This primary cycle has had more emphasis put on the debates than any other in recent memory. However it may be difficult to sort out what these debates are actually showing us about the candidates. Hopefully this post will give you some guidance for the next one.
The Positive
I’ll start with some of the good things the debates do.
First off, they give second or third-tiered candidates a platform in which to stake their claims. This is exactly what happened with Rick Santorum. The man was completely unknown and considered out of the race until he had a couple of good debate performances. It is because of those good performances that he was able to win the Iowa primary and be a contender.
To some degree, this eliminates the traditional way of campaigning. Candidates no longer need to have a country-wide organization to be successful. Tennessee is a great example – again for Santorum. His campaign was terribly organized. He did not appoint a state organizer until mid-December and county delegates were being assigned as late as the week before the primary. But he still won the state.
The debates test the candidates’ ability to perform well under pressure. It’s not easy to calmly state your ideas while you are blinded by stage lights in front of thousands of people in the audience knowing the other people on the stage are looking to pounce on any mistake you make. To successfully debate is to be able to perform well at state functions with foreign dignitaries.
The Negative
These debates aren’t really debates. A true debate is where a person will make an argument and defend it and then others can make counter-argument and defend that.
None of that happens in these debates. Rather, each candidate takes their allotted time to say why their view concerning an issue is best and to be the best-looking person while doing it. The most successful debaters are the ones who can stand firm in their beliefs while criticizing other candidates without appearing upset.
For the hosts of the debate, this is political theatre. The number one goal of any news station is to get the best ratings possible. Debates have been proven to pull a larger audience and to increase their chances, hosts are spicing the broadcast up with live blogging, Tweeted questions, play-by-play analysis, and ridiculous introductions. These debates closely resemble a sports broadcast.
The issues are not discussed. In these debates, there is no back and forth between candidates with opposing viewpoints on specific issues. Sure, it will happen every once in a while, but more often disputes arise when one candidate attacks the character of another candidate. This is not only destructive to our political discourse, it highlights that there is truly little difference between the candidates.
There are so many debates that the average person cannot hope to keep up with developments. The two debates in New Hampshire are an excellent example of this. There was a debate held Saturday evening and then twelve hours later another debate was held as a special for “Meet the Press.” Given the way the 24-hour news cycle works, there is no way people could get coverage of the first debate in time for the second. This basically makes the first debate a wash.
Hopefully this gives you a little insight into the debates and will help you be discerning when you watch the next one.
jacobmelder 
In these elections, politicians turn their attention from production to performance. I am always conflicted when I watch these elections. On the one hand, I love a good fight. When politicians go at each other throats, there is no better spectacle. However, there is rarely substance. Research on the candidates must be done when seeing how the candidates stand on the issues. But if one can’t do well in the debates, it is safe to say he won’t be doing well in the Oval Office.
The plethora of debates this year was difficult to keep up with. I found them helpful in giving me a general sense of each of the candidates, but I also quickly tired of the candidates’ way of addressing the audience.
The political theater you mentioned could, if taken in moderation, offer improvements to “old-fashioned” debating. Because of overkill, however, it misses its opportunity to be a positive element to presidential debates.
Debates are becoming a hot topic. I think the bright lights of television and other emerging media has allowed them that privilege. I agree with how debates have helped the less popular candidates. Guys like Santorum and Paul have had great debates that have allowed the public to see how fit they are for a presidential vote.
While the debates can seem like a “political theatre” at times, I would disagree with the statement about the debates not addressing the issues. I think they do a solid job at allowing each candidate to express either what they think or what they know on topics presented. It was even stated at the beginning of this post that candidates like Santorum have gained popularity because of their execution at the debates. I think they are necessary to the campaigns and really do help the candidates in the end.