So The Serial Monogamist Wants Several Lincoln-Douglas Debates With The POTUS

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Newt Gingrich wants several Lincoln-Douglas debates with President Obama should he get the nomination. Newt, the president has a job.

Last I checked Lincoln and Douglas weren't incumbents.

[WI_DEM]

1. I actually like the idea of real debates--rather than the sound bite events we do get

but I don't think Newt will have to worry about participating as he is unlikely to be the nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. They Would Be Good If There Wasn't An Incumbent

.

[karynnj]

10. They would be good regardless

The format would enable people to know more of the ideas, vision, and knowledge of a candidate. For Obama, being an incumbent should not be a encumbrance, but actually a plus. There is nothing - on real issues - that a President does not deal with and is not already being briefed on. This is something that advantages good debaters, especially those with solid experience, and it favors thoughtfulness far more than the "debates" as we had them.

Looking at Democratic candidates in 2004 and 2008, I am not convinced that we would have made a different choice in the nomination - either year. Kerry would have been even better in the type of debate Newt speaks of - and in fact, Kerry debated Newt on climate change in 2005 or 2006. One benefit might have been more Democrats would have known who he really was faster. I think he would still have been the nominee - as he was the best debater and he won even with the canned debates. As to the general election, it is true that Kerry would have done even better against Bush, but I kind of think that Kerry maxed out the points that you can get from the debates. People's decisions were made on ideology and, in some cases, fear. There is an interesting possibility that the freer format might have let people see more of Kerry's thoughtfulness, and steadiness maybe increasing their willingness to move beyond their fear and trust him.

As to 2008, Hillary Clinton had a much more prominent, longer resumee and, at least in the early debates, she was better than Obama on knowing all the issues. However, Obama had an eloquence that more than matched Clinton's competent articulateness. This had to be very frustrating to Clinton, but it was what it was. This would, if anything, have been more obvious in a looser format. That election was SO close though that any change might have led to a different result. The more open format makes a gaffe look worse as the opponent can immediately call you on it - and it is hard to immediately rethink something and admit that you were wrong - but the alternative is doubling down on something that will hurt. (Personalitywise - I can see Obama as more able to not double down on the error - but that is personal opinion.) As to the general election, McCain could either have come off worse or slightly better - he was so bad in the regular format, it is hard to rule out him not being better!

[kestrel91316]

3. I think you mean the Serial Philanderer.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. My reaction too! LOL nt

[saras]

4. Newt could debate Lincoln and Douglas, and they'd both win. Even dead.

[Arkana]

6. If Newt's the nominee, I actually like that idea.

A real debate? Sign me up.

[Ikonoklast]

7. Newt isn't near as smart as he thinks he is.

Other people might fall for his blather, but most of what he spouts is bombastic nonsense, devoid of actual fact.

Mr. Obama would demolish him in an actual debate.

[JI7]

8. why doesn't he have them with Romney and Perry first ?

[ChazInAz]

9. POTUS shouldn't bother.

Judging from past performance, none of these Republicritters knows how to debate. They seem to think that "debate" means standing on your back feet and rattling off talking points and ad hominum attacks. A genuine, orderly debate-by-the-rules would probably hospitalize the Newt. Remember Palin's antic show with Vice President Biden?