>

Debates used to be interesting because you had the chance to hear each candidate’s views on certain topics but now it’s all buzzwords and name-calling. We could do without.
"We know there is a high likelihood that our candidate will be a fucking moron, so we don't want a Democrat making them look bad". >

Just look at how DeSantis did against Charlie Crist - a fluffy cloud in human man form - in his one debate.
No way the RNC can risk putting DeSantis up against a tougher opponent. >

DeSantis won big in the election though, so either that debate didn’t matter or the outcome has been misread >

In Florida. Florida is not a great indicator of what to expect from a national election... (thank god) >

People said the same thing about the orange turd. Be vigilant >

We watched the movie, the spinoff would be worse for sure. >

Fine, go ahead and hold the debate with the democratic candidate and an empty podium. Mention once at the beginning of the broadcast that the republican candidate refused to participate then proceed. Keep the same questions and allow the democratic candidate to answer them in full. Basically a town hall. But keep that empty podium on the stage to remind viewers of who showed up.
Edit: In fact, put the LWV back in charge of it like they used to be. >

I think you should keep asking the republican candidate questions, pan to the empty podium and sit on it for 45 seconds or whatever the time limit is. >

Clint Eastwood did that once. >

It worked, too. Obama was a one-term President. >

then explain 2008-2016 >

It was a really long term. >

Double the length of most terms if I recall. >

It is the longest single term to ever term. >

Actually the longest term was FDR's. His term termed for sixterm years. >

and he is why we have term limits.
Cause Republicans were so butthurt from the asskicking they got from a man in a wheelchair. >

The Republican Party is in a death spiral, but it’s probably going to take decades and take a lot of people with it. >

I genuinely fear what the GOP is willing to do once it becomes abundantly clear that they cannot win through normal means. It's no secret that their voters, and even some of their politicians, are already willing to resort to violence. >


I genuinely fear what the GOP is willing to do once it becomes abundantly clear that they cannot win through normal means

I mean, we already have, haven't we? It'll just get amplified from here on out. >

My civics teacher told us this would happen, 23 years ago. Republican unpopularity and their overreliance on gerrymandering and disinformation were already on the front page. Their disrespect for democracy was already obvious to anyone paying attention, even back then. >

Roger Stone that little weasel >

Just listened to the Behind the Bastards two parter on him. As Robert said, he’s possibly not quite as bad as Manifort but he’s still a huge, steamy pile of shit. >

They're doing this because they know their actual positions are repugnant to the average voter and won't stand the scrutiny of a debate. >

“repugnant”
-JFK >

One of the absolute minimum requirements for running for office should be standing up for the beliefs you are running on and defending them in a debate. 
Demonstrate you can hold your own and who you are. If you run on lies and never follow through on why people are voting for you, it should be on record and you should be held accountable. 
We need more quality checks not less. Don't let this be acceptable. It's not. >

In that case the Republican party hasn't qualified for running for office since at least 2010. I can't think of "a deeply held belief" the Republicans haven't turned their backs on at least once in the past 12 years. >

Can’t debate when your platform is nothing but culture wars and grievances about M&M, trans folk and AP African studies. >

Don’t you leave Hunter Biden’s dick off that list now. >

Hunter's Hog is the new Harambe. >

Who would have thought that the party of homophobes would end up being a bunch of dudes obsessed with another man's dong >

Kitara Ravache thought that! >

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
—David Frum >

I mean they also rejected conservatism. What position of theirs is still small government. >

Conservatism is the defense of the ruling class and existing power structures from changes that occur in society. The idea of a small government was just a slogan to kill off social policies.
Frum was just pointing out something that has already been seen countless times before; that fascism is capitalism in decay. It is the illiberalism deployed to keep capitalism intact so long as the blood flows to the blood god. >

Heaven forbid they address the public they're running to serve. How do you expect your leader to show courage in the face of major obstacles when they're too much of a coward to face the public? >

Actually developing a plan that sounds coherent and helps people is not their strong suit. Of course they won’t debate. It’s easier to keep their supporters if they don’t reveal anything except why the other side is bad, therefore vote for them. >

Their problem is that Trump is basically incoherent and DeSantis is an asshole. So, they can't put either on public display. >

DeSantis’ voice is not very commanding. He doesn’t sound good at all. Even 80yo Biden sounds more ‘manly’ than DeSantis. >

I thought the RNC already announced they will no longer be sending a nominee to any presidential debate back in 2020? >

Yes because trump couldn't make it through basic questions without going of on rambling incoherent rants and had his mic shut down multiple times because he kept trying to talk over biden. >

Never forget >

Of course they are. The Presidential Debates are for people who use facts, and every statement is thoroughly analyzed and fact-checked for accuracy. It also allows for critical examination of people's stances, and Republicans of late don't want to show their voters just how deficient they are at defending their hypocrisy. >

They know they'll be fact checked faster than the fly on Pence's hair. >

Duh.
The fascist forced birthers know their wacko beliefs aren't popular. >


We don't want whomever it is to be exposed as being embarrassingly dumb. Like last time. And the time before. >

Pussies. >

Pussies can take a pounding and push out a baby. They're more like balls that will bring a man to their knees with a simple touch. >

I believe in this context it is used as a shortened form of "pusillanimous," meaning "showing a lack of courage or determination; timid". >

Or pussy cat. Either way, has nothing to do with female anatomy. >

Way to put your failures on blast, RNC >

If their nominee could read they would probably be pissed about this. >

Awesome. Let Biden answer questions unopposed and then show an empty podium when it's the Republican's turn. >

They've lost every argument, so they don't want to  debate anymore. 
They just want a fascist dear leader to lie his way to power and then impose his will on the American people. >

Let's not let them brand this as a boycott. They and their candidate are fucking terrified of actual debate. They are ideologically bankrupt, morally reprehensible, and intellectually impaired. They have no platform, no plan, and no desire to govern. The GOP is a criminal organization intent on ending American democracy and enriching its ruling class while enslaving the people. >

fucking cowards. what more is there to say? >

What a bunch of limp dicked cowards
Give us a show fuckers. You're the party of Reagan, act like it >

If their candidate is too chickenshit to debate, why should they be elected? >

Lol, cowards. >

Calling Biden senile yet being afraid to debate him 🧐 >

With no policies, plans, or programs to talk about, it would be like debating with an empty podium. 
I see your ploy now. >

All their planks are warped outrage over M&Ms and Dr. Seuss and a rainbow and personal issues of others that have nothing to do with them. At all. 
But - here we are some more. >

Of course not, they have no policies to speak of. They haven't come up with a new idea since Newt had them sign that 'pact'...
 Every debate they have is rinse and repeat. 'Tax breaks for the wealthiest, make America a theocracy, cut Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Social services and make sure that the mentally unstable have access to firearms.' >

Well then we know they're still a treasonous, unserious party hell-bent on crime. >

don't threaten me with a good time. >

"We have no desire to defend our untenable positions!" >

So many hills to die on...please continue. >

The nominee will almost certainly be mini man DeSantis.
The new norm will be that the GOP will avoid any presidential debates and will shun all but the most far right "news" organizations from their rallies.
I would put a 99% chance on this being the way forward for the GOP.
They have a MASSIVE victim complex in which nothing is ever "fair".
They won't try to appeal to new voters, but instead continue to work so that the voter base they do have is able to go further (redistricting, voter restriction laws, etc.), which is why this approach will work in the short-term. >

DeSantis is the front runner, but I wouldn't rule out Nikki Haley this far out.
She doesn't have the formers baggage to deal with, her own being relatively small compared to his culture war bullshit. 
In current GOP terms shes a lot cleaner. >

They won't debate if they can't win. And with their extreme positions they can't win. Do you support ending Social Security? Yes or no? >

Awesome. Then there should be an empty podium on stage >

As if this is a big deal. Republicans don’t have any policies. trump just lied and attacked. The GQP in a nutshell is all lies and grievance. >

That would be either a strategic error, or a terrifying reality that the RNC no longer needs to participate in critical democratic traditions in order to maintain viability. >

They don't.  They have the support of the Southern Baptist Church and that alone is enough to win elections. >

Fielding candidates like Herschel Texas Ranger why would they even try? >

I've said many times when this sort of thing came up - have the Democratic nominee go anyway with a cardboard cutout of the GQP nominee. Stand that cutout in front of the mic. After answering a question, say "but I would like to hear what my opponent has to say," then wait a few seconds before saying "well as we can see, my opponent clearly does not believe that we, the American people, deserve to know their policy positions." >

Because they're beliefs can't be defended. >

If it's Trump they will stick to their boycott. But if it's DeSantis or another halfway coherent candidate? They will trip over themselves wanting to face Biden on stage. I support Joe, but he wasn't in top form in 2020 in the debates. 4 years later and against someone other than Trump he's likely going to fair much worse. >

They won't stick to any boycott, regardless of who the nominee is. There will be a 2024 Presidential Debate, and there will be a Democratic nominee there. 
If they want to give 2 hours of uninterrupted primetime air to the Democratic candidate I won't argue too much with them. >

As much as I enjoy watching debates towns halls are starting to grow more on me. >

I suppose they could still hold a debate and have an empty podium for the no-show, then. Let the other candidate have the WHOLE time to themselves on TV, and pan periodically to the empty podium for rebuttal. >

Lol. Just invite the Libertarians then. Stop doing business with the Republican Party completely. >

When crazy decides it isn't going to show up, the solution is not to invite a different form of crazy to replace it. >

Wtf is happening to my party >

The continuation of everything since (at least) Gingrich >

R candidates can't survive outside their own media bubble.  Exposure to facts causes them to melt. >

The Real Presidential Debates, with your host, \^&*er Carlson, only on Fox ! >

I remember a time when conservatives at least relished in the debate and exchange of ideas, and weren’t just brainless rubber stamps for whoever their anointed leader was. >

That's what happens when you have a religious voting base.  Cults know how to cult... and little else. >

We have a weekly TV panel show in the U.K., “Have I Got News For You”, where a mix of comedians, politicians and other celebrities answer questions about the weeks news, preferably in a humorous manner.
The Labour Member of Parliament, Roy Hattersley, didn’t show up for a recording, cancelling at the last minute for - I believe- the 3rd time- so they replaced him with a tub of lard, which occupied his seat throughout the filming. >

Went down in history as one of. Funniest episodes ever, also the tub of lard proved to be much more insightful, intelligent and interesting than Hattersley could ever be >

The fact that DeSantis would do horribly in a real debate, pretty much means he must be kept carefully presented with in the right-wing media bubble.
Debates were out of the question as soon as he began to look like their guy. >

Ha ha that's because their nominee will be an IDIOT AND A LIAR!  THEY CAN'T WIN A BATTLE OF WITS SO THEY FOLD! >

It’s probably for the best. Having your candidate display their ignorance on national television does not instill confidence or gain votes. >

Remember - Walker was close.
:/ >

No plans, no goals and all thin-skinned 
No wonder. >

Well, how many ways can you say, "our platform is the same as it was in 2016 and 2020...own the libs"? >

Have him debate the Libertarian candidate then.    They get a national platform and suck off votes from the Republicans >

Hold it anyway.  You’ll get about as much sense out of the empty podium as you’d get out of the nominee. >

If the networks had any balls they would just say "Cool then your opponent gets all the screen time for himself" >

There's no point having debates with people who don't deal in facts. >

Our ideas are so good we don’t want to discuss them or let you hear them!  - GOP, probably >

Wants to run the free world but can't handle a debate. Pathetic. >

They don’t really want to run anything. They wouldn’t know how. >

Is it because they are too stupid to debate? Lol >

Hold the debates anyways. They don’t have to show up >

Republicans have no policies other than obstructing the Democrats. Nothing to debate. >


Indeed, Republicans are currently reaching out to networks on their own to propose their own GOP-approved version of debates. One issue that they take particular issue with is the presence of debate moderators

Ahh, there it is. They want to "debate", but they don't want to be called out on their bullshit, or for breaking the decorum of the debate. That's "unfair" to the crybabies. Ultimate cowardice on display, as usual. >

You can’t lose a game you don’t play is a strategy, I suppose. >

They should go one step further and boycott the election. >

Why debate issues when you can run on platform of 'performative theatre'. >

Look how far we’ve come >

My platform is whatever trump’s gut says it is. >

thats a pretty big platform lol >

filled with cake and hamberders >

Ideas so weak they can't even be talked about without falling apart. That's how I read this. >

Somebody should tell Kanye' >

The Republican party that promotes strength, independence, and freedom will only support a kowtowing nominee. >

They claim presidential debates are rigged against them when they always seem to make a point to not ask about climate change so as not to give democrats an unfair advantage. >

Oh darn … I was looking forward to more Drag Queen (Made Up) Story Hour from Santos! >

Because that turned out so well for Purdue back when Jon Ossoff was running for a Senate seat, right? >

Just let the Dem nominee do town halls then. We aren’t missing out in much. Debates are not helpful when the candidates aren’t serious and the current likely Republican candidates are all not serious individuals. This is actually a win >

Well it can be a Democrat town hall then... >

I hope they do debates anyway and just leave the Republican side empty. Fucking cowards. >

"We're scared" is so Alpha Male /s >

Why bother. It’s political theater anyway… >

Translation: "we don't want our candidates being held held accountable for the stupid shit they say." >

Sweet. Hour long democrat town hall. >

Fuckin do it.  Show that you are afraid of legit debate and that you are afraid of  being destroyed for the cowards you are. >

No ideas , its hard to debate with just hateful rhetoric that journalist will call out. >

The RNC is warning that they won't send anyone.
But, there WILL be a time where some ego-centered candidate, like say, Trump, will do whatever the hell they want and show up just to "own the libs." >

Republicans don’t want to win elections any longer… they only want to seize power now… they’ve given up, know they’re unpopular with voters and don’t give a 💩. >

Why would they deny a debate? One if the best things for Trump’s 2016 run was all the stupid sound bites his base ate up from the debates, no? It’s another platform for the. To lie and tantrum on. I’ll be surprised if there are no debates. I think it’s just something they say to build the drama to guarantee more viewership. >

I say get rid of it. Trump got his ass handed to him against Hillary and still won. >

"This year, instead or showing up and spewing idiotic bullshit over more qualified candidates, we declare victory.  Like our heros before, kari lake and the tre45on man himself, God-Emperor Trump." >

Wouldn't want the voters to know much about the candidate the GOP is actually, you know, running. George Santos is just a prototype. >

I mean they have literally nothing to debate, they just froth at the mouth and their voters love it. >

They are not interested in governing. They want to burn it all to the ground and just have things the way they want…
They are traitorous unAmerican trash. >

They have to. How will they defend defunding SS and Medicare And shifting all of the tax burden to the middle classes? >

I already predict that it is because they know they would lose, regardless of who they nominate. None of them are too bright. Most of them are actively ignorant on top of that. >

It’s that or plead the 5th on their policy positions and really every question posed by the moderator I suppose. >

Nothing says serious political party/ideology designed to help people like refusing to show up to a debate before ANY of the terms have been discussed. It’s really fascinating that republicans keep losing debates and their conclusion is that debates are biased and need to be skipped. Say what you want, the jets still show up to games even though they know they probably won’t win. >

In their defense, it’s extremely difficult for republican candidates to look good when they’re being confronted with the fact that they’re completely disconnected from reality >

This RNC strategy is fucking hilarious. 
Yea we just wont show up to debates and well ban the media from covering our rally's and speeches.  
Lol. 
How'd  that gambit work out for Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania. Oooof Factor 10. >

They have nothing to say. Just plans to be punitive. >

GOP is already admitting their candidate will be stupid and inept. >

Welp my fellow Americans; it’s been nice. This country was a great experiment on the power of voting for the people. We unfortunately seem to have about a year and a half left until we cease to exist. I hope that people plan accordingly and hopefully we can all keep in touch once we implode on ourselves. It would have been nice to keep us unified but it’s looking like that isn’t a possibility. >

I really liked that time when they interviewed Donald Trump and Biden separately. I think something like that should be done. >

They don't call that boycotting. That's just not stepping up to the plate. >

Then the debate committee is obligated to let the DNC's nominee have the full time to dunk on the RNC nominee like Jon Ossoff did when Perdue refuse to show for their debate. >

Small to no loss. The debates haven't exactly been priceless affairs the last few times. >

This doesn’t surprise me. They’ve been a cult now since Trump. The debate is irrelevant to them. >

Well, they don't have anything to say anyway. One less idiot to listen to. >

I’m so shocked!  wussies >

Refusing a debate should automatically disqualify you from holding office. Same goes with refusing to make your tax returns public. >

Says a lot about the candidates they’re expecting. >

They have been saying this for quite a while now. >

I think the candidate that showed up get to "decorate" the empty podium however they like. >

After the GOP controlled House trashes the US economy, they expect they don’t need to run on a platform or answer questions. >

They won’t have a policy platform either. >

So, cowards >

Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk. >

Well I guess that means they aren’t planning to roll trump out again because you know he wouldn’t give up prime time airtime. >

It’ll probably be someone like Herschel Walker who will be too busy drooling on the podium to debate. >

What would a candidate have to hide in order to avoid a debate? >

They don’t want to talk about the 1/6 violent attempted coup, voting against Vets, their support of putin, anti-voting rights, insane 100% ban on abortion, 30% sales tax benefitting the rich, elimination of medicare and social security, refusal to support proper background checks for gun purchases, etc., ad nauseam. >

It really doesn't matter. There are no on the fence GOP voters, no swing votes wondering if they'll go Dem or Rep. The swing votes are people deciding to go Independent or Dem. Anyone who still votes for the GOP has already made up their mind. Also the GOP doesn't need the normal processes to win, they've shown that you can gerrymander to win and if you did lose, deny that you ever did. >

That is entirely untrue. As evidenced by the fact that the party of the presidency has changed power 4 times since 1999.
Trump has zero chance of winning in Georgia. But DeSantis has a good shot. >

It changes due to party fatigue. Look at how it changed prior to 1999, it switches every 8 years over 80% of the time in 20th century alone. So, there's little to do with it other than that imo. We give a party 8 yrs (most of the time) and then we switch. Since 1990 though we've only had 2 one term presidents, both republicans >

They might regret this decision if they nominate Desantis and Biden is the democratic nominee. The optics of such a young candidate against Biden would probably work in their favor. >

Agreed.
DeSantis is going to look good in many ways next to Biden. 
I think DeSantis is shit.  But he is young and fun and decisive. These are attractive qualities to many voters. >

Hold the debate with the gold Trump statue as a stand in for the GOP candidate.
That will be a fair representation of the current state of affairs with the GOP. >

It's amazing that the nominee is presumed to be so subservient to the party that they aren't even really given the choice to debate. >

Clint Eastwood —-> Empty Chair
Joe Biden —-> Empty Podium
It’s coming full circle. >

Well then they can just lose that opportunity and have none of their message get out >

Cowards! They won't have anything to run on other than owning the libs, and you can't make a debate out of that. Fucking Republicans. >

Awesome no one wants to hear conspiracies anyway >

They cannot lie, if they don’t talk. >

The MSM will bungle it. They will clutch their pearls and cry how offended they were about being snubbed rather than framing it as an insult to the people. Hell, even right wing voters want to see their guy go out and “own” the democrat. Republicans have gone past even pretending to care about policy. Owning libs is all the matters. >

This is because they know both Trump and DeSantis both are TERRIBLE Debaters. DeSantis, especially. he's AWFUL. he gets rattled very VERY easily. He falls for debate traps constantly. he comes across as incredibly smug and self-absorbed.. literally all any opponent needs to do is just stay calm and collected and it will be a slaughter. >

Call their bluff. Give the other candidates, even a third party one, all the free air time >

Come on, I’m sure they can train the monkey by then. Now they’re just lazy. >

“Debates are biased against republicans” yeah because they always reveal that all republican candidates are morons with no real platform. >

F-them.  Hold the debates, let the Dems and other candidates have a good time answering questions and setting their policy out for all to see.  Not like it will matter to the GOP who has no policy and is not wooing new people into the fold. >

Just like what my father does when he knows he can’t win the argument or doesn’t want to get called out on something stupid, runs away or says go away I don’t want to talk >

I was wondering when this was going to happen >

The RNC is already saying that the 2024 election was rigged. /s >

Republicans obviously have disdain for our democracy and our country. It's disgusting >

The days of even trying to just even appear to care about the middle is over. 
Conservatism is on its way out, and they will sooner destroy democracy than lose. >

At this point there is no doubt in mind, that the GOP nominee will either be Trump, Desaints, or who ever tries to clone Trump's 2016 election. Sprinkled with jabs about how this the "worst" economy, our enemies (that has been proven the GOP members  collided/got funding from), and that they can magically "save" us...
Edit
Formatting >

It's DeSantis. >

Good! Debates are useless anymore >

Nothing screams leader like a candidate that refuses to participate in necessary decorum >

Do they even have a platform? >

They sure do. It's a bible with a gun on it next to a v8 engine on a gas stove with a cheap beer somewhere in there. >

I’m genuinely asking, do moderates care if a candidate refuses to debate? If Biden came out and said “I’m not debating” it’s not I would say “well fuck him then” and vote for trump. I imagine it’s the same for conservatives, so it only matters if moderates care… do they? >

What would a Republican-approved debate look like (with no moderators)? >

Then just let the people that do show up have 2 hours of prime time for free >

Aka “we feel like answering questions and defending our positions will hurt our chances in an election.” >

Good >

Not terribly confident in anyone from the current field being able to handle a few questions?  That’s ominous. >

So their strategy is to win without convincing people they have better ideas?
That is the republican party alright. >

I’m fine with that decision. The democrat nominee can answer questions and an empty chair can stand in for the Republican nominee. >

What would be funny is ask the Democrat the question, let them answer, then ask the Republican the same question and have the camera point at the chair for three minutes. You would probably get a more coherent answer than if a republican actually answered. >

As if there was any question. >

Debating is a part of the process, and they think they can just refuse to show up? I guess they can, but it is ridiculous. I would hope the Republicans insist on their candidate showing up instead of being a coward - too afraid to debate! >

AWESOME! They will give Democrats 3-4 free, hour long speeches right to America in primetime. I love this strategy of being scared to even state your platform and debate it and look like a bunch of scared babies. 👍WTG RNC! >

They should have debates with the other candidates in them >

If you won’t debate and the fools who follow you can’t read, you’re all set! >

Invite 3rd party candidates instead, what will fox even air? >

And what happened in 1988 that caused the switch...
Oh...a Republican hissy fit. >

Don’t blame them. They’ve gotten killed recently >

How long before we see a solid conservative party alternative develop?  The GOP is toast, and looking beyond repair.  That's what happens when you make a prolific liar and cheat your idol. >

Can they boycott the vote too... save us all the trouble. >

3 things that should be SOP in the 21st century for POTIUS candidates.

Full vetting and publication of the results. If SCOTUS justices and virtually any nominee to high office are required to be vetted, POTUS candidates should be vetted as well.
Release of their last 10 years of tax returns.
At least 3 debates when we get down to the final party candidate. If the contender for so called 'leader of the free world' can't think on their feet and have all of their important policy positions memorized, they should run for dog catcher instead. >

I think that "debates" as we knew them are over and done, at least at the Presidential level. Trump, as well as the 24/7 news cycle, has put an end to it. >

Guess GOP officially doesn't want to defend their policies or actions anymore >

Ahh. Utilizing the Hobbs Defensive Maneuver. It’s a bold strategy cotton, let’s see how it plays out. >

Invite the libertarian candidate. >

Honestly, this helps Biden, who does not do well in debates in his old age. >

They skurd 👻 >

Republicans running from a fight? >

What is the strategy here? >

Not being fact checked on their insane shit on live television. >

Thier base only responds to bravado dipshits that can’t debate. >

Well, the debate WOULD be held in a different reality from the FOX/GQP version. >

If there is a single braincell among DNC leadership they will shrug their shoulders and invite the libertarian candidate to the debates >

This is such an amazing and decisive choice that it is absolutely never gong to happen. >

Are they still sore about Pence's fly being more popular than their candidates? >

Add another party or have it out with the civil war already. >

So what? There’s nothing to debate. Refubs pretend real life doesn’t apply to them. They’re all meta, all the time. You can’t debate someone who lives in a fantasy world and just makes shit up. It’s a waste of tax payer money to have these “debates” and the shitty mainstream media that’s in the tank for those bozos ask all the wrong questions anyway. >

Imagine a hypothetical Ye vs Biden matchup and what the debate would be like. >

This is old news. They voted to boycott future debates 2 years ago. >

What a ridiculous thing for them to say. They have no idea what will happen. >

So we all know why they’re doing it - because they don’t have a leg to stand on. But why are they saying they’re doing it? >

I don't believe that RNC will boycott debates entirely. I think it's going to be RNC having a separate debate venue with moderators they trust. We might ironically see debates between two individuals who are not at the same debate venue and not answering the same debate questions. >

I think at this point the debates are useless.  I am not 100% positive but I the majority are now voting for sides and not the people.