I say NO audiences at Presidential debates.

and have the candidates question each other--Oh, they can have a time keeper so that nobody goes on and on.

It would be terrific to see that style of debate.

Debate, discuss, serious issues.

Then at least Romney might be able to discuss income disparity in America.

and Newt is already overfed, IMHO.

primaries and determining their future. As much as I'm not happy with Obama, I'm thrilled with anything that will make a reasonable Republican jump ship. It was similar shit in 2000 that convinced me that any party that would have GWB as their candidate could do without me, and I've never voted Republican anything since.

what's the point of having an audience, and then telling them to shut up so we can pretend they're not there?

Just have debates Charlie Rose style, just two candidates in a studio with black backdrop.
That way, anybody who spends his time yelling or taking cheap shots just looks like an ass.

Others' reactions, even if faked as in a laugh track, encourage a response, whether, "Oh, that was funny," or "Oh, Gingrich is the most holy one blessed by Baby Jesus™!" as in the SC debate.

Unfortunately, many, if not most, humans look for some leader or group to guide us in decision making, whether something we may not even understand is funny (it must be, we laughed at it!) or even something akin to a "tribal" affiliation.

Sad. But people are manipulable.

Set dressing.

--imm