What will the town hall audience make up be?

[Skidmore]

I'm skeptical that ghe poor or children or any other vulnerable group will be represented. No doubt women and minority groups defined broadly will be. Has anyone seen anything about this? I recall hearing that Gallup was involved in the selection of these people.

[montanacowboy]

1. "Undecides" chosen by "Gallup"

that's all you ever need to know

[alsame]

2. Here's a link...

Gallup recruited the audience, Candy Crowley picks the question to be asked.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grill-candidates-town-hall-debate/story?id=17483004#.UH3S-IYgy00

[elleng]

3. Here:

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

Tickets – Tickets for each debate are controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates and are extremely limited since the debates are primarily produced for television. The majority of tickets are distributed to host university students and faculty through a lottery system. Please click the "Tickets" link next to the college name listed below for further information.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/

[Speck Tater]

4. If they are undecided at this late date they are probably morons. nt

[Poiuyt]

6. That's what I was thinking too

Who could possibly be undecided at this point?

[surrealAmerican]

9. ... or lying to pollsters.

[former9thward]

12. The correct answer.

People lying for a chance to get on tv in front of tens of millions.

[PATRICK]

5. Maybe I missed something

It used to be the incumbent, especially if he is the favorite and more especially if there are real debate circumstances to worry about at least negotiates hard about format, number of debates, etc. I don't think that is a thing of the hoary past but it seems having a bunch of freewheeling primary debates have given the Dems the wrong impression about the groundrules.

Unilateral bipartisanship again. The news is prop corporate and not just even neutrally por corporate. the news wants to game things for its own interests. Gallup really? Assuming that Obama can beat the zero plan vulture capitalist anti-charismatic proto fascists with one hand tied behind his back, does that mean he should?

I don't think they get it. I don't think they should all of a sudden be so deferential. The only reason the election is even "close" or at least the false impression trying to deliver itself is due to the people given so much control of the "show". Are the pre-debate negotiations a thing of the past? The dangers of letting the other side have their own way certainly have not receded. How many ringers will be in the audience and how much will their bank accounts go up after the election? How many are Koch(or other) employees with reason to fear for their jobs?

Am I missing something or is Obama again throwing the GOP a noble lifeline that we can only pray they will fumble?

[former9thward]

14. The Commision on Debates handles the rules and format of the debates.

The Commission is made up of Republican and Democratic political operatives in equal numbers. They negotiate with the campaigns on the fine tuning for the debates.

[woo me with science]

15. We have not had real debates since the two parties seized control of them in 1988.

When they did, the League of Women voters withdrew from sponsorship of the debates, saying that they would no longer participate in this "fraud on the American voter." And the parties have been tightening control ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."[4]

(more at link)

[former9thward]

17. Certainly correct.

I wish we had debates like the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858. The first speaker would talk for an entire hour and then the second would speak for one and a half hours. The first then spoke for another half hour. They could ask each other direct questions. I don't think we have the attention span for that now and I wonder what politician could speak for an hour on a topic.

[Earth_First]

7. Pizza consumers...?

:ugh:

[WillowTree]

8. Bare Minerals.

[woo me with science]

10. Lots of people who will never mention the growing police/surveillance state,

the fact that our civil protections are being destroyed and warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention are now the law of the land. People who will never mention that the bankers go unpunished and drone wars continue to spread. Lots of people who will never challenge the absolute fiction being peddled by both parties that we need austerity and attacks on Social Security benefits.

The faux objectivity of journalists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021533048

[former-republican]

11. stupid people.................

because you have to be stupid to be undecided by now.

[RagAss]

13. Attention starved "special" cases.

[spanone]

16. well, anyone who's 'undecided' at this point, shouldn't be on television