Talk:United States presidential debates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect?[edit]

"Commission on Presidential Debates" redirects to this page. There should be a seperate article for "Commission on Presidential Debates" as this page is about the presidential debates, in general, which have been historically sponsored by organizations other than the Commission on Presidential Debate and may be sponsored by other organizations in the future. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a seperate and distict organization.

This isn't an Encyclopedia entry: it's an essay (and a rather unfocussed, obtuse and poorly phrased essay at that). It requires some quite detailed attention to bring it up to standard. Oxymoron 09:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a go at touching this up over the next couple of days, however would this also classify as orginal research article? Grandwazir 17:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article in this subject but it's going to need to be dug out of this term paper. The author does provide some information about the debates in 1960, 1976, and 2004. But there should also be information about other Presidential debates; the pre-nomination debates between the candidates of each party; the format of the debates and the organizations that run them; the impact of the debates on the campaigns; and the presense or absense of third party candidates. MK2 01:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article seems to be about the U.S. presidential election debates, 2004. This should be about the history of the debates, so any information not needed in this article can either be deleted or merged. --Revolución (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an intro and cleaned up the history section. --Revolución (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished cleaning up the article. --Revolución (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved, though it still starts off with the labored "the two main candidates (almost always the candidates of the two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, engage in a debate." Can this be phrased more frankly and directly, still leaving the exclusion of third-party candidates to a section buried well down in the text? --Wetman 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it always held at WashU and Missouri? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.53.154 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Presidential Debate[edit]

In 1988 it was a presidental debate (series) between then Vice-President George Bush Sr, and Governor Michael Dukakis (MA) and also one Vice Presidential debate between former senator Dan Quale, and Texas Senator Loyd Benson. ( Its in both Dan Quayle's bio and Lloyd Bensons bio...)

--Artoftransformation 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quayle was still a Senator at that debate. 1.43.206.160 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

How are the locations for debates determined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.37.3 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?[edit]

This article really needs one, because many people are unhappy with these debates because of the near-universal exclusion of third parties and independents as well as the parallel interview format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.237.118 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree, this article is too short for it to matter. A general criticism section should be brought up in order to actually express the widespread criticism of not only the Presidential debates being watered down, but controled by the political parties in control of the Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.240.229 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation about 1980 election[edit]

The article previously stated "Going into the debate, President Carter had a narrow lead over his opponent, Governor Ronald Reagan of California, in a race considered 'too close to call.'" This not true and an oft-repeated myth. In the aggregate of 1980 polls, Carter was behind Reagan for the last six months of the campaign.[1] Yes, Carter was ahead in one poll but behind in all the others and behind in an aggregate of all polls.72.94.162.159 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates[edit]

(edit a few minutes later: found the sites and panelists) The section cites Chicago and the WBBM studios as the site of the first debate, does someone have the cities and exact locations of the next three? Since these debates were a historical first, and set the stage for future debates, the section should be expanded. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:00 14 February, 2015 (UTC)


ABS ? studios should that be either ABC or CBS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.99.58 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a separate article on these debates since they loom largely in history. 1.43.206.160 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election debates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, unanimous support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The word "election" adds nothing here in terms of clarity while running against WP:COMMONNAME. For example, united states "presidential debates" -wikipedia returns about 10 times the results of the longer form. The margins were even more lopsided in Google Books, and more still in Google Scholar, so we can rule out the idea that "presidential debate" is an uninformed shorthand. The category for the topic is indeed Category:United States presidential debates; subcats for the 2008, 2012, and 2016 debates use the longer form, and I'll request speedy renaming of them (C2C/C2D) if this request is successful. Finally, WP:CONCISE suggests we should prefer the shorter name, even if all else were equal. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The shorter "Presidential debates" is more common, so that is the term that should be used. Since these articles are part of a series that generally uses "United States Presidential election such-and-such" in titles, the current titles ought to be maintained as redirects for discoverability. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Both versions are fine, so the brevity argument swings it for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for conciseness. Nice find. Red Slash 17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move for conciseness, per above.  ONR  (talk)  00:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's the Commission on Presidential Debates Emily Goldstein (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Presidential debate" seems to be a more common usage of the term than "Presidential election debate". I would be perfectly fine with it. Parsley Man (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For reasons given above, including conciseness. Calibrador (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States presidential debates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


1980 canceled debates[edit]

Should the "2nd" Presidential and Vice Presidential debates be added to the table? The now canceled 2nd debate of 2020 is still in the table (as it should be imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.45.248 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Л[edit]

It is strange that the two main candidates for the 2024 presidential election are accusations in the judicial systems. They won't be surprised if they give up their candidatures. 2A0D:6FC7:33F:BBCB:5CBE:432B:1219:A976 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_debates&oldid=1208010404"