Chad King says:

It’s a mystery to me why debates are so horrible. Here’s a simple solution: (1) each candidate in a sound-proof booth–they can hear all of the others, but speak only when their microphone is on; (2) each candidate gets the same amount of air time (when their microphone is active); (3) the moderator’s role is simple: ask short questions and then shut up (e.g., what legislation would you propose for abortion? how would you handle illegal immigration? what cabinet departments, if any, would you eliminate? what’s your plan to restore long term viability to Social Security and Medicare? should welfare recipients be required to work?).

Candidates would be free to filibuster if they want–but they would just be wasting their time. Each candidate would need to decide how to spend their time (in a 90 minute debate with six candidates, each would have about 15 minutes of air time). It would soon be clear which candidates could articulate a vision in short sentences and small words and which were simply BS artists. When your time’s gone, it’s gone and the candidate sits there in silence (we probably need to lock them in the booths to prevent them causing a scene when they want to storm out after their time has expired).

The best part is that the Republicans could then insist on the same rules for the general election. The spectacle of Trump and Biden talking over each other and avoiding the tough issues during the 2020 “debates” was disgusting (as is the penchant of the Republicans for letting hard core leftists “moderate” the debates–they’re like Charlie Brown and the football). I’d be surprised if a debate along the lines I described didn’t get high ratings. Can you imagine Biden trying to provide clear answers to simple questions? Me, neither.

Just by way of example: how would you handle abortion? Candidate 1: I believe that abortion should be available during the first 15 weeks of pregnancy and thereafter to protect the mother’s life (10 seconds). Candidate 2: Blah, blah, blah for 5 minutes saying nothing. I wonder who would get more support?

The Republicans need to keep their eye on the ball. They have better solutions. But their solutions are lost in all the shouting and blathering by both candidates.

John Shepherd says:

Fox is getting a lot of flack for their “unfriendly” to the forum questions. Did it occur to anyone that the moderators understand that any Republican will face a hostile media environment and were simulating that environment to allow the audience to see how each candidate would respond? I am disappointed that even Ed Morrissey missed it.

Politics on the internet is bubblized and inhabitants of any particular bubble expect their media to be cheerleaders. However, candidates have to campaign outside of any particular bubble where the media may not be so friendly. Of all the candidates I think only Trump and DeSantis get it, although they have radically different approaches. Trump like engaging with hostile media because it energizes his dedicated followers even though his responses tend to alienate others. DeSantis either dismisses them or throws the BS flag and provides reciepts when they push their hostile talking points. DeSantis approach is more effective in communicating outside the bubble.