The smart way to hold the Republican debates

If there's a dumb way that Republicans can do something, you can trust they will.  That goes not just for their so-called strategy for opposing Obama, or getting out their views, but even to the machinery of the Republican Party, which schedules and organizes the presidential primary debates.

On Thursday we will see a spectacle of ten candidates trying to get their message across in one-minute response times.  The candidates will barely get to interact with each other because there are simply so many of them.  This doesn't even count the "pre-game" show featuring those lowest in the polls.

How do we learn about candidates in debates?  One way is to have good questioners who have the time to go back and forth with candidates.  Such time will not be very much in abundance with ten candidates to talk to.

Another way is when candidates can spar and challenge each other.  There may be some of that at Thursday's debates, but with so many personalities, it will be hard to focus on any particular candidate in depth.

So what is the answer?  It's quite simple.  Have several separate debates, scheduling one after another on the same day.  Have the top five candidates in the polls in the first debate, have the next five in a second debate, and have the remainders in a third debate.  People will naturally be the most interested to see the first group, but the second and third group may get some viewing as well.  In the meantime, with "only" five candidates on the podium, there will be more opportunity for back-and-forth between the candidates and the questioners.

Ideally, you might even get rid of questioners altogether, and allow the candidates to question each other, in a rotating order.  That would be the most interesting and provocative of all.

Of course, given the spirit of egalitarianism, there will be no smaller debates.  Donald Trump will get the same amount of time as John Kasich.  Scott Walker will get the same time as Chris Christie.  Where is the sense in that?  If candidates want to be in the top tier, they should have to earn it in the polls.  What we will end up with are short clips that probably won't tell us much.

I suppose Fox News is at least as much responsible for this mess as the RNC, since Fox News set the terms for this particular debate.  They are trying to bend over backwards to be fair to everyone, but sometimes when you try to be fair to everyone, you end up being fair to no one.  Everyone can't be president; everyone can't be at debates.  Don't you wish they had at least used some common sense to realize that what they're attempting won't work very well?

Let me know in the comment section what you think about my idea for the debate format, and let me know if you have any better ideas.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

If there's a dumb way that Republicans can do something, you can trust they will.  That goes not just for their so-called strategy for opposing Obama, or getting out their views, but even to the machinery of the Republican Party, which schedules and organizes the presidential primary debates.

On Thursday we will see a spectacle of ten candidates trying to get their message across in one-minute response times.  The candidates will barely get to interact with each other because there are simply so many of them.  This doesn't even count the "pre-game" show featuring those lowest in the polls.

How do we learn about candidates in debates?  One way is to have good questioners who have the time to go back and forth with candidates.  Such time will not be very much in abundance with ten candidates to talk to.

Another way is when candidates can spar and challenge each other.  There may be some of that at Thursday's debates, but with so many personalities, it will be hard to focus on any particular candidate in depth.

So what is the answer?  It's quite simple.  Have several separate debates, scheduling one after another on the same day.  Have the top five candidates in the polls in the first debate, have the next five in a second debate, and have the remainders in a third debate.  People will naturally be the most interested to see the first group, but the second and third group may get some viewing as well.  In the meantime, with "only" five candidates on the podium, there will be more opportunity for back-and-forth between the candidates and the questioners.

Ideally, you might even get rid of questioners altogether, and allow the candidates to question each other, in a rotating order.  That would be the most interesting and provocative of all.

Of course, given the spirit of egalitarianism, there will be no smaller debates.  Donald Trump will get the same amount of time as John Kasich.  Scott Walker will get the same time as Chris Christie.  Where is the sense in that?  If candidates want to be in the top tier, they should have to earn it in the polls.  What we will end up with are short clips that probably won't tell us much.

I suppose Fox News is at least as much responsible for this mess as the RNC, since Fox News set the terms for this particular debate.  They are trying to bend over backwards to be fair to everyone, but sometimes when you try to be fair to everyone, you end up being fair to no one.  Everyone can't be president; everyone can't be at debates.  Don't you wish they had at least used some common sense to realize that what they're attempting won't work very well?

Let me know in the comment section what you think about my idea for the debate format, and let me know if you have any better ideas.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.