Chris Wallace kind of got his head handed to him on a platter in the first debate. Highly capable. I thought he’d fare better. But moderating these things seems like an impossible job. As good as Jim Lehrer was, he more or less lost control of one he moderated.
Page is an interesting choice. I’ve seen her only as a guest on programs - not as headliner or anchor. Good head on her shoulders. I try not to approach these debates from a political vantage point. (But hard not to.) I sometimes find the moderator’s skills (or lack thereof) and approach more interesting than what the candidates say.
Timing for tonight’s debate in SLC couldn’t be better. VP Pence, after all, is long-serving head of the President’s Covid-19 task force.
https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a34289358/who-is-susan-page/
Comments
She did right by letting the candidates go long. Some of her questions were ridiculous.
Picky. Picky .....
I shall correct the above error. Thank you.
But debate can take any form (need not be academic in structure). As @Mark says, there are rules to any kind of structured debate - which these televised spectacles certainly qualify as. In formal academic debate there is a time keeper (in my day an individual held up flash cards) so speakers always know how much time they have remaining. Technically, if they run over time, nothing said past the 0 mark is to be considered in rendering the final decision.
Almost certainly the candidates in these “spectacle debates” (like last evening’s) are viewing a timing device all the while speaking. They know when their time is running out. An immense improvement, I think, would be for that time remaining to be displayed on screen for the audience (you and me) to view. Alas, we’d know when their time was running out and it would be apparent to all when a speaker started “cheating” by running overtime. Likely, it would deter the practice.
In a good debate there’s reason for a speaker to want to run overtime to conclude an often elaborate line of argument.. Last night both speakers appeared to rely pretty much on previously prepared and rehearsed (“canned”) speeches, often not even appropriate for the question that was presented. There was absolutely no reason for either to run over, except that they viewed the extra minutes they essentially “stole” as that much more free political advertising.
She was almost as bad, though at least sometimes she made a flimsy effort to sort of tie her "answer" back to the question.
I found it interesting that neither of them bothered to point out the other's lack of response to the question which had been asked. It was almost as if they had an unspoken agreement not to challenge each other on that point.
The question about “succession planning” was a tricky one to touch if they hadn’t anticipated it ahead of time - which apparently they hadn’t. Filled with potential mines. But I was thinking today what a missed opportunity for Harris to talk up the rapport and trust between her and the more experienced Biden, about how much she’s already learned from him, as well as her own considerable experience in government. She could have knocked that one out of the park. Especially since Pence had already declined to address it.
https://time.com/4493402/see-the-top-10-political-debate-flubs/
-
This is the one I love. It’s hard to imagine this is the opening salvo in a serious national debate, rather than a stand-up comic.