Why NOT single topic debates?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

With the number of candidates, and the time constraints, it would be so much more revealing to have issue focused debates. Didn't they schedule something like 10 primary debates? It's really a waste of time listening to answers fashioned to be sound bites.

[DangerDave921]

1. Totally

Exactly. I'd rather see an hour of discussion on SPECIFICS instead of 30-second snippets. Yes, everyone is in favor of jobs and good medical care and a better economy. Duh! The question is what are you going to do about it. And that needs follow-up questions and discussion. I think most candidates are afraid of actually discussing a subject past the initial comment phase.

[havocmom]

2. Because all that time to one issue would force a substantive discussion

and nobody (running) wants that. OK, one or two want that but they are the fringe and the front-runners want to keep them that way. ;)

It would be great for the country if they tackled one subject per debate. Tough on front-runners and media picks though, so don't look for it to happen. Just open yer mouth, say 'AH' and let the media shove their picks down yer throat. x(

[Cameron27]

5. That sounds about right.

At least they could have the single issue debates focused on Iraq, Iran and the perceived consequences of their withdrawal plans, and I'd like one based soley on comparisons of their healhcare plans.

[dflprincess]

3. Why not actual debates instead of these Q&A sessions?

n/t

[pinto]

4. Not a bad idea. One drawback would be diminished focus on the big picture - relationship

of one issue with another - say the defense budget and domestic priorities. But it's an interesting idea.