During the 2012 primary elections, I watched every single Republican debate, partly because I hate myself and partly because they were a good way to procrastinate. Twenty-seven debates later, I learned that Rick Perry can only name two federal agencies he would eliminate, Herman Cain's 9-9-9 is not a winning economic strategy and Newt Gingrich supports wasting millions of dollars on building a moon base. Despite all this, the Republican primary debates, tedious and infuriating as they may have been, were successful debates: the candidates were forced to answer tough questions and describe clear public policy.

In contrast, last Monday's Massachusetts senate debate and Wednesday's presidential debate were not successful because they did not further inform undecided voters about the candidates and their stances on key issues.

Televised debates can be a excellent medium for educating voters on what the candidates stand for and how they plan to address our nation's most pressing issues. The campaigns are not able to fully prep their candidates in advance with carefully worded, non-controversial answers designed to appease the largest group possible.

Although they have lines prepared, and numbers memorized, the candidates are forced to go off their scripts.  Obviously, candidates from both parties have gotten pretty good at ignoring the question in favor of talking about an issue or an attack that can score them points with their base. Therefore, it falls on the moderator to make sure the questions are actually answered.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney won Wednesday's debate. President Barack Obama stumbled and disappointed his army of liberal college students, including myself.  

I'm still in shock. How can a respected PBS journalist do such a poor job of moderating a debate?

Yes, I get that Jim Lehrer is an older gentleman and Romney and Obama were behaving like squabbling preschoolers, ignoring every single time limit, but Mr. Lehrer should have known better. Although candidates will always try to abuse the time limit system, and this year the limits were less strictly enforced than in 2008, Mr. Lehrer should have cut them off earlier and more forcefully.
After all, the man was chosen because he's an old hand at moderating debates and would, supposedly, keep both Governor Romney and President Obama in check and on topic.

The one thing the debate had going for it was the substance of the questions. While I would have loved a question about Romney's 47 percent comment, or the President referencing that gaffe,  it isn't a policy question and it wouldn't have been appropriate in a presidential debate.

The questions on Wednesday night were standard debate questions, about the economy, education, entitlements and the role of the federal government.

Although they were less exciting than attacks, those are the sort of questions that do inform voters.

While President Obama did terribly and I spent most of the debate wishing it would be over, I have to admit that the questions were solid and not the about superfluous topics.
In comparison, the questions at the Massachusetts senate debate were awful.

The Elizabeth Warren Native American heritage story shouldn't even be a story anymore, but it was the subject of the first question.

Scott Brown attacked Warren, claiming that she lied about her family history to get a job at Harvard University, while Elizabeth Warren went on the defensive.
A better question would have been to ask Brown why he's made his opponent's racial heritage such an issue.

The questions didn't get better.

Warren and Brown barely talked about policy but instead argued about who was more bipartisan and discussed the Red Sox's terrible season. A senate debate is not place for baseball.

The only two policy questions came from two college students who asked about jobs for recent graduates and the unemployment rate and immigration reform.

Even so, Brown and Warren did not give specifics or talk about the bills they would propose. Instead, they gave the same lines they have given in every interview, press conference and debate.
I'm not an independent or undecided voter by any stretch of the imagination. My mind was made up a long time ago. However, for the four to six percent of undecided voters, the debates should present an opportunity to learn more about both candidates and what they believe in.

Presidential debates should both excite the base and educate those voters who are undecided.
Both candidates should call each other out on the rhetoric and half-truths, like how Romney's healthcare plan doesn't actually cover everyone with preexisting conditions or that Obama is going to raise taxes for some of the American people.

Although the presidential debate had good questions, the moderator did not fact-check the candidates or hold them to a high enough standard.

The Senate debate on the other hand, had poor questions that did next to nothing to inform the voters. In the future, debates should inform the American people by holding the candidates accountable for their campaign promises.
*