There’s a debate tonight: the immoderate moderators
In case you’ve just returned from a year’s stay on planet Xenon, I am here to inform you that there’s a presidential debate tonight.
I have no idea what to expect, but it depends in great part on which candidates show up, particularly Trump. Will it be the more sober, “presidential” Trump? The angry insulting pouty Trump? The braggart Trump, the—you get the idea. And which Hillary? The strange one with the shrill voice and the odd off-putting laugh? The calm and sober lawyer-type one?
I was going to say “well, at least it won’t be boring,” but you know what? Maybe it will indeed be boring.
And at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff notes the following advice liberals are giving debate moderators this year:
In advance of Monday night’s debate, Hillary Clinton’s cheerleaders in the media have been encouraging moderator Lester Holt to contradict, during the debate, candidates whose assertions of fact they disagree with. Glenn Kessler, the liberal “fact-checker” for the Washington Post, even compiled a list of assertions he says don’t withstand fact-checking, the vast majority of which are by Donald Trump. He urges the moderator to “clip and save.”
It is wholly inappropriate for a moderator to argue with a candidate about facts, and Kessler’s piece illustrates one of the main reasons why.
Mirengoff goes on to describe how Kessler lists “facts” to check that aren’t facts at all, but liberal opinions and interpretations of facts and events, and describes why they’re not equipped to do this fairly in real time. Those things are certainly big problems with fact-checking by moderators in the heat of a debate. What’s more, as Mirengoff adds:
My final point is that contemporaneous fact-checking by the moderator isn’t necessary. If a candidate misstates an important fact during the debate, the other candidate will probably call him or her on it. If a particular voter finds the dispute important, he or she will likely find out which candidate was right. An army of fact-checkers is available to assist the voter in this endeavor.
Even if the candidate who misstates a fact isn’t corrected by his or her opponent, the same army of fact-checkers will have its say once the debate is over. Voters who consider fact-checking valuable and reliable will consult the fact-checkers.
I would add that moderators are not supposed to debate the debater. That’s the job of the debaters themselves.
However, I was surprised that Mirengoff failed to mention one of the main reasons (in my opinion, anyway) that this is being urged this year. One of the reasons, of course (which I believe is implicit in his piece) is that the left and liberals are horrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency, and feel that anything and everything would probably be justified if it would help to prevent that. But the other reason is that in 2012 moderator Candy Crowley turned debater (on Obama’s side) and it worked. It worked to fool many people into believing that what she said was true and what Romney had said was false, and it worked to stop Romney in his tracks when he tried to make an important point about Obama.
In political life, once something is done and the person gets away with it successfully, it is seen as a great tactic to be used again. That “something” may be something that was heretofore thought to be forbidden; now it is seen as perfectly okay and even desirable.
[NOTE: I documented the 2012 Crowley debate incident in great detail on this blog. If you want to refresh your memory, go here.]
It only works with Republicans to expect errors or lies to be corrected after the debate. Biden lied outrageously in his debate with Palin in 2008 and acted the fool with Ryan in 2012. I was very frustrated with Ryan when he did not just turn to Biden and ask if he was OK.
I just hope Donald Trump can be a decent human being during the debate.
Contrasted with Hillary’s shrill and condescension if he can pull off decent and a fair command of the facts then he will make people wonder – why is the media so much against him.
To be clear, Donald is inarticulate. If you parse the Mexico comments he first made – very inarticulate. If you parse the first Islamic immigrant statements he made – very inarticulate.
He is an embarrassment to this party because you have to be able to ensure people understand that since we are unable to vet Syrian refugees then – here are proposed solutions to help the poor people of Syria. The minute you have a litmus test on an entire religion as he did – then all could’ve been lost. If he loses it’s because he did those things and can’t walk it back well enough.
But realistically, in modern debates, candidates don’t fact-check each other in a reasonable way. At best, they talk past each other with numbers that sound like they support their own positions. At worst, they deny the facts used by the other candidate outright. A real debate moderator wouldn’t fact-check, but a questioner has the right to do so, at least in a follow-up question. If I were moderator, I’d prepare two questions for each candidate that served a rebuttals to their most commonly-used misleading statements. Not gotcha questions, but yeah, kind of gotcha questions.
I suspect Trump has secretly practiced the debate and he has a slew of zingers planned.
“Fact Checking”, especially of the Candy Crowley style, will just feed the trump argument that the debates are “rigged” and / or “unfair”.
Hate to see either candidate go unchecked by the other on their lies, but we cannot expect the moderators to do the job for them nor for the audience.
Lies only work because people believe them. At this point there is enough information out there regarding the veracity of what each candidate has said, it is up to each individual to choose to believe in whole or in part what each candidate says.
This is not a “debate” in the academic sense of the word.
It is more about entertainment and showmanship.
On that count, I predict trump wins.
Guess I’ll be one of the few that won’t be watching. I’ll read some commentary on it afterwords.
I think another very important reason they want moderators to become debaters this time is that they know their chosen candidate is highly emotional when contradicted (she gets kinda crazy on people sometimes!) and cannot be trusted to counter anything Trump says effectively. They know she can’t debate, and they’re looking for a little help.
Cindy:
They both get kinda crazy. Will it come down to:
“I’m not her!” and “I’m not him!”
Or “You are the bigger liar! No, I’m not YOU are!”
Article at the link seems to have been taken down as of 12:52 Pacific.
KLSmith,
Me too.
Somehow I do not think Trump really is crazy, but only plays crazy when it is convenient to him. Too shrewd and flexible to it. He reminds me a hero of Italian film I have seen 50 years ago, starred by Vittorio De Sika, General della Rovere. It is about a con man who was sent by Nazi into prison under false identity to find Resistance leadership, but becomes a real hero playing one.
Back up at
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/glenn-kessler-illustrates-why-moderators-shouldnt-fact-check.php
After the 2012 debates, I have difficulty understanding why anyone without a D behind their name would even agree to a debate at all, unless the “moderators” were chosen and agreed to outside of the mainstream press. There’s no question of whether another Candy Crowley moment will occur, it’s really a question of how many times it will occur and on which topics.
When it happened in 2012, all of Mitt’s so carefully crafted 59-point economic plan went right out the window. The left chuckled in glee. The right saw a candidate who would not fight for himself or his supporters, when “we” really wanted to see someone put up an honest fight rather than just suck it up one more time.
We all know there’s no longer such a thing as “news” when it comes to legacy media. So, letting them choose the terms of the discussion is just setting the stage for failure.
(Unless he actually puts up a fight; if so, that could go…anywhere…)
I’m going to try to watch it and will record it. I use the qualifier ‘try’ because I expect to get so quickly frustrated that watching all the way through may be more than I can stomach.
Best scenario, Hillary has another medical ‘episode’. No, I do not wish her ill, I just wish her candidacy sunk.
Failing that, IMO Trump needs to expose Hillary by him finishing his response to her first being asked a question by in turn asking her hard questions that will throw her off her stride. As by the rules, when she is first asked a question and hen he gets to respond, she can’t immediately respond to his response. Trump’s question will then linger in the minds of viewers and her failure to respond will look like an inability to respond. And, if she breaks the rules by responding, so can he…
Such as, “So Hillary, how much confidence can you have when you need to stand here on a step stool? So Hillary, settle the questions about your health by spinning around three times in place…
So Hillary, how do you justify accepting 25 million from the Saudis?
So Hillary, you told the FBI that you can’t remember whether you received National Security instructions, so how are you competent to issue orders?”
“the left and liberals are horrified at the prospect of a
Trumprepublican presidency, and feel that anything and everythingwould probablywill be justified if itwouldhelp[s] to prevent that.” neoI fixed it for you neo, since they’d be at least as horrified (and probably more) if the GOP had sanely nominated a Cruz/Fiorina ticket.
Baklava,
Not to belittle decency but far more than simple decency is needed today.
Nick,
The last thing the dems want is a fair minded moderator. Objectivity is an anathema to that mind-set.
Cornhead,
I hope you’re right but I am not hopeful.
Big Maq,
“Lies only work because people believe them.”
Yes, mostly people accept what they want to believe.
OM,
Probably so. It’s highly unlikely to be an intellectually rigorous debate.
Sergey,
Interesting plot, can you remember the name of the movie?
steve c,
I’m under the impression that the GOPe accepted those moderators. If Trump wins the election, it won’t be due to all of their help.
parker and KLSmith, ditto.
General della Revere, so yes, indeed he could.
Thanks guys, it’s now on my amazon prime Watchlist!
I give Trump the edge, for two reasons.
It is always an advantage to be underrated by your enemies.
Trump’s real opponent in this race is the MsM. He is not afraid of them, has no respect for them, and has had a lot of practice in handling them. Hillary has had no opposition from anyone (“Who cares about the damn e-mails?”), most especially not from the MsM, in this whole campaign.
I’m watching Netflix tonight (I wish the football game were better, can’t have everything), I can’t stand political debates. However, I’ve thought about what I’d like to see. If I were Trump and Holt started interfering in the debate, I’d turn to him and ask, “Who do you think you are, Candy Crowley in drag?” I’d then kick him off the stage and invite Mark Cuban and Gennifer Flowers up on the stage to alternately ask the questions. It would be the ultimate alpha male moment. Can you imagine the drama of Flowers asking Hilary a question? I can dream, can’t I? Actually, I can’t stop laughing thinking about it.
Instead, it’s going to be the last episode of Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norell, followed by Monday Night Football on ESPN.
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, of course, it goes without saying that the left and liberals are horrified at the prospect of any Republican presidency. That’s a given.
But there is no question in my mind that liberals are even MORE horrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency than by the garden-variety Republican. And in fact, many many Republicans and conservatives are horrified at the same prospect, for some of the same reasons and also for many different reasons.
Trump horrifies a lot of people on both sides, and rightly so.
Geoffrey Britain @4:29pm:
I’m under the impression that the GOPe accepted those moderators. If Trump wins the election, it won’t be due to all of their help.
You know, I had completely forgotten all about the NBC “moderator” dust-up in the primary debates. Thanks for the reminder. Now it all makes (really twisted) sense as to why the RNC was willing to proceed with NBC, when they had originally shut them out after that particular spectacle.
“one of the main reasons (in my opinion, anyway) that this is being urged this year . . . is that the left and liberals are horrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency, and feel that anything and everything would probably be justified if it would help to prevent that.” [Neo]
Neo, I know you write this as observation, not justification. To continue that thought it is the same song every four years. They were horrified at the prospect of a Romney Presidency; they were horrified at the prospect of McCain presidency; they were horrified at the prospect of a Bush presidency (twice) . . . ad infinitum and ad nausaum.
This is always the underlying excuse to do absolutely anything, however deplorable, illegal or distasteful, to keep the next
HitlerRepublican out of the oval office.It’s no excuse at all. Never was. Never will be. It testifies to the absolute moral and ethical bankruptcy of the left.
Neo @5:56:
But there is no question in my mind that liberals are even MORE horrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency…
That’s the utter absurdity of this entire situation – “No, but this time we really mean it, honest, he’s a really terrible person. Really!”.
Not that it would materially change their behavior were an election “reset” to occur today. Marshmallow Mitt was painted with their typical hyperbole…now that they need it, it’s lost some effect.
I have a feeling that if any shenanigans goes on with the moderators, Trump will eviscerate them. It’s what many are expecting; I think one of the reasons Crowley got away with it was because people were unprepared.
Matt_SE,
Trump mostly ignored Lauer’s attempts- let him say something, then simply continued on with what he, Trump, was saying. Of course, that wasn’t a debate since Clinton had already left the stage.
Holt might be smart enough to not let the Clinton campaign and her media bootlickers talk him into doing anything other than asking the questions and let the two candidates deal with each other. Were I in his shoes and a big Clinton supporter, I would never risk putting myself in between them- risking ones reputation that way is just idiotic in my opinion.
Were I in his shoes and a big Clinton supporter, I would never risk putting myself in between them- risking ones reputation that way is just idiotic in my opinion.
If Clinton asks a favor of him, he would be hard fought to refuse. If he did, that might be perceived as a betrayal by Clinton and we all know how vindictive HRC can be against people who don’t play by her game.