Vice Pres. Kamala Harris won last night’s debate against former Pres. Donald Trump… I guess.
That idea always perplexed me: the notion that a program with no score or prize can be “won” or “lost”. Some debates are actually structured with points and enforced rules, but these are about as ad hoc as it gets. Many people still tune in, and these programs can still influence voters. We’ll see how this year’s election stacks up: the only “win” that really counts. Despite this, we’re often sure who consistently seems to lose these debates: the moderators.
It’s been a very long time since the moderator of a presidential debate escaped the experience unscathed. Between accusations of showing political bias, asking dumb questions or just not being likable, it’s a thankless job. Despite all this, moderating a debate of this magnitude remains a dream of mine. Last night a viewer on my live chat asked me about that. (Click the video above to hear my answer.) If I got the chance, I’d want to radically revise the format: a long overdue change to make the debate more productive and less performative.
I can’t think of a single time in my life where I took a test without knowing the subject beforehand. I may not get the questions in advance, but I at least know what to study. Even a pop quiz covers a predictably finite amount of material. So why do we expect candidates for the most powerful job in America to simply guess what issues they’ll have to talk about? Invariably they fall back on platitudes and personal attacks, remaining light on policy details and heavy on rhetoric. That’s what we saw last night, for the most part.
My proposal: give the candidates all my topics in advance. Tell them what to study for.
Why make our candidates cram for a TV show without guidance on how to prepare? Don’t we deserve specific, substantive answers to consequential questions? The idea that our head of state needs to have instant recall of mountains of information is dubious. They’ll have teams of people in the White House to help with that. They do, however, need to know their own policies and proposals thoroughly. By telling them what to prepare for, we can demand better answers and leave the rhetorical flourishes for the closing statements.
I wouldn’t give them the actual questions. Nor would I promise to cover every predetermined topic in a certain order. It’s a cheat sheet, not an answer key. And we could add topics on the fly if they’re worth including. I would, however, ask the nation to send me any questions they want asked (with a word/character limit, for sure), and then analyze the results for major themes. Between what you suggest and what I come up with, we can build a dynamite list.
That would also ease our expectations on the moderators who, frankly, often don’t really know how to moderate. News anchors spend five days a week talking at the nation. Moderating is about listening. So the idea that being an anchor makes you ideal to host a televised debate is wishful at best. That makes it even more important that everyday Americans are integral to this process: especially if, like this year, it seems there will only be one presidential debate.
Check out my rationale for this revision in the video above, and comment with your thoughts. Could this make for better debates? Is there a problem or complication I’m not considering? How much do these debates matter to you at all? And what did you think of last night’s matchup? I’d love to hear from you.
How I'd improve presidential debates