One can argue about whether or not the moderators should be fact-checking, which can be a challenge (but I think they should), but it is absolutely the moderators’ job to keep the discussion on topic (much as moderators do here) and not allow a candidate to ramble on about something that’s completely unrelated to the question they were just asked. That’s not a “structured debate”, that’s a candidate seizing control of the dialog.
Jake Tapper and Dana Bash got a lot of flak for their poor handling of the CNN debate – mostly over allowing Trump to lie his ass off, but I think letting him get away with not answering questions was even more egregious. CNN did an absolutely awful job. If Trump later complains that the ABC moderators were “very unfair”, we’ll know they did better!
Yes, I’m clearly saying that’s their job. When the moderator(s) ask a candidate a question, it’s their job to to ensure that the candidate answers the question instead of veering off into a different topic that they happen to like talking about that has nothing to do with the question. Bash and Tapper failed to do that with Trump, on multiple occasions.
They have never really done this with any candidate; Trump is just the worst and therefore most visible. They aren’t gonna start this year.
I understand why they’re hesitant to do that. The principle of the debate isn’t to debate the moderators, it’s to debate the other candidate, and the idea is that if a candidate is dodging a question, the other candidate should react to that and the people can decide for themselves. I’d like moderators to keep them on topic, too, but that runs the risk of perceived and real bias.
If the people can’t see that a candidate is just blathering and repeating talking points, well, that’s their fault.
The fact is that this debate won’t change many minds; the catastrophic Biden debate is an incredibly rare and unique case of a debate actually mattering. Harris doesn’t look or act like a senile grandpa you are trying to convince to give up his driver’s license, so that won’t happen again. They are fighting over MAYBE one voter in thirty. After the debate, Democrats, and almost everyone on this board, will perceive that Harris mopped the floor with Trump. Trumpists will perceive that Trump annihilated Harris. The polls won’t change much if at all.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but in his usual attempt at preemptive capitulation, Trump is claiming that Harris has already been given the questions by ABC. So if he comes across as a mumbling fool, he can claim “she cheated”.
Just for fun I thought I’d share part of Marc Thiessen’s editorial in WaPo. Because I don’t think he deserves the clicks, I won’t link.
Trump can knock Harris out of the race in one debate. Here’s how.
Instead of ad hominem attacks, Trump should focus on Harris’s many policy flip-flops.
Gotta love the idea of Trump accusing someone else of flip-flops. Will he do that before or after he talks about how he once supported Harris’s campaign? My suggestion: before, and after he talks about his position on the Florida abortion referendum.
Anyway, my favorite part:
If Harris’s only interview since becoming her party’s nominee is anything to go on, Democrats have reason to be worried. Harris was not prepared to answer the most simple and obvious question: If you are elected, what would you do on Day 1? How can someone run for president of the United States and not have a ready answer to that question? She had nothing to offer but a cringe-inducing word salad.
Absolutely Trump’s winning move is to accuse other people of word salad. Great advice, Marc Thiessen!
It depends on the moderator(s). Some are better than others. Take a look at this transcript of Jim Lehrer moderating the first debate between Obama and Romney. Lehrer was an excellent moderator who kept a tight rein on both candidates and didn’t tolerate any bullshit. He listened critically to everything the candidates said and asked a lot of followup questions. His mission was clearly to get real, substantive information from both of them. Here are just a few random examples of Lehrer’s moderation style:
Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down — his trickle-down approach.
Both of you have spoken about a lot of different things, and we’re going to try to get through them in as specific a way as we possibly can. But first, Governor Romney, do you have a question that you’d like to ask the president directly about something he just said?
… let’s just stay on taxes for a moment.
… you don’t have a problem, I don’t have a problem, because we’re still on the economy, but we’re going to come back to taxes and we’re going to move on to the deficit and a lot of other things, too.
MR. ROMNEY: Let me mention the other one. Let’s talk the –
MR. LEHRER: No, no, let’s do — right now, let’s not. Let’s let him respond.
Can you imagine Lehrer putting up with Trump’s bullshit where he rambles on for a full two minutes about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question? I sure can’t.
I hope we can at least agree that Jake Tapper and Dana Bash were terrible moderators.
Her answer wasn’t the smoothest, but that question is a stupid question. On day one she’s going to be inaugurated, and have a party. Get settled in to her new digs in the East Wing. People like that question, because it stresses the urgency of whatever priority, but there often isn’t something meaningful to accomplish on the literal day 1. So I kinda like the answer that is “I’m going to begin addressing those urgent policy changes and legislative concerns that are the backbone of our campaign.” Not a concrete accomplishable task, but a reiteration of her policies.
Yep. Nothing cute. One or two snarky comebacks or one liners, but that is it. Straight solid debating, leaning on facts.
“There you go again.” (Ronald Reagan, 1980)
"When I hear your new ideas, I’m reminded of that ad: ‘Where’s the beef?’ ” (Walter Mondale, 1984)
“I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” (Lloyd Bentsen, 1988)
