Edwin Stromberg, Takoma Park
So far, the rules are good but not enough. No audience is great. What does it mean to be muted? Who and how? It's ridiculous if it's not automatic. Each candidate should have 3 lights: red for mic off, green for mic on, yellow for 10 seconds left. If a candidate moves from the podium, the mic should also be off.
Each candidate must appear live on the screen at all times – a large window for the live microphone, and a smaller window for anyone waiting.
So what about the questions? Too often hosts get overconfident and end up with cute questions. Surprises are stupid, and “gotchas” are stupid. Of course some questions will be relevant to some candidates and some not, but there should be an equal number for each candidate. Questions should be announced a week in advance so the media can vet them beforehand.
Most importantly, no fact-checking. That's not a host's job, and they don't really need one. If CNN thinks that's their responsibility, they're being smug. The time and the microphone belong to the candidate, and it's their choice to stay on topic.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with kids, and for them breaking the rules is part of the game.
William N. Hawk, Manhattan Beach, California
It would be great if the presidential debates were intelligent. To do that, questions should focus on policies regarding inflation, immigration, abortion, contraception, IVF, LGBTQ+ rights, education, healthcare, crime, NATO, Ukraine, and China. President Biden and former President Donald Trump should be asked how they would address these issues if re-elected, not discuss the other's failures. Unfortunately, the debates will likely go off the rails. The weaponization of the Department of Justice, hush money trials, and even sharks may slip into the conversation. Would Jake Tapper and Dana Bash be aggressive enough to keep the debate on track? Probably not.
George Magakis Jr., Norristown, Pennsylvania
As someone who has been involved in debates my entire professional life, presidential debates are fascinating to me, primarily because they are almost never fair: the venue, the moderator, the choice of questions, the rules for answers, the audience interruptions, the participants eligible to participate in the debates, all of these things are usually biased towards one party or the other.
Still, I was fascinated by George F. Will’s very interesting June 16th column, “Questions about the Biden-Trump Deal.”
The questions he posed for the debate will be of great interest to anyone seeking substantive answers to the thorny issues facing America, including the major candidates' disregard for the Constitution and limits on presidential power, and the wild accusations made by both sides (Democrats accuse Republicans of unbridled racism, Republicans claim Democrats are ignoring Russia's solutions to the war in Ukraine).
Unfortunately, these questions cannot overcome non-responsive responses or moderators who may not require candidates to answer certain questions, even if they ask them at all.
Richard E. Vats, Towson, Maryland
As for the upcoming Biden-Trump debate, you can bet that both men will want to focus on the past, with Biden looking back on the events of January 6, 2021 and the mishandling of the pandemic, and Trump focusing on gas prices, asking, “Are we better off now than we were four years ago?”
But the real question is: Will we be in a better place in four years?
Do you want to preserve Social Security, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act?
Do you want to allow the government to negotiate drug prices?
Want to ban assault weapons and strengthen gun control?
Want to protect a woman's right to choose?
Want to raise the minimum wage?
Want to protect union rights and maintain worker protections?
Want to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy and stay green?
Do you want an orderly, well-funded immigration process?
Do you want America to continue to be a leader in international affairs and preserving democracy?
Republicans (and Trump) oppose all of this, and Biden should focus on these issues in the debate.
Elections are about the future. As Fleetwood Mac (and Bill Clinton) say, “Never stop thinking about tomorrow.” Yesterday is gone.
I take issue with Dan Baltz’s presentation of voters’ choices after the Trump ruling in his June 2 front-page article, “Ruling Makes Voters’ Choices Hard Again,” in which he writes:
“Two big questions will define the upcoming debate between Trump and Biden: First, which candidate poses a greater threat to the future of the country? Second, which candidate will make Americans better off today? While related, the first focuses on personality and temperament, the second on substance and policy.”
I do not believe Biden poses a serious threat to the future of this country. Trump, on the other hand, would almost certainly make life worse for most of us. His promise to deport immigrants would severely disrupt the labor market and accelerate inflation. His promise to the oil industry would worsen the climate crisis. His promise to extend tax cuts would result in a significant increase in the national debt, which will have long-term consequences. Moreover, Trump and his Federalist Society allies have already taken major steps toward destroying our justice system. I am appalled that other politicians, such as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), are joining Trump in destroying the U.S. justice system.
Why is this habitual liar, egotist and criminal still being taken seriously by the Republican Party when he has destroyed many of the principles the Republican Party stood for? This former president is “naked” (except for that long red tie and MAGA hat). Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and even Ronald Reagan would turn over in their graves if they knew what happened to their great old party.
What about us independents?
Baltz's piece on party identity raises concerns about the nature of presidential debates: “I feel like we as independent voters don't get much of an opportunity to learn what the candidates value. Having watched the behavior in the 2016 debates, I don't think we get much beyond the standard partisan elevator speech.”
Couldn't The Washington Post have attempted something like a thoughtful correspondence between the candidates? I think the early letters of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay are great examples of how political correspondence can be helpful at a time when our country was at a crossroads of far-reaching ideological boundaries. Questions can be about specific issues, but I think written correspondence is preferable for capturing the worldview of the candidates.
One of the questions I like to ask is, “What are 10 scriptures from any source that inspire you and provide wise counsel for the nation in these times?”
The other was ideological: “Choose (your list) the socio-economic groups that represent America. What is your vision for how life should improve for each group in America by 2034?”
David Lincoln, Springfield, Virginia
This will be the seventh presidential election to feature the same two candidates in consecutive elections, a tradition that began with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and continued more recently with Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson.
Why is there no alternative? Because voting for a third party takes away votes from candidates who absolutely must win. To borrow the words of George Washington, I would say that debate is “a terrible tyranny of itself.”
CNN's requirements are unfair (phone polling if no one under 70 answers an unknown number, plus Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must reach the 270 electoral vote threshold even though most states will not ratify the petition in time), and this is happening when no major party candidate has even been nominated yet? I think it's time that this man who is an environmentalist, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, nephew of an assassinated president and son of an assassinated father is allowed to speak.
Matt Lyons, Glen Mills, Pennsylvania
