate rules for their own benefits at the expense of the public service that the debate should provide, the league of women voters decided to decided to quit and publicly explained why they quit.
Turn up the music louder! I can almost hear them talking!
Can we please get an extended supercut of presidential candidates being polite to each other and the moderator?
We will always support this channel. They're truly one of the best.
LMAO.
This leaves out a lot of detail. Namely, that general election debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (previously the League of Woman Voters), which did change its rules in 2008, but has nothing to do with primary debates. Primary debates are run by the DNC/RNC and whichever network they are airing on, and have never had rules about not addressing fellow candidates directly. Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton had a nasty personal spat in 1992 during a Democratic primary debate where they addressed each other directly.
Well said this is an overly simplistic video. It’s largely up to the moderators as well, in the current election cycle look at the Fox Business debate shown here and compare it to the other three debates (Fox News, NewsNation, and CNN), all of which were very well run.
I don’t understand the point of the rule change. I mean, candidates still addressed and rebutted each others’ points before the change
TV wanted more drama
Phuck the media and the Commission on Presidential Debates for making this change and for not fixing it the second they, along with the entire world, realized it was a monumental mistake.
Any debate in the US about returning to this ? It was both more interesting to listen to, more respectful, and also proved a lot more conclusive in bringing national civil peace. I believe
To think the United States used to be looked up to
This is what you are talking about when Trump could destroy democracy and clearly plans to?
I think once news outlets start to realize how little amount of people actually watch these on their channels, they’ll start to question why…
this came about precisely because people watch it... what are you talking about?
More so because politicians have reached celebrity status due to how prevalent social media is.
eh, they were celebrities even when RADIO was invented. FDR was known for his fireside chats n all. i think the problem is more that we’re voting for candidates over policy because there’s often little to no policy to speak of
Thats why its called a debate, they debate their ideas and they need to talk to eachother to get their views out
th-cam.com/video/rODJhXytWc0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=56EZolMrKDYRV9am. People were respectful during the state of the union address as well.
Donald trump was basically a cool guy in the wrong profession.
Many and many hyped him up as a potential president for decades, Oprah and others asked him if he will ever run, at first he didn't see the need; until Romney lost. Also the political apparatus favors big money and donors for the longest time and since the mid 2000s the parties stifle any 'problematic' or 'outside' voices during their primaries. Trump was the one who broke through that because he didn't need donors to fund and had enough name recognition and attracted attention.
I want out of this "Idiocracy"-timeline.
Reminds me of The Newsroom, where they wanted to change the debating format.
This is a reflection of a major change in media over the years. There is more and more media available to us, and anyone who wants to stay relevant needs to compete for people's attention. The former president is master of that.
It’s not the problem of the moderators or shows, it’s what Americans want to watch, so they get it. It’s a big social problem sadly…
shout out to major news corporations actively deteriorating our democracy in the name of profit and shoutout to NYT for putting playful quirky music over our downward spiral into dystopia
The November 8 debate was actually pretty calm and normal
We've been screwed ever since Newt Gingrich's style of combative politics took hold as a new normal. FU, Newt.
At one point they were great at hiding, now they’re just out in the open.
I think it’s actually because politics became more entertaining, and more theater. Not because they can now address themselves lol
I think it depends on how much the candidates want to bring forward the issues as much as making the debates more bombastic and entertaining to watch.
Not sure if they changed it to get more attention from people resignating in politics (and (not) going to vote) or what's behind that. - Here in Germany you can see tendencies going in that direction as well. And this really scares me. Not discussing about important topics but only personal attacks. - And "your" former president Trump makes all this even worse. When voting for this guy think about what our joungest learn from that man!
Can you elaborate on the rile change and how that creates the problem?
Change it back lol
Now a days debates are like dramas and I am loving every bit of it🍿🍿🍿😂😂😂 and Donald is the star in this😂😂😂
To be fair, in the old days there was the occasional barb or insult toward another candidate. Remember the "You're no Jack Kennedy" moment in '88? Or when Bob Dole was Ford's running mate in '76, and in a debate he claimed that all four major U.S. wars of the 20th century to that date were "Democratic wars" started by Democrats? That being said, in those days there was none of the crosstalk, bickering, and petty insults on a level that would have embarrassed the commentators of "The McLaughlin Group." One more symptom of a broken political system.
Thank you for adding some nuances!
Like many things are, this is Trump's fault
This is crazy
I like debates when candidates are sitting down at a table instead of standing at a podium. It seems more calm and policy oriented to me.
The people dont want this. But they keep watching it. So it will never stop. If you dont want it stop watching. Disconnect do anything else at all.
Disgusting! Common guys, you have the most powerful nation in history!
How can such things happen in a PRESIDENTIAL debat?!
Hmm, well they can be entertaining this way.