WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING

The only thing better about the latest presidential debate was having fewer people on the stage. Other than that, the evening was, for the most part, a rehash of the candidates’ previously stated positions, an upright tweet-fest . ... If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test . ...

If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? … If I were a debate moderator, three days in advance, I would supply the candidates with a series of identical, fact-based problem scenarios. These scenarios would relate to real issues facing the United States — such as health care, infrastructure, Iran, North Korea, climate change or cyberwarfare. Candidates would consider how to respond to the scenarios; they could consult with advisers and arrive at the debate with a (hopefully) workable solution . ...

The presidential hopefuls would be required to describe how they had arrived at their approach, explain how it might be achieved and outline the potential consequences. The role of the panelists would be to press the participants, politely but repeatedly, on the feasibility of their proposals . ...

This format would inhibit a candidate’s ability to promise free college, Medicare-for-all and a tax increase only on billionaires — all to be magically approved by a Republican-controlled Senate — then have the time clock go off and everyone move on to trade policy.

Greta Van Susteren, The Washington Post