I wish the term “debate” would be dropped from these things. The ostensible purpose of debate is to come to grips with facts and how to deal with the issue created. Debate forms the basis for adversarial representations in court for the trying of evidence. Debate is crucial in setting the direction for government policy. Debate can save companies that have lost their way. Publishers can provide forums for debate by experts on very specific topics.
I’m all in favor of town hall style meetings for the Democratic candidate instead of ‘debates’ (which events aren’t even close to the basic definition of the term).
Let the Dem candidate - or even, initially, all the candidates - face American people - not ‘moderators’ who don’t know their a$$es from beans - to discuss real kitchen table issues and not grievances for an entire evening. Who needs to hear the GQP side of the story when it’s all we’ve been hearing (by that time) for three years?
The question of course is always: would the media cover these events or will they be shunted to MSNBC to wallow in total obscurity?
The most self actualized answer I can imagine is that the know that he’s so far gone that he won’t be able to walk unassisted to the podium, and that there is no way he could function during a debate of any length. By attacking the credibility of the debates, they can set the expectation that debates are, by their very existence, unfair to conservatives.
BTW, @zandru, absolutely agree on the League of Women Voters. Yes, and yes, and yes.
HRC was living proof that debates don’t matter: she beat Trump’s ass.
He ran away after each debate and did not give his usual ‘sunny’ recital of HOW HE WON.
She beat him yet he won.
I would say Biden ‘also’ won their two debates. He, decrepit Old Joe, dealt with the ‘reflection’ issue because he F-ING PRACTICED under the debate conditions.