Whadday mean, “old”! He’s in his early eighties!
I don’t think he’s afraid to hold someone’s feet to the fire. If he gets vague answers, he could make things hot for either candidate.
This sounds about as *dangerous *as…oh…you know, being President or something. IOW if you can’t stand the heat, why are you running for the office of Head Chef?
Will Trump be live-tweeting the debates?
“So unfair…Anderson Cooper’s mom is Gloria Vanderbilt, so he’s biased for people who have blood running out of their whatevers. Sad!”
At least he’s not opposed to Anderson’s getting married…today.
Do I really have to explain this?
Politicians don’t like tough questions and tend to respond with vague statements or try to deflect the question into an attack on the other guy. If the questioner persists in getting an answer and the pol can’t come up with anything other than platitudes, it’s damaging to his/her campaign and image.
And Trumpistas will claim victory when he does exactly that. Not if, when.
There is a meme on facebook that Hillary has ‘picked’ a moderator and is rigging the debates.
of course, the person she ‘picked’ isn;t on the list above - and last I heard, she (nor Trump) have any say so in this.
I always love when a person blames the other person for cheating before they lose - built in excuses make this country great!
and you don’t really ‘lose’ these debates - its not a sporting event.
Yet every post-debate analysis goes into exactly that.
My bold.
No. Do I really have to explain my post?
analysis of the debate is not the same as the moderator of the debate declaring a winner/loser.
From the Commission on Presidential Debates website:
"The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which half of the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants and the other half will be posed by the moderator based on topics of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources. The candidates will have two minutes to respond and there will be an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate further discussion. The town meeting participants will be uncommitted voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
Chris Wallace WANTS to be the kind of journalist his father was, but he’s a little too attached to his Murdoch-signed paycheck to stray too far from the reservation. Occasionally, Mike’s ghost drifts over and slaps him up the side of the head and he actually commits objective journalism, but that’s not an everyday thing…
Ah! Ignorance fought, thank you!
I dispute this. Journalism hasn’t happened on television since CBS discovered that a news division can be a profit center.
Should be interesting. HRC is a formidable debater, but Trump has a way of shaking things up. I suspect she will try very hard to get under his skin, which doesn’t seem to be particularly difficult. Who knows what’s going to happen then!
Chris Wallace, son of Mike Wallace, is a well respected journalist. I don’t see any problem with him moderating. He’s not a Hannity or an Ann Coulter.
(I noticed while writing this post I made more acronyms than I should. Here’s a key: HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton. DJP = Donald John Trump. NBC = National Broadcasting Company. FOX = Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX is not an acronym in itself, like Pace and Metra (transit companies) in Chicago.)
My prediction on this is that the first debate will lean towards HRC, the last ones for DJP. The middle two debates, including the VP and the second debate are going to be the real challenge for both. If you got someone working for NBC, it’s going to be leaning towards HRC. If you got someone working for FOX, you’re leaning towards DJP (albeit quietly and less apparent than NBC. This year is different from previous years, and going for Trump could have your office put ablaze by protesters.)
I’m surprised at the lack of posts complaining about media leaning and bias.
Why DJP instead of DJT?
Typo that couldn’t be fixed in time. :smack:
EDIT: Replace DJP with DJT, how I managed to type P instead of T is frustrating.
Moderating a general election debate should be simple and non-controversial. The single other candidate (assuming Johnson doesn’t qualify) is there to call BS on what the other candidate says, and offer evidence why it’s BS. The moderator shouldn’t be ‘fact checking’ in real time, or IMO coming up with gotcha questions, even if supposedly equally tough different gotcha’s for the two: nobody will ever agree it is equal, and no moderator of a particular political POV themselves, which they all have, can be sure they are really pitching it exactly down the middle.
From quotes I’ve heard Wallace understands this. I tend to think the others do too, especially in the wake of Candy Crowley’s opinion-based ‘fact check’ in real time of Romney in a 2012 debate. Her position was arguably correct. So were Obama’s and Romney’s on a variety of issues where they disagreed. But the moderator, IMO, isn’t there to adjudicate anything close to the matters of political opinion the candidates are presenting.
This is in contrast to an interview. Last night’s thing though misnamed a ‘forum’ was just a pair separate interviews w/ Trump and Clinton. When Trump again, dubiously, claimed he always opposed the Iraq War, Matt Lauer should have challenged that. A debate moderator should simply make sure Clinton has the opportunity to challenge it.