• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Great, now the moderator wants to become one of the candidates

clownboy

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Moderator Candy Crowley promised Tuesday that she won't be afraid to insert herself into the conversation at tonight's town hall debate despite pressure from the campaigns to largely keep quiet.


The presidential campaigns put together a "memorandum of understanding" mandating that the moderator of the town-hall style debate "not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits." The document is not released to the public but was leaked to Time Magazine, and it details how the campaigns come together to agree to a set of rules designed to protect the candidates from unexpected moments.



After Crowley said last week that she planned to assert herself during the town hall debate - telling CNN that "[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, 'Hey, wait a second, what about x, y, z?'" - the campaigns complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates that she wasn't following their script. While the Commission is independent and did not publicly sign off on the memorandum of understanding, it is effectively controlled by the major parties.


More at source
Click to expand...

Just freakin' wonderful. Crowley gets to throw the debate. Anyone care to guess which candidate she'll softball? Disgusting. She should be tossed out.
 
clownboy said:
Just freakin' wonderful. Crowley gets to throw the debate. Anyone care to guess which candidate she'll softball? Disgusting. She should be tossed out.
Click to expand...

I hope she doesn't play a major role in it, though I feel she like she will. I wish the moderators would solely enforce the time restriction, and keep candidates from interrupting each other.
 
OP, translated:

"I don't want the moderator to call out my side's bull****."
 
Deuce said:
OP, translated:

"I don't want the moderator to call out my side's bull****."
Click to expand...

The other candidate should be responsible for calling out the bull****, not the moderator
 
Deuce said:
OP, translated:

"I don't want the moderator to call out my side's bull****."
Click to expand...

That's partially correct. I don't want a moderator taking part in the debate calling ANY side's bull****. That's not what the debates are for. This is not another generic talking head "interview" with the candidates. It's up to each and every one of us to evaluate what the candidates say, this is their time making their cases to us.

Fire this turd and get someone in there who knows how to be a moderator. Candy can resume her talking head status.
 
From what I understand from articles I've read, she will be pre-screening and selecting which questions are allowed to be asked.

Makes me suspect this debate will not be worth making a big deal over.
 
Deuce said:
OP, translated:

"I don't want the moderator to call out my side's bull****."
Click to expand...
Calling out bull**** is part of the skill of debating. It demonstrates the depth of understanding the participants have of the issues being discussed. The moderator should ask the questions, keep the time, and shut the hell up.
 
If she tries to aid one of the candidates, it'll backfire. Lehrer for a short period tried to help Obama with answers early on, I think that hurt Obama in that looked for awhile it was going to be 2 on 1 --- which turns off the Undecided voter.

So many harp on Mods playing favoritism. Both sides. The debates aren't to sway Blue to Red or vice -versa, 95% are cemented in their votes. Debates are really for the 5%. They're looking for something they haven't seen, or haven't heard. If they see one guy taking on two, it gets sniffed out & becomes an opportunity.
 
If her greater participation is in not allowing them to talk over their time limit, not allowing them to continually do follow ups, not allowing them to interrupt, etc...and she does a FAIR job of this on BOTH people then I have no issue with it.

If she starts QUESTIONING what someone is saying, that's not moderating...that's actively participating in the debate. That's not a moderators place. If she begins to demand follow-up's and specifics in such a way that it's clearly being put out as a counter point to what's said rather than a request for elaboration that's not moderating...that's actively participating in the debate. That's not a moderators place. And if she does these things to only one side, that becomes even more problematic as it goes from her simply attempting to interject herself as a debater into interjecting herself as a debater on a particular side creating a 2 on 1 match up with whichever side she generally fights with.

I have no issues at all with an active moderator that unbiased and fairly keeps the two individuals on task and within the guidelines and rules set forth for the debate.

I have significant issues with a moderator who thinks they're there to "Call out bull****", who thinks they need to present counter points rather than the other side, and who attempts to become part of the debate.
 
It's always a shame when the umpire wants to be part of the game. Sort of like when government wants to provide more services.
 
That's what the media-head moderators would try to do in the primary. Act like they are the teacher and the judge, for which both candidates are to answer the moderators interrogations for which the moderator will then decision who is right or wrong.

The Republicans were nuts to agree to Crowley. She's nothing, nobody, just a petty hack, who has openly decided she is going to break the rules and agreement to try to make a name for herself out of this. I hope it backfires on her.
 
I think that a mods job should be...bang a gavel to start the debate,then bang the gavel when its over.
 
Mycroft said:
From what I understand from articles I've read, she will be pre-screening and selecting which questions are allowed to be asked.

Makes me suspect this debate will not be worth making a big deal over.
Click to expand...
actually, this is her job and her job alone
it's described in the MOU

so, let's watch the debate first before we conclude that she improperly moderated
 
I think if Romney or Obama go off on a tangent not related to the question at hand then she should step in and get them back on track. If either skirts around the question then they don't need to waste everyones time and they should move onto a different question and let that one go on record as unanswered.
 
It seems both parties are complaining about the moderator. That makes me actually happy to see her moderating when both candidates are afraid she might as a followup question.

Still, I do find it a bit premature to be making excuses for your candidates loss before they lose. The last presidential debate the republicans were whining way before the actual debate about why Mittens was going to lose, and he won. Of course, that seems to have more to do with obama failing to do anything, but he still was able to get an easy unopposed win. That could happen again. At least wait until tomorrow to start the complaining like you did with Ryan. That as funny how you guys were all bothered because biden was mean to ryan by actually debating him. Yopu guys got so used to being unopposed that when someone points out your lies you really did pitch a fit.

Don't worry tomorrow will come and I am sure you will still have reasons to complain because the other side points out the massive number of flaws Romney has. Even if he does shout down the moderator it isn't like he actually becomes less of a scumbag. So have some patience before you start your tantrum.
 
Zyphlin said:
If her greater participation is in not allowing them to talk over their time limit, not allowing them to continually do follow ups, not allowing them to interrupt, etc...and she does a FAIR job of this on BOTH people then I have no issue with it.

If she starts QUESTIONING what someone is saying, that's not moderating...that's actively participating in the debate. That's not a moderators place. If she begins to demand follow-up's and specifics in such a way that it's clearly being put out as a counter point to what's said rather than a request for elaboration that's not moderating...that's actively participating in the debate. That's not a moderators place. And if she does these things to only one side, that becomes even more problematic as it goes from her simply attempting to interject herself as a debater into interjecting herself as a debater on a particular side creating a 2 on 1 match up with whichever side she generally fights with.

I have no issues at all with an active moderator that unbiased and fairly keeps the two individuals on task and within the guidelines and rules set forth for the debate.

I have significant issues with a moderator who thinks they're there to "Call out bull****", who thinks they need to present counter points rather than the other side, and who attempts to become part of the debate.
Click to expand...

I would agree...but I have to say that if the moderator called out the candidate (on either side) about answering the question and not avoiding the question, I would support that.
 
ok. now that it is over, what's the verdict
did the moderator intrude with her comments?
 
justabubba said:
ok. now that it is over, what's the verdict
did the moderator intrude with her comments?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But all she managed to do was make the debate a draw.
 
justabubba said:
ok. now that it is over, what's the verdict
did the moderator intrude with her comments?
Click to expand...

I think that she did a pretty decent job. Looks like her journalism education school kicked in.:2wave:
 
The moderator on the townhall should have been focused on getting the people's questions responded to--that was it. Personal discretion to follow up in the hands of political show host was not the best authority to grant. I would have no problem with Crawley if this had been a different format like the table debate or a traditional podium debate. If we are going down this road, we would have been better off having a panel of questioners than try to pretend that the candidates thought twice about the citizens in the room.
 
treedancer said:
I think that she did a pretty decent job. Looks like her journalism education school kicked in.:2wave:
Click to expand...

i agree, but don't like this format
as others have said, we should have the candidates (including Jill Stein and Gary Johnson) debate among themselves
for an extended period. but where each speaker will have their mic turned on for a specified amount of time, say five minutes. they can continue to talk but they will not be heard once their five minute span is up. wait until the next round and resume

the moderator is unable to prevent the speaker from violating the agreement to speak for a specified time. just as the moderator is unable to prevent the candidates from asking each other questions. so, turn on their mics for the prescribes time and then cut the power and move to the next speaker. otherwise, short of physical contact, no 'holds' barred
 
justabubba said:
i agree, but don't like this format
as others have said, we should have the candidates (including Jill Stein and Gary Johnson) debate among themselves
for an extended period. but where each speaker will have their mic turned on for a specified amount of time, say five minutes. they can continue to talk but they will not be heard once their five minute span is up. wait until the next round and resume

the moderator is unable to prevent the speaker from violating the agreement to speak for a specified time. just as the moderator is unable to prevent the candidates from asking each other questions. so, turn on their mics for the prescribes time and then cut the power and move to the next speaker. otherwise, short of physical contact, no 'holds' barred
Click to expand...

Yeah...ida had a cattle prod if the got outa line.But i agree that they should have had more time going at each others positions.:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom