But why didn’t Kamala immediately follow-up by saying, “If your taskforce is so great, why didn’t you answer the question? Why is the US doing worse than anyone else?”
I don’t buy the moderator’s explanation, that she has no role to play in observing that the candidates aren’t answering. I have debated and been in court proceedings where such things are readily handled. That the moderators refuse to do so, just further emphasizes how far from “debate” these spectacles are.
But if we are going to talk about the moderator, come on - can’t a sister get some hairspray up here? And - no - I do not think I am being sexist. I would comment on any male moderator or newsperson who couldn’t keep their hair from falling in their eyes. In a perfect world, the moderator should be invisible. She failed at that. (Admittedly - horribly minor point. Sorry to flyspeck the show.)
Fair enough. I meant it relatively; there must be some reluctant Trump voters (who do not actually support him). I just meant the fire breathing extremely devoted Trump supporters are not going to switch right over – but less extreme ones might be happy to respect a presidential leader again.
By-the-way, speaking if fire breathing dragons, I have never seen an episode of GAME OF THRONES, is it really a documentary of the Trump administration?
One more petty observation - anyone else a little not-thrilled at Kamala’s constant references to “Joe”? Yeah, I know he likes to cultivate this folksy image, but I’d expect at least an occasional reference to “President Biden.”
Yeah - and there were “Barack” and “Jimmy.” I guess this is just my personal preference.
And Dewey, I think it would be entirely appropriate for her to say, “A President Biden would do xyz” or “would not do abc”. I don’t see the harm of taking that small step to create the image of Biden as president in people’s minds.
I watched the first 20-30 minutes than switched it off. The moderator was unable to restrain Pence. They should use a female military officer as moderator, deduct the time gone over from their next question, and give their opponent that time as a bonus to speak extra if they want to.
I am sorry that I missed the fly. But it deserves a name, no? If one can call out “Karens”… I propose Flanders or Goldblum.
Neither really debated or even answered questions. Pence is more folksy than one might expect, was a radio host for years, and is able to lie and obfuscate with a straight face. Harris came across better, but not much better, though personally I like her far more. The VP debate does not matter. Except for the age of the Presidents.
Somehow the Commission on Presidential Debates went through the hot-mess experience of the Trump-Biden debate - which turned so many people off to the idea of presidential debates - and they still could not figure out how to avoid the same mistakes this time. They had one job…
I miss Ted Koppel. I’ll bet he could have kept the candidates in line and on topic.
They should use a senior NCO as moderator. I know a few personally who would do a great job. Actually I shouldn’t even say “great” job. It’s not a job that should be “great”, it should be a job that just gets done, full stop. That’s all that’s needed. It should be a “great” job the same way that a tollbooth gate does a “great” job. Amazing that there’s never been any moderator I can recall who has actually done it.
Perhaps not now that they have their own network with which to misinform the electorate. No need to respect the process of reporting news when you can just make up your own narrative and have it broadcast 24/7.
But you are correct Koppel would have kept some of the cars on the track even if there was a derailment.
I wonder whether there’s some clear, compelling, and definable upside for journalists doing the moderating.
The downside – and maybe one compelling reason why they don’t try to ‘take charge --’ is access.
For a journalist, access to people in positions of power is the coin of the realm. I’ve commented before that the President is quite vengeful. But it wouldn’t have to rise to that high a level to cut off a journalist’s access if you felt your candidate was scorned/treated unfairly by them.
I agree: let PoliSci professors, academics, and journalists form a panel to create the questions, then let a professional with no skin in the game moderate.
The crummiest judge in the crummiest low-level trial court for the most small-time chickenshit crime gets a gavel. The people overseeing the PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES don’t? Why the hell not?
I agree with the middle school teacher part, strongly DISAGREE with the second. I don’t know what your issue with journalists is, but journalism is a real job and an often-grueling one. There’s no logic behind such a dig.
The problem isn’t that journalists are moderating. The problem is that the debate rules worked reasonably well with reasonable people who understood and followed them. Trump upended that. I doubt he’s ever watched a debate. Likely his core supporters haven’t either, at least until 2016. Trump and his followers therefor see debate not as the well-ordered exchange and challenge of views but as a WWE match. Ha! Look at Trump creamin’ that guy! He’s not letting him get a word in! And he’s showing that moderator a thing or two. Attaboy, Mr. President!
Aggressive a**holes require bolder rules. I favor a chime at the end of two minutes, a loud buzzer 10 seconds later, followed by muting the mike 5 seconds after that. Better yet, instead of a buzzer, the sound of loud flatulence.
I’d like to see a system of lights for each debater; green while they still have time, yellow when ten seconds are left, and red when time is up, with the microphone cut off ten seconds later.
