After the fiasco that was the first 2020 presidential debate, I wasn’t sure what to expect when it was announced that the second debate would be canceled and the candidates would instead hold concurrent town hall events on different networks, Donald Trump on NBC and Joe Biden on ABC.
As a result, the candidates actually managed to expound on their platforms rather than slinging mud at one another. In a time when debates have largely become political theater, it was refreshing to actually be able to hear the candidates’ positions for once. In the previous debate, Trump avoided questions by attacking Biden, and even the moderator, and Biden was unable to get a word in edgewise. In the new town hall format, Trump was unable to dodge questions, and was seriously challenged by NBC moderator Savannah Guthrie. While Biden had significantly more “softball” questions from obviously left-leaning attendees, it still allowed him to really explain a lot of his policy proposals, and showcase the more moderate side of his platform with issues like fracking.
In addition, the town hall format was way more conducive to a policy based discussion than a traditional debate where candidates are confined to two-minute sound bites. Even though this is in place to keep the debate flowing, it’s almost impossible to go in depth on policy proposals in such a short amount of time. How do you comprehensively explain U.S. foreign policy in 120 seconds or less without the other guy taking your head off?
With the town halls, you were able to actually hear the candidates’ opinions, and they were allowed to elaborate on their positions with little or no interruption. It was reminiscent of a job interview, which is appropriate because the presidency is, ultimately, a job. It was moderated by savvy pundits, who held the candidates accountable and, for the most part, didn’t let them pivot, and the questions were posed by those whom the candidates would eventually serve: the American people.
Although it may mean that Americans have to give up drinking games and reality TV-worthy political dramas, I think we should think about cutting down on debates, and replacing them with town halls. Granted, there are downsides. When events are held simultaneously it’s impossible to watch both at the same time, making it harder for voters to directly compare their options. Also, though Trump’s town hall really showcased that an effective moderator could put candidates on the spot and get them to answer (or not answer) difficult questions, a biased pundit may not press the candidates on the issues as effectively as their opponent could.
However, I still think town halls are a much more effective way to get information to voters. Separating the presidential hopefuls allowed them to be more like candidates and less like combatants. The presidential debates have been losing their effectiveness for a while now, and dodged questions and vicious attacks have become the norm. These town halls hearkened back to an earlier era when debates really were about informing voters and changing people’s minds, and I for one hope they increase.
Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore/Flickr
