Having been a League of Women Voter moderator on the local level, I know how much work goes into making the forum (not debate) equitable for the candidates and informative for the audience.So did Jim Lehrer in his excellent book, Tension City, about his years of moderating. The goal should be an exchange of information not entertainment.
If microphones simply cut off when time was up, wouldn’t that solve the problem?
All a candidate would need might be a countdown clock...
1
The debate was poorly moderated with reason, but the questions this time were more comprehensive and relevant than others have been in the past, particularly the focus on all-important foreign policy and governance issues. The moderators are hampered by the silly restriction of responses to one minute and fifteen seconds. All the candidates railed against this, because serious arguments can't be articulated within such limits, which made the moderating task close to impossible.
The moderating was terribly ineffective. I would have thought that O'Donnell and King would have been better prepared. They should have practiced how to regain control of the candidates. Also, I agree that the questions were weak and not posed in a way to get in-depth forward-looking information. CBS should be embarrassed.
1
@Robin What do you expect? O'Donnell and King are awful on a daily basis.
A trainwreck for the moderators. To be clear, this was never the right venue for Gayle King, who can conduct an entertaining interview but is no political reporter. Norah O'Donnell does have the journalistic chops, but they were missing Tuesday night. Please tell me they won't be conducting any debates when the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will be on the stage with Trump.
memo to CBS news: the next debate
should be moderated (solo) by Margaret
Brennan. she was the only one among
the questioners who had the guts and
the personality to shut that gaggle of
Democratic geese up with a sharp,
no nonsense stating of their names.
when she said Senator Sanders or
Mayor Buttigieg, every one else kept
quiet until it was their turn.apparently,
her time on Face The Nation has taught
her how to handle politicians. she
always comes off as well informed and
knowledgeable as she is beautiful.
CBS should have her in a major role
at their coverage of the conventions.
2
If the candidate speaks overtime then their next response should be limited by half to encourage compliance
I do think there’s a lack of dignity in trying to cram too many words in when there is clearly a time limit. I am absolutely not an admirer of Bloomberg but I did appreciate that he did not have this anxious attitude.
Basically the whole approach of the primaries and debates need to be reframed and restructured. Evolution is called for
1
A "debate" review by a TV reviewer. How appropriate !
Let's stop pretending these are actually debates. They are merely a profitable, paid advertising TV shows. Unfortunately, the Democrats thought (presuming they were actually thinking!) it a good idea to present their own version of "The Apprentice", allowing the punditocracy, twitterati, and commentariat to feel good saying, "You're fired!" and "You're hired!" Their ongoing series is titled "The Circular Firing Squad."
Note that the network actors ("moderators") avoided the important question: "If you are not the nominee, will you campaign for whoever is the nominee?" After all, conflict is the show's theme and the producer of the all-important ratings.
I do have to hand it to Warren, though. Once again she did a superb job auditioning for a senior position in the Trump Reelection Campaign. Bloomberg, on the other hand, not being an accomplished TV personality, tended to come off as being out of his element.
Let's keep in mind. America tried a TV personality in 2016. How well has that worked fr the country? Inasmuch as there are no TV cameras in the Situation Room nor Nielsen ratings for what goes on there, I'm inclined to think we should forego the theatrics this year and, if we can't get Jed Bartlett to run, Bloomberg will be the best candidate not only to beat Trump but to actually be able to run the country and accomplish something with the reality that will be the 2021 Congress, not a fantasy Congress.
5
@Rozie, in all fairness to Vice President Biden, the slips of the tongue you mock are due to a stutter, which he has dealt with his whole life. This has no bearing or impact on his ability to assemble, and listen to, a qualified team of aides (something the current WH occupant can’t seem to do). Further, he is the only one of the candidates who has the combination of international policy experience, the ability to work with both sides of the aisle in both houses of the Congress, and would be capable of doing the job of President on Day 1.
2
@JE Biden is a known plagiarizer (as documented in this very newspaper) and it's getting way too hard to tell when he's stuttering and when his brain is melting. It's only been a few days since he told us he was 'running for the Senate'. We have big problems and we need someone who has an investment in the future and understands the present. Neither of the older men in this race do. How can I trust the judgement of a nearly 80 year old who thinks he's the best man for the job, when ego rather than competence is far more likely the driving force?
has anyone ever thought to give the moderators the right to turn off microphones?
5
A Democratic Disaster because of the incompetence and stupidity of CBS. The moderators were horrendous.
9
Worst debate I've ever viewed! Actually, it really became unwatchable early on. The CBS moderators showed themselves to be wholly unqualified to host a serious debate -- they lost all control over the debate and their questions were not well thought out. The candidates kept speaking over each other, sometimes all at once. Who could hear anything? And this raising one's hand as soon as another candidate started speaking? Give it a break! Wow, just a total embarrassment for CBS and the candidates. Voters tuning in deserve much better than this. We are tuning in to learn as much as we can about each candidate -- less sniping, more policy and reality is needed. This isn't a game. We are trying to make a critical choice here for a candidate that will beat Donald Trump. This is definitely not the way to go about it.
5
The biggest winner in these debates is Trump.
The Democrats are coming across as incredibly awful, dislikable people. Elizabeth Warren is making vicious remarks about Michael Bloomberg's physical appearance, as if there's anything he could ever do about his height. Can you imagine if someone went after Warren for her physical appearance?
Yes, I know Trump makes hideous put-down remarks like this all the time. For reasons I don't understand, his followers have given him a hall pass.
The Democrats don't have that luxury. They must offer something better than Trump. The debates have not shown that. Quite the opposite.
2
The opening of the "debate" looked like what would have been a dystopian, black comedy a la "Black Mirror" or "Dr. Strangelove" not long ago. The entire evening was more akin to pro wrestling than a presidential debate. Whoever produced this disaster should be fired.
1
The “debates” should be firmly in the hands of The League of Women Voters and on Public Television. We do not need a vulgar game show atmosphere with people screaming for the audience like it was a Town Hall. This “debate” was a disaster for our nation at this crucial time. Shame on CBS for falling down on the job when the nation deserves the best.
6
Except for Mr. Bloomberg and maybe Mr. Steyer, the others of last night’s “debate,” if one insists on calling it that, demonstrated willful, unhinged dishonor to abide by rules. The explanation of that would be arrogance. Shouldn’t more, in the category of decency and civility and goodwill, be expected of individuals seeking to be president? Hasn’t the dreadful lesson on disgrace given by Trump been learned well enough yet? As for the moderators’ ability to moderate last night’s showdown: This just wasn’t there unfortunately, making matters worse ... except, of course, for Trump and adversaries of this nation in his corner, such as Russia.
1
CBS dropped the ball. Poor moderation, open mics, $1750+ tickets, Bloomberg ad during the break.
This debate was hurtful to Democrats, not helpful.
They should ask the candidates to say something nice about each rival at the end, as a reminder that more unites than divides us.
1
CBS failed miserably in conducting this debate!
And why isn't there more concern about the FACT tickets to the debate were between $1k-3k?
Trust me no poor, or most middle class person could afford that much money to attended this debate!
4
I miss Gwen Ifill at these times. She could moderate a debate.
I could definitely feel my blood pressure rising last night- terrible.
Great review, esp the line about the candidates looking like they were waving from a shipwreck! Laugh or cry...
2
For anyone paying attention over the last 9 months, this was just more of the same. Not one candidate said anything noteworthy or surprising.
And for those who have not been watching for the last few months, do you really want to base your vote on these micro aggressions each candidate attempted to inflict on the others ?
2
Their unified message was: We are unable to get along with anyone.
1
Give the moderators a break. Their easy demeanor gave the candidates room to show what their character allows in the artifice of this debasing show.
1
The theatrical spectacle we choose to elect our presidents now long after the smoke filled rooms are gone was bound to deteriorate over time, as the media became more diverse, the daily pace more frenzied, the candidates more desperate, and the American Idol format under the control not of strict judges running the calibrated show with iron fists, but pop stars reporters with too much makeup and too little of what it takes to ringmaster a bunch of shouters and whiners eager to get the last word in on subjects that may not be foremost in everyone's mind on any given day anyway.
That said, at the end of the day, the Dems will pick someone, and it may the system works, as their best -or at least final - pick goes up against Trump. And even if there is no Kennedy or Lincoln to save us from Trump's second term and restore sanity to our Republic, it will be the one the people in their infinite wisdom have chosen, albeit in a peculiar and silly way. And all the Russians and bots in the world are just part of this insane mix we call modern democracy, and which does indeed reflect the will of the people in some very peculiar 21st century way!
I didn't know about the selling of tickets to the debate. I still don't know why there needs to be an audience present. This isn't supposed to a game show where the audience gets to vote on winners and losers.
6
@Steve Bread and circuses. Are you not entertained?
I could not agree with you more. The entire "debate" reminded me of ABC's Sunday with George Stephanopolos because everyone talks over everyone else and so no one is heard.
2
This is the same process that gave us Trump as a nominee on the Republican side in 2016. Crowded debates that favor whoever can shout the loudest or come up with the catchiest bumper sticker sound bite (“Build The Wall” “Lock Her Up” “Mine Is Bigger Than Yours”) vs. who will govern most effectively.
These debates should not be broadcast on commercial TV. They should not be packaged like a sporting event showdown with flashy graphics and sound effects. Our elections should not be a source of profit for our news networks.
I wonder if the DNC could just stage its own debate? Have the candidates outline their plans for the 4-5 key issues we face as a country and how their approach differs from others. Then post it on YouTube (or online at the DNC website) with an agreement not to run preroll ads before or during or track users.
The moderators just failed. The result was grossly unfair to the candidates and the party.
4
This group of moderators did a great job. Every candidate had a chance to answer a relevant question and they were able to respond to attacks also. But it was tough. I think each podium should be equipped with a set of lights. A yellow light for request to speak to be activated by a candidate and a red and green light to indicate the time status of a response. When the light is green you speak. When the light is red you stop. One verbal warning is given after the red light then the microphone is muted and another candidate receives a green light. Candidates must not attempt to moderate or campaign. The ability to follow the rules and behave like an adult in stressful situations is important. Answer the question and then yield. Don't eat up time restating your platform over and over. You know who you are.
It's not rocket science. Just turn off microphones except for the candidate who is supposed to be talking at the moment.
3
These moderators were the worst ones we've seen so far. It was driving me up the wall to hear them go "thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you" while the candidates finished what they were saying. Let them talk! When the candidates get too rowdy, rein them in! The moderators made this debate nearly unwatchable, and I left feeling irritated, rather than educated.
2
This circular firing squad has got to stop.
I propose a new format similar to a hiring process. Each qualifying candidate takes the stage one at a time. They make their opening remarks, and then get questioned by a committee of the press. This is followed by one round of closing statements, again one at a time. Anyone attackkng another candidate loses any remaining speaking time. When it gets down to a two person race, we can resume “debating”.
1
I felt sorry for Gayle and Norah, however they should have done a better job at controlling the debate.
In addition, the questions were repetitious.
Not one question about the judiciary or the Supreme Court!!! The most important reason why it is important to elect a Democrat and not one question about this. How else can you let the public know what is at stake if it is not discussed in a debate.
Very disappointing on all levels.
3
This is not the candidates fault.
This was a CBS fiasco.
Lastly if a debate is going to have a live audience rules should
state their complete silence, PBS not a commercial network should run these debates!
3
I was embarrassed for the moderators. It had been years since I’d turned on CBS, and now I remember why.
3
O’Donnell and King were buffoons and asked questions not even worthy of a sixth grade clique battle; provocative in all the wrong ways, irrelevant and without substance.
5
It's called democracy. Remember that, Repubs? Betcha don't.
1
This debate was an absolute disaster and a joke. Candidates shouting over one another, extremely abbreviated response times, as hoc responses from all candidates at the same time, and meaningless game show questions.
Solutions: Extended response times, cut the mics of those who go over and who are not due to speak, and don’t allow profiteering megacorporations to host debates vital to the future of the nation.
1
After the content, the second main reason I read the Times is for the writing. These lines made my day:
"The field spent most of the night yelling and waving like shipwreck survivors trying to flag a rescue helicopter."
"It probably got voters’ attention, in the same way that it gets your attention when several car alarms go off on your block at once."
Thank you!
1
Gladiator spectacle. Not unlike what we experienced with the Republican's 4 years ago.
Way too much noise. From the lead in, to the debate itself.
And what is with all the audience cheering and jeering!??
This has to stop.
It's a debate, not a sport sarena!
This is on MSM. They started this Red, White and Blue "news" nonsense years ago and there seems to be no end in sight.
It's what ushered in Trump.
Why can't we have sane, deliberative debates and news coverage.
Like PBS demonstrates.
NOT LIKE FOX.
I turned the debates off after an hour. I was annoyed and disgusted. Intelligent people on the podium forced to thrash it out. It didn't serve them, it didn't serve us.
It did serve the ratings though. Which in our corporate world, that's what it's all about.
1
No one in popular corporate news ever brings up that Iran would be a Democracy today if it hadn't been overthrown by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt who reinstated the viscious Shah, whose retribution then resulted in the second overthrow that resulted in the foundation and rise of the Islamic State. The United States Government destroyed Democracy in the Middle East and created the Islamic State. We did that. What is wrong with this country? No citizen of the drone-killing, democracy-deposing American experiment can ever sing "God Bless America" again. After all the US had slavery and we don't say that what Jefferson did was bad.
Last night’s Democrat debate was a sad spectacle in which the candidates seemed to be enacting a playground squabble. I wonder how all the yelling, whining, chest thumping, and mean-spirited muck raking exhibited served to distinguish any of them from the current cruel and petulant occupant of the White House? It was train wreck engineered, in part, by CBS moderators who were obviously unprepared to deal with a such a gathering of giant egos. Makes this die-hard Democrat worry about the party’s chances in November.
2
Superb analysis. The moderators were pathetic. They asked softball questions. They let the panelists cross-talk endlessly and allowed Bernie to wave his arms like a needy child and the audience to cheer. I don’t think I can watch Gayle King or Norah O’Donnell’s programs again. Where was Anthony from CBS This Morning?
the several car alarms at once line is perfect and funny
It has sure been a long ways down for CBS News.
2
Simple correction for a problem debate: After a couple warnings, cut the microphone of those who violate the rules and turn them back on only when there is a question for the errant candidate.
1
Thought last night's debate was much better than last weeks. They actually talked about issues. The other candidates did what they had to do. They told us Bernie has not accomplished much in his career. They told us a Socialist cannot win in this country. They told us Bernie cannot win over moderate Republicans. They told us Democracts will lose the Senate & House if Bernie is nominee. Only Bloomberg or Biden can WIN over the current President. Bloomberg will fund his own campaign and all other money can go to winning the Democratic Senate & House. Then America will get things done. Please vote for a WIN.
2
It got loud at times, but overall, I thought it was pretty good. Bloomberg did a good job -- he's quite a serious person, and I appreciate his candor and owning up to his mistakes. Since he's new to the debates, I appreciated getting to learn more about him. That said, these moderators were better than the last set, but still did not maintain control. I did not appreciate the audience's outbursts. Not an endorsement, just an observation.
2
The debate mayhem mirrors the same issues that the candidates are themselves talking about and grappling with: Do you believe in capitalism? Well, then whatever sells the most ads to the most viewers wins. The alternative, we are told, is a government takeover of everything - the airwaves, your free choice. Apparently it's crowned road covered with black ice, and you either slide off one way or another.
But maybe there is something in the middle, where distinctions are drawn between things that should have a firewall from corporate profit - elections and governments, for example, and things that are best left to messy competition and selfish hustle. You could call it democratic socialism. Sounds ok to me.
The reason why some candidates are getting traction is because they are speaking to the issue of the corruption of the debate about what belongs in which category. Sanders, Warren and Steyer all are articulating this issue successfully. They are are emphasizing that good choices are based on good information, not on maximizing sales for the politically connected.
I used to get upset listening to corporate pundits denouncing or distorting the progressive messages of those calling for a radical transformation - the return of government to people. Not anymore. Now I just view it as a bellows blowing on the kindling of a new era of democratic engagement.
1
I second the thoughts of @Cy. Debates are not at all a good way to evaluate candidates. It becomes a collection of sound bites, “gotcha” moments, and it is horribly stressful, both for the candidates and the viewers. Most importantly, it provides no insight into how they would lead and govern.
4
These so-called debates are part and parcel of what Neil postman referred to as "Amusing Ourselves to Death." But it's no longer amusing.
7
I watched the whole debate. One question I have: What was up with hands in the air? It felt like I was in the 5th grade trying to get the teacher's attention. Very distracting and a little infantile. These are "grownups" and the "moderators" should have controlled the agenda a lot better. It became a "free for all" with Elizabeth Warren "hogging" the mike, making her usual attacks (and not really much on Bernie who, by the way, who shares her agenda) and mostly yelling.
Biden: Well, his fast talk and slips of the tongue are beginning to grate on me. He is, in my opinion, "not ready for prime time."
Can't figure out why Steyer is still in this as he has zero chance of being the nominee. I used to think Bloomberg was the likely recipient of the eventual dropping out of Biden but not sure of that at all now. Amy, well, while she is very articulate and has a somewhat decent message I could see the "gears moving" while she was formulating her responses. She also somehow is sponsoring every bill that was ever brought to The Senate. Or, as is more likely, she took credit for every bill that came up in the debate. Not her finest hour.
All-in-all entertaining in a very chaotic way. Definitely not their finest.
2
@Rozie, in all fairness to Biden, the slips of the tongue are due to a stutter, which he has dealt with his whole life. There is nothing wrong with that, and it has no bearing on his ability to assemble, and listen to, a qualified team of aides (something the current WH occupant can’t seem to do). Further, he is the only one of the candidates who has the combination of international policy experience, the ability to work with both sides in the Congress, and would be capable of doing the job of President on Day 1.
Shame on CBS. As a former TV executive familiar with broadcast-network finances, I attribute the chaos indulged by two lightweight moderators (with mostly morning-show anchor experience) and worsened by a deluge of commercial interruptions to the budget-cuts that have decimated a once-mighty news division. I imagine that wherever their spirits might now reside, Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow felt ashamed of the new CBS News.
5
We ought to question whether debates are a useful way to learn about a candidate's qualifications to run the country. Winning a debate has nothing to do with being "right," and being less principled and more aggressive is often an advantage.
Being a good communicator is an important skill for a president to have, but being a good debater isn't the same thing. The traditional political debate format is nothing like the situations elected candidates actually find themselves in.
I'd rather have candidates sit down for one-on-one interviews conducted in close succession, with the same interviewers, and with roughly the same set of questions, and have those aired back-to-back. Or give each candidate a chance to give a stump speech or policy address on a certain topic and air those back to back.
These debates are counterproductive and embarrassing to watch. Get rid of them.
66
@Cy
The first mistake is to call these TV productions “debates” when they’re just shows... And bad ones, at that...
6
I watched fiftenne minutes. The debates produce nothing new and frankly the issues are to serious to listen to name calling as if I were back in fifth grade.
CBS did nothing to control the scenario that was being played out. The same questions we have listened to for over a year and no reference to how Trump was destroying our institutions.
We read the newspapers we know people are in horrific conditions but the CBS people didn't ask any questions regarding those scenario's.
Bernie is right we have never engaged in massive literacy no matter how much money Bill
Gates has thrown at the problem we have millions of people in this country who can not read.Our education is one slogan that is overpriced for slogan careers that never materialize.
Castro, oh please if it wasnt for their doctors who were working on HIV we would still be in the dark ages.
If warren put as much energy into attacking Trump as she did Bloomberg last night her numbers would be off the chart.
2
Aren't there any serious moderators who could do a first-rate job available for hire? Why in the world do you allow people with no real skill in moderating debates give it a try on national television? The citizens of America deserve a lot better than what we received last night. It was a screaming match that ran uncontrolled by the two moderators who asked the candidates absurd, ridiculous questions. Sad!
6
Bloomberg remains stone faced, uneasy looking, and the comment about the "Naked Cowboy" went over as someone expelling gas in a crowded bus.
Eliminate this one candidate.
5
Warren and Bloomberg are "debating" Mike's having reportedly said to a pregnant worker, "just kill it," in reference to her pregnancy.
Moderator: "That is a very serious charge you have leveled at the mayor - what evidence do you have ... of that?"
Warren: "Her own words."
[...]
Moderator:..we want to get to the issue of electability" and proceeded to attack Sanders.
Being a Democrat takes more than just saying you are a Democrat. Actions still speak more loudly than words,
everyone's hero Obama really went to town with the unverifiable drone strikes and turned it into the cottage industry it is today. And don't even get started on his deportations.
Nobody but Bernie.
2
This is beyond terrible. This is an embarrassment. Nobody on that stage would instruct their children to act this way.
Why can the "moderators" shut off the microphones of those who are not supposed to be speaking?
Why do we need a live audience?
Who made up this format where if somebody name is mentioned, that they get the next statement? This allows the debate to be between two people with others standing there waiting.
Why are such vapid "gotcha" questions being allowed? Who wrote some of these things? Why is the most important issue of our time, climate change, being almost ignored?
Just as we think our electoral situation can't get any worse, it gets much worse.
4
Yes it was a mess. But I would infinitely prefer to have a mess, than to have my presidential candidate pre-selected for me, like in 2016.
2
@Edith
I think it is happening this year too. I believe Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown was told to withdraw from the Presidential race because the party thought he'd take votes away from Biden. Brown could have won pretty easily unless he made big mistakes.
1
Buttigieg was the worst offender. Not a good look for him, constantly talking over Bernie for his ENTIRE ANSWER. Rude and disrespectful, and I say this as a former admirer. He's got a lot of skill but allowed that to be totally outshined by his poor behavior yesterday.
5
Here’s an idea for stopping the cross talk: give each candidate an equal number of minutes to talk and then monitor each microphone for how much time they speak. Give the candidates a running total of how many minutes they have left on their quota. Begging for attention, or overtalking another candidate, would count against your quota. Candidates would shape up quickly. This debate was neither fun nor instructional.
7
Why can’t the moderators be given a panel of buttons that controls the candidates’ microphones? One mic is on at a time, and when the time is up, it turns off. No other mic goes live until the moderator has chosen the next speaker. Easy technological solution. Why don’t we do it? The networks WANT yelling.
11
Someone said there was a debate last night. I didn’t see it. I saw several adults raising their hand to be heard and when that didn’t work they spoke out of turn. I didn’t learn anything from last night’ ‘debate’. I know that the Democrats have to become a team in order to defeat President Trump. I believe one candidate or maybe two try to get that across but with all of the rude talking out of turn it was hard to hear if they were any good points made during this so-called debate. There is also no reason to get nasty at another candidate. If becoming nasty is indicative of how you will deal with constituents and employees, I won’t vote for you. Four years of that kind of behavior is four years too many. Having watched the debates I have not learned anything about the candidates except the ones who show how they don’t play fair in the sandbox. I thought we are all adults.  after last nights debate it’s questionable. What about the moderators? Both last week and last night they were invisible. They didn’t know how to manage the debate. The candidates showed no respect for the process. Both weeks moderators showed they do not know how to manage the debate. It was two hours of finger-pointing, shouting statements that couldn’t be heard and insults. It’s embarrassing.
2
Can we finally ban the use of the word "debate" to these food fight game shows?
Here's a suggestion: How about running actual debates between two candidates in a round robin format where everyone eventually gets to debate everyone else? At least we could get substantive discourse and each person could more fully explain their views.
This was two hours of my life I'll never get back.
2
At least Bloomberg is attacking Trump and seeming doing so successfully. Really I do hope the Dems will unite sincerely for the candidate who wins the nomination. Anyone but Trump.
2
Let's not forget that as consumers of politics, we love the jabs, take downs and zingers. This is what is reported in the media, and what is shared on social media. (See: Elizabeth Warren's take down of Bloomberg in the previous debate.)
So we shouldn't be surprised that this is what modern political debates look and sound like.
1
All those in favor of no more live audiences at these debates, raise your hand.
12
The debate format is all wrong. Instead of standing, maybe the debaters should be seated at a table, where they are less likely to shout. And when they raise their hands, it reminds me of third-graders vying for the teacher's attention. It doesn't look dignified, especially for candidates seeking the highest office in the land. Bottom line: The volume of one's voice is no substitute for logic of intelligent debate points.
10
The reality is that you cannot facilitate a discussion and participate in it as a reporter. Two different sets of muscles. We disempower the process when we ask people trained to root out the essence of an issue to also be a neutral moderator. It is a contradiction in roles. These debates should be run by professional facilitators, trained in the art of neutrality and objectivity, with no stake in the outcome, who can help set and enforce the ground rules, provide order to the agenda, and flow to the conversation.
These shouting matches are demeaning to the candidates and deprive the public of the opportunity to hear full discussions of the critical issues in complete sentences and complete thoughts. We have the right to hear these candidates without the childish interruptions of their opponents or the moderators themselves.
As a professional mediator and facilitator l can attest to the importance of being the one person in the room who needs to be neutral. It provides safety for everyone and a neutral atmosphere in which important decisions can be made. It is an offense to the voters that so little respect is paid to providing an objective forum for the presentation of so many issues of concern to us all. We are facing the single most important election of our lifetimes - and perhaps that of our democracy. We must demand a more responsive and objective process.
6
A "debate" review by a TV reviewer. How appropriate !
Let's stop pretending these are actually debates. They are merely a profitable, paid advertising TV shows. Unfortunately, the Democrats thought (presuming they were actually thinking!) it a good idea to present their own version of "The Apprentice", allowing the punditocracy, twitterati, and commentariat to feel good saying, "You're fired!" and "You're hired!" Their ongoing series is titled "The Circular Firing Squad."
Note that the network actors ("moderators") avoided the important question: "If you are not the nominee, will you campaign for whoever is the nominee?" After all, conflict is the show's theme and the producer of the all-important ratings.
I do have to hand it to Warren, though. Once again she did a superb job auditioning for a senior position in the Trump Reelection Campaign. Bloomberg, on the other hand, not being an accomplished TV personality, tended to come off as being out of his element.
Let's keep in mind. America tried a TV personality in 2016. How well has that worked fr the country? Inasmuch as there are no TV cameras in the Situation Room nor Nielsen ratings for what goes on there, I'm inclined to think we should forego the theatrics this year and, if we can't get Jed Bartlett to run, Bloomberg will be the best candidate not only to beat Trump but to actually be able to run the country and accomplish something with the reality that will be the 2021 Congress, not a fantasy Congress.
4
Half serious with this, considering the train wreck last night: Design a stage where all debaters are encapsulated in glass tubes -- they stand at their podium with a glass tube covering them. They can hear out of the tubes, but they cannot be heard, until and unless the moderator pushes a button to lift up the tube in dramatic fashion. While one has a tube raised and is ranting, we can see the others squirm, shake heads, raise hands in silence. The moderator decides who's tube gets lifted. All get the exact same time to talk. If they can't be polite on the stage, and play by the rules, we need to force the issue, so it's fair.
7
It's hard to get at substance when the questions are designed to be "gotcha" questions or ignore key issues altogether. Did anyone ask about climate change last night, sitting in a city on low land by the ocean? Oh, but we heard about sugary drinks.
The moderators simply refused to moderate. Yes, the candidates were aggressive before Super Tuesday, but shouldn't CBS have anticipated that and planned accordingly?
Finally, although it can be difficult to silence an audience entirely and halt spontaneous outbursts of cheering (or groans) from a large group, the repeated booing done by what sounded like a handful of hecklers should have been shut down immediately. I've seen such displays halted at other debates. Why not last night?
10
I haven’t seen any comments yet about the circus-like performance by the Republican candidates during the debates of the last election. After watching that I was convinced the only way to proceed in the future is for each person to be in a soundproof box. The mic should be turned off at exactly the allotted time, shades should come down in the box if a candidate is raving and gesturing in a distracting manner, and finally if the question is deflected and not answered the person should lose a turn.
3
I'd say that the biggest loser of the night was indeed the CBS debate itself. The moderators were incapable of restoring order, and when people were talking over each other it just devolved into meaningless noise. Joe Biden had some funny remarks about that, but seemed to be getting petulant too.
After that, I'd say the second biggest loser was Mr. Steyer (who? Exactly). He got the least time, made some good points but had no great soundbites, didn't try for any major zingers on anyone.
Mr. Bloomberg did better than last time, which was hard to avoid doing, but his jokes all fell flat. Hilarious when he made a comment about everywhere not needing a Naked Cowboy, and everyone in South Carolina had no idea what he was talking about. That kind of demonstrated what a NYC-centric viewpoint he's always had. He made the good move of releasing people from NDA's, but he should have been prepared for that before his first debate, so he could have slammed down that attack by simply saying, fine, right now I'll void all those agreements.
I think Mr. Sanders tried to coast through and really dodged a batch of questions, he didn't impress me much all night. Mr. Biden, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Buttigieg, and Ms. Warren all performed rather well.
Overall I'm hoping for a better debate after Super Tuesday, and I assume Mr. Steyer and at least two others will have bowed out by then, so maybe we can get more informative answers out of everyone who's still on stage.
3
Many have said it before, but: these events should not be called debates, and why on Earth have the media institutions decided that this is somehow better than an actual debate?
10
Yes, nothing is new in this column. All was said already.
Keep your eyes on the light at the end of the tunnel: Democrats need to win the presidency, the House and the Senate or reduce the Republican lead.
We need to get rid of this Republican Party, also for the sake of saving it. If they are defeated by a landslide, they may find the courage to wake up.
When they come to power, they behave like absent parent showing up once a year, spending lavishly on entertainment, and then disappearing and leaving others to pay the bill. Time for this ride to end!
2
Leaked audio: Mike Bloomberg trashes Obama and vows to "defend the banks" in Goldman Sachs speech - Salon
Bloomberg Argued For Bribing Congress, Said He’d ‘Defend’ Banks If He Ran For Prez - Talking Points Memo
“Congress is really something you just have to have on your side if you want to accomplish major things, and the ways you get Congress to work for you is the ways you deal with your family: You bribe them,” he told the event attendees. “You say to your kid, you say to your kid to ‘clean your room or you don’t get your allowance.'”
“That’s a bribe, I’m sorry,” he said when the audience murmured.
The billionaire went on to assert that there are “ways” for a president to “build a relationship” by sending gifts to powerful players or inviting them to play golf. He lamented that unlike Bill Clinton, then-President Barack Obama “really does not like doing that.”
“I think we need a president with executive experience who will know how to do that,” Bloomberg said.
1
CBS should be ashamed of themselves. I knew we all were in for trouble when one of the moderators started off welcoming us to the DEMOCRAT debate.
12
Bad reality TV.
6
It was $1750+ to get in the debate. The disgruntled moments were people that could afford to be there in the first place and not representative of well most people that make up Bernie's followers. Sure, Bloomberg denies paying anyone off, but I can't help wondering. These debates just prove that regular democracy doesn't work.
4
Why doesn’t the DNC set better guidelines for these debates? It seemed as though the RNC made the rules, picked the formats and are smiling all the way to the voting booths.
8
@Stu Sutin
DNC and most of mainstream media do not want Sanders. It is obvious from every news article and news report CNN, MSNBC, CBS NEWS etc, etc. The simple way of asking a question is dripping with bias and guides the interviewee towards a certain answer.... They are all in " panic" mode now. Why were they not in panic mode when they chose Clinton, despite all the alarm bells they've decided to ignore? They've discouraged every other potential candidate with a mild chance of winning, except for Bernie who is too stubborn and has too much belief in his point of view. Of course, this can be both a good thing and terrifying at the same time, but the one thing the DNC needs is to step the heck back. They have abundantly proved they're out of touch. Point made, step back.
1
You were far too kind (although we all need some kindness). The moderators were ill-prepared and not suited to the task or the moment. CBS News has clearly become a shadow of its former greatness, and shouldn't be using this forum as a marketing platform for their personalities. Did you see their large banner hanging from the middle of the ceiling? Does anyone think this event helped their brand? Or the Democratic party?
10 debates in, the candidates (mostly) are well-practiced. Perhaps the process (circus) should not bounce from network to network. It does a huge disservice to the audience, candidates and our democratic process.
We could use Jim Lehrer right about now (may he rest in peace).
5
I really have a problem with audience participation, clapping booing etc., especially since many could not afford to attend and they are excluded.
This is not a fake wrestling match good person bad person it's just unacceptable at a presidential candidate's debate.
14
The Kennedy/Nixon debates were done in a TV studio. No audience. Let’s get back to basics here.
9
Can any Democrat win the 2020 general election without the battleground states of PA and FL? If not, Sanders has sealed his doom. His ideological position opposed to fracking which along with horizontal drilling has made the US energy independent is not going to be banned. His determination to double down on his praise of Castro has infuriated Florida Cuban Americans. As James Carville has pointed out Warren and Sanders are more interested in winning an ideological argument than securing votes to win an election. And my fellow Democrats that is scary. Another four years or more of Donald Trump will turn the whole nation into Oklahoma.
5
@dbl06
Pennsylvania does have an oil industry (2% of the workforce), and there are Cuban-Americans in Florida (6.5% of the population) but don't count on either to have much of a say with their votes. Florida is 22.5% Hispanic but like i mentioned, only 6.5% Cuban ancestry. These groups may carry sway politically but they are still small minorities.
@JT It takes very few votes to change an election in a swing state. workers in the oil and gas industry have friends and family that could be far-reaching. Same for Cuban-Americans in Florida. We are about winning an election not winning an ideological argument.
The candidates are encouraged to attack eachother and the whole debate thing has been reduced to media ratings and a joke on the voters. We want information on their plans, not a slug fest. Town Halls along with reading the candidates websites for their plans are much more informative for the public.
And it's disgusting that they let a billionaire and let him skip the rules because of his money. Democrats are supposed to be against corruption but showed they are just as "bought off" as the others. Such a disappointment.
6
To fix this, just provide control of the microphones to someone off stage and switch off the microphones when the candidate's speaking time is up.
7
I still mourn the loss of Gwen Ifill- last night it was made abundantly clear- that they still haven’t managed to find a replacement for her. Many of the questions were one step away from - “if you could be any kind of tree...”
5
Most of the questions asked by the moderators were designed to instigate argument, not intelligent discussion.
1
Elizabeth Warren is still the best and brightest candidate. I sent her another donation after the debate. But I have to say after cringing during the angry old men shouting match, I welcomed the calm, thoughtful responses of Pete Buttigieg. I still think Biden would be an awful choice. He is a terrible debater and I can’t stand the way he strings random thoughts together. Trump would love to debate him while Warren would be cool and forceful. She also does not carry the baggage of the men. The worst Trump could do is to call her a name that will play to his cultish base but turn off suburban women voters. After last nights unruly debate, I am convinced she is our most electable candidate.
9
When the one moderator in the first half asked Senator Sanders to "do the math" for the Medicare-for-all proposal, she gave him 20 seconds and then someone interrupted and she gave that someone, Steyer, 2 minutes and 25 seconds of saying why it won't work. I'd like to hear what Senator Sanders has to say about the math. Couldn't the moderators do a better job or the platform be set up to turn off microphones when not talking? I'd really like to see the math and was excited when she asked the question, only to be deflated as it appeared to be a set up question...The moderation was horrible.
14
Democrats should rejoice that America finally has a clear choice between a democratic socialist and a narcissist, treasonous, corrupt white nationalists. Our choices has never been so clear! In any democracy when a political party wants to regain power, their best opportunity would be to nominate someone opposite to a leader who fermented so much chaos both at home and abroad. Yet corporate democrats continue to scaremonger voters of their probable nominee. They either do not trust their own voters to make the right choice or fear that Bernie is an existential threat to their power.
Bernie and Warren's mission is to bring out a progressive agenda, but most importantly to reduce the power and influence of corporate money in politics. Perhaps taking us back from the GOP plutocracy today to a real democracy where individual voter as opposed to billionaires elect our leaders is their main concern. Corporate democracy either don't trust their own voters or more likely they too are in the pockets of these plutocrats. It is for this reason, that we need a progressive president who is not only an existential to the party of plutocrats but also those democrats who are in their pockets.
6
A review by a TV reviewer. How (sadly) appropriate !
Let's stop pretending these are actually debates. They are merely the Democrats' version of The Apprentice, with the punditocracy, twitterati, and commentariat getting to feel good saying, "You're fired!" and "You're hired!" It's Reality TV, on the Circular Firing Squad Channel, more like American Idol than Kennedy-Nixon.
I really have to hand it to Warren, though. Once again she did a superb job auditioning for a senior position in the Trump Reelection Campaign. Bloomberg, on the other hand, not being an accomplished TV personality, tended to come off as being out of his element.
Let's keep in mind. America tried a TV personality in 2016. How well has that worked? Inasmuch as there are no TV cameras in the Situation Room nor Nielsen ratings for what goes on there, I'm inclined to think we should forego the theatrics this year and, if we can't get Jed Bartlett to run, Bloomberg will be the best candidate not only to beat Trump but to actually be able to run the country and accomplish something with the reality that will be the 2021 Congress, not a fantasy Congress.
5
Television anchors who are totally unskilled at moderation shouldn't be allowed to moderate a political debate. Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King were overwhelmed by their task of moderating the Democratic Debate in Charleston, SC, last night. They were CBS'a walking textbooks on how not to moderate a debate.
8
They need to stop calling these fiascos debates. Instead, they could just make it a Jerry Springer special and let him run it just like he used to run his show.
2
Epic disgrace. That wasn't a debate, that was an absolute meltdown.
Still voting blue straight down the ticket in 2020.
4
The first time I’ve quit watching a debate halfway through. What a mess!
1
The moderators did a poor job. Major Garrett's questions were particularly irrelevant and delivered in an unpleasant and almost condescending manner - until Sanders put him in his place.
3
Using a new source for streaming the debates, we don't have to use one method of cable networks to run a debate.
Citizens should be doing there civic duty anyways and researching the candidates on their time, and not trying to pick a president from one debate anyways. People can watch these presidential rallies on c-span or the town halls that they do, if they want to hear more of what they have to say.
But its a debate, and I am not sure what people thought they would get instead. Its really not difficult to follow along even with the talking.
The debate was ridiculous. A bunch of politicians yelling at each other, avoiding answering questions, and ignoring time limits. These events are strictly for entertainment purposes especially judged by the individuals selected to ask the questions. The questions were equally useless.
3
The moderators did not moderate. They did not do their job.
Their failure is our loss.
For example, they addressed a question to Senator Sanders. He began answering, but Mayor Buttigieg almost immediately interrupted.
"Let's talk about that," Mayor Buttigieg said. "Let's talk about this."
Again, the question was addressed to Senator Sanders, and he spoke for about five seconds before Mayor Buttigieg interrupted. The mayor continued talking during the senator's entire response.
And Senator Sanders raised his voice louder and louder to shout down Mayor Buttigieg.
The moderators should have told the mayor to wait for his turn to speak. But they did not: A shouting match equals good Nielsen ratings.
A presidential debate should elicit our national dialogue's best form. Instead, I watched a food fight.
I learned nothing.
14
I have given up on the debates. Ill prepared questioners, poor framing, and too many gotcha questions. They would do better to have the audience ask the questions.
6
In the land of the clueless, the pundit with kindergarten logic is king.
Maybe Sanders, if he succeeds in becoming president, should appoint Count von Count from Sesame Street to help Buttigeig and the rest of the math challenged crowd with their inability to understand the concept that costing less, costs less.
Imagine being so wealthy that you're willing to pay $3,200 to attend an event you can easily watch for free on TV.
There are many reasons why wealth inequality undermines democracy.
11
These debates have become a public spectacle. It has become less about the substance and more like a popularity contest. There was absolutely no need to have 4 moderators for 7 candidates last night. They couldn't control the crowd, they couldn't control the candidates, they wouldn't let people complete their sentences. Next time, can we please have a debate without the live audience so these candidates can talk directly to the voters at home without the fear of being booed? Can we have some seasoned , experienced moderators? and can we please have another debate when these candidates start dropping out and we have a small group so they can get enough time to put forth their thoughts and still have time for a rebuttal?
128
@ALN
That would be down to Miss Triviality making it trivial. No matter how serious the topic she cannot speak without trivializing whatever it is she is speaking about. The more she tries to be serious the more trivial she makes the thing.
The reality is that Sanders has more votes than everyone else. Why don't the Press and DEM establishment finally acknowledge that the American people, democrats at least, want Bernie Sanders? Instead of trying their level best to undermine him in favor of anyone else including Trump.
1
@magicisnotreal Who are we supposed to infer is Miss Triviality? You called this person out by gender and little else. Who's the one lady you think shoulders the blame?
2
I don’t have to watch the debates. I went to the candidates ‘ websites and elsewhere and researched where they stand on the issues, and then vote for the candidate I like.
8
These aren't real debates, as they were in the last century when sponsored by the League of Women Voters. What we have now is "infotainment", a live show set up to garner ratings and advance the image of the "news personalities". As the disgraced Les Moonves put it during the 2016 campaign, "Trump may be bad for America, but he's good for CBS."
144
Can we please bring back the League of Women Voters? These debates are horrible.
236
This debate was a model for how not to stage a debate. The moderators not only seemed unable to bring any semblance of order but the questions were poorly chosen. If it were the only debate I saw, I would be concerned as a voter; if I were a campaign manager I would question if CBS was qualified to host another.
213
@Chris Hunter
Sorry but I liked it. Yes the moderators were terrible but we got to see the candidates under fire and not as staged nad rehearsed.
1
Three lessons from the primary so far:
There is no excuse to still let Iowa and New Hampshire go first.
There is no excuse to still allow caucuses.
There is no excuse for these debates to not be hosted by PBS.
299
As others have mentioned: all debates belong on public television, accessible free of charge to everyone, without commercial breaks or the broadcast and cable networks’ drive to turn these important public fora into infotainment.
56
Gwen Ifill, how we miss you.
26
@LLW
No kidding about only PBS. These clowns even allowed political commercials during the debate itself.
Epic fail all around.
29
I could only take it for half an hour. That wasn’t a debate at all. It was a scrum. If I were running for office I would refuse to participate. 7 potential candidates? Get real. Amy and Tom need to drop out. Now. Let’s see how SC goes for Biden. If he doesn’t have a significant win there he needs to drop out. I have no idea what to make of Bloomberg. He just seems lost. How on earth is he going to take on DJT in presidential debates? Pathetic. So we’ve got Waren, Buttigieg, and Sanders. Let the 3 of them talk, at length, about how they would govern. That might be worth while.
6
I thought Norah and Gayle did a poor job of reminding the audience to NOT show support or displeasure for / with comments made by the candidates!
3
CBS did a terrible job. That's the bottom line.
16
Perhaps CBS should have spent less time on the dystopian, absurd graphics and flying cameras and more time on training their moderators to run a debate. The whole thing looked ridiculous, and was out of control.
7
Atlantic magazine political writer McKay Coppins has written in depth about Donald Trump's $1 Billion propaganda campaign ("The 2020 Disinformation War") that started in January 2017.
Who on that stage last night has the knowledge, skills and ability to counter that? There's only one.
2
This CB is exactly what CBS wanted - viewership. The only cool, intelligent two were Bloomberg and Buttigieg. Warren is weak Bernie imitation and an inflamed Bernie frightening. I expect Trump has some “dirt” on Bernie. Can’t understand how the media keeps pushing them! The votes will decide but Bernie and Warren will lose the election. Amy K will be mincemeat in the Trump grinder (think Carly Fiorina). Joe is damaged goods. Steyer - a shadow of Bloomberg. He had the presence, intelligence, success, organization. and skills to cut Trump off at the knees.
1
I love the diverse democratic field of white millionaires.
2
It was the worst moderated debate yet. The final question was childish. What is your motto? Really? Something you might ask contestants for Home Coming Queen.
It was a terrific disservice to the electorate. The last debate before Super Tuesday. Inexcusable.
22
Several years ago, both major cable and off air networks decided to bring the news divisions under the umbrella of their entertainment departments(and it shows). After all these years, It would seem that they have completely lost touch with the idea of why they were kept separate in the first place.
8
@Deus
With the downfall of CBS News as a once-formidable news organization known for integrity, last night I could hear Ed Morrow, Eric Sevareid, and Walter Cronkite cringing in excruciating disgust.
This whole series of debates has been like watching reruns of the Jerry Springer Show.
4
Only turn on the microphone for the debater who has the floor. Turn off their microphone when the time is up.
Problem solved.
6
How childish. None are worthy of the presidency. Neither is trump.
3
@Sang Ze
And as former CBS Evening News hose, Dan Rather, complained about years ago, "If it bleeds, it leads."
Last night's debacle illustrated just how badly CBS News has fallen. Had Nora O'Donnell been assisted by a real journalist, instead of entertainer-and-Oprah's BFF, maybe things would have been better. Instead, Gayle King went rogue with questions unrelated to what a presidential candidate should b discussing. Didn't anyone bother to review her questions? Where was the editor before show time? King was out of her element, whatever that is. I wonder how CBS This Morning is surviving with King in charge? I realize morning "news" programs are more about entertainment than news. But there is no "there" there with King. She is no Gwenn Ifill.
2
Insult to injury: Bloomburg's ad during the debate.
6
The news media thrive on hostility and abuse. I suppose it sells advertising. No wonder professional wrestling is still on television and no wonder we have a grotesquely abusive reality television star as our president.
6
So how many seats did Bloomberg buy in Congress?
1
Just hold on tight. In 7 days Warren, Klobuchar, Steyer and Buttigeig will leave the show. This leaves it to Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg. Bloomberg may drop if Biden does fantastically well but that is unlikely to happen. His time has passed. Sanders will continue to plow with the intransigence off a south american revolutionary. His oddly to change his message to appease moderate Democrats is troubling. Sanders old vinyl record every day, the ones his base wants to hear. We've seen one like this...
2
@Euxinus
Super Tuesday sets the table for the fall.
I am goingoing to be honest and say that the two women on the stage often interupt ed others and took more than their share of time. They acted like men for heaven's sake!
1
Haven't all of the moderators been awful this year? So exhausting... Let's just stick to Judy Woodruff and other PBS reporters and broadcasters.
9
The whole debate process is a farce. It would be better served to follow the "Intelligence Squared" format. That's a real debate. Also, CBS should be ashamed with their performance. They clearly were unprepared and lost control. If I performed in my job like that I would be worried about job security. And what about the "pricey" tickets. What is this the Super Bowl? Ridiculous.
9
The worst job of moderating a debate I have ever witnessed.
15
CBS Survivor: Democrat Island
Who will be kicked off the island? Who will go on to fight another day? Tune in on Super Tuesday for our super coverage!
Reality television conquers reality. In the most important election in almost a hundred years.
Thank you CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox etc. Even as you are getting rich from political advertising, you are doing everything possible to keep the national discourse in the toilet. Well done.
11
Clearly, someone with money paid for this unrepresentative audience.
Only millionaires could afford the ticket prices. They made the Democratic Party look foolish.
6
Trump didn't win the presidency in 2016 debates. Those were straight humiliation shows. He won by being able to rally in as many places as possible (airplane + $$$), especially in swing states, so people heard him alone and his skit, and by efficiently targeting users online using Cambridge Analitica algoritms.
3
The fact that “what is your personal motto” made it into the debate instead of being left in the reject pile alongside what is your zodiac sign and who is your favorite BTS member tells us quite a bit about these “moderators.” Sad to say but I believe journalists from Scholastic News would have done a better job.
19
We don’t need debates. We need essays. We need a contract. The candidates should forget about spending campaign money. Let’s make it illegal. In fact, let’s prohibit all PACs too, and just start over. The country wasn’t founded on the internet and didn’t require billions in advertising. Does it now?
Candidates, get on your computers and bubble sheets or your note pads, whatever you prefer. Write out a budget that a fifth grader can follow. Make it a binding contract. Voters, register by reading the essays of candidates. Then vote.
Done.
7
Last night Joe Biden said 150 MILLION people have died from gun violence in the US since 2007! Half the US! How did I miss this blood bath???
9
Nothing substantive in this debate. Moderators who not only lost track of the allotted time, but lost track of who said what about whom, so they did not offer the correct rebuttal chance to the right person, and it was all capped with the final commercial break followed by " good night".
If anything, that was a lesson in bad journalism and in allowing the wrong network moderate a crucial last debate before Super Tuesday.
Having said that, as a Canadian, I miss the levity and positive attitude of Andrew Yang and Correy Booker. The fact that Steyer is still in the mix ( after weeks and weeks of meh performances) shows how much the American politics are prisoners to big money, and Bloomberg is just the cherry on top.
The political system reform needs to bring American politics in the 21st century. It's great to respect traditions and all, but the Founding Fathers were brave to create something out of nothing, their descendants are drowning everything in money, greed and corruption.
6
Nothing substantive in this debate. Moderators who not only lost track of the allotted time, but lost track of who said what about whom, so they did not offer the correct rebuttal chance to the right person, and it was all capped with the final commercial break followed by " good night".
If anything, that was a lesson in bad journalism and in allowing the wrong network moderate a crucial last debate before Super Tuesday.
Having said that, as a Canadian, I miss the levity and positive attitude of Andrew Yang and Correy Booker. The fact that Steyer is still in the mix ( after weeks and weeks of meh performances) shows how much the American politics are prisoners to big money, and Bloomberg is just the cherry on top.
The political system reform needs to bring American politics in the 21st century. It's great to respect traditions and all, but the Founding Fathers were brave to create something out of nothing, their descendants are drowning everything in money, greed and corruption.
2
Sanders voted 5 times against the Brady Bill in order to placate the gun owners of his home state Vermont. Enough said. That is the type of revolution we can do without.
By contrast, Warren proved her sincerity, intelligence and tenacity with her successful fight for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau after the Great Recession. Where would we be today if it were not for the aggressive policies of the Bureau.
Likewise, Biden proved his lifetime loyalty to the progressive agenda. As others debated the merits of certain progressive causes, Biden repeatedly reminded them: "I wrote the legislation on that."
I support Warren.
2
@Wsheridan
I support Warren as well but she also grew up in a family of hunters. I grew up with firearms in my family, never much thought about it. Now I do think about it because of the violence against innocents.
I understand the idea of having firearms to hold tyranny at bay. Even so I can’t imagine standing up with firearms against the might of the US military if it turns on us.
I believe all the democrats on that stage have learned that we must have laws that respect people’s lives around gun ownership.
The first thing my father taught me about a gun. Never point it at someone. If you do that the gun is taken away. I wish hunters and fire arm owners would apply that to society.
4
I’m tired of moderates telling us to wait. Now is not the time.
3
There has been only one excellent debate moderator in the last eight years -- Chris Wallace, of Fox News. And it's hard to tell how he would do with a stage of six or seven desperate contenders, instead of two candidates representing their parties. The problem is the debate format. Far better to have someone like a knowledgeable Wallace interview the candidates one-on-one or two at a time, for an hour. I do want thank the debaters last night for making it far less likely that Michael Bloomberg will sink any cash into supporting the ultimate nominee, especially if their name is either Sanders or Warren. Nice going, guys.
9
The moderators did not lose control of the debate, the time limits imposed were unreasonable, and flawed.
1
It seems the NYT and many in this comment section have forgotten about the bedlam that regularly occurred in the republican debates during the primaries prior to the 2016 election. Trump was insulting everyone else under the sun including their wives and anyone else he could think of along with claiming Ted Cruz's father was involved in JFK's assassination. In comparison, these debates have been the usual back and forth ultimately, resulting in little change in voter assessment.
In this case, those in the bottom tier are in a fight for their lives to remain viable going forward and one supposes, they had to attempt something to make their mark.
6
"A debate does not lose control of itself. It’s a team effort, and the dubious MVPs of this one were the CBS moderators, led by Norah O’Donnell and Gayle King, who got flat-out mugged."
Indeed they did. The moderators lost control of the event immediately after reading the so-called "ground rules," which were quickly ignored by all the candidates who turned this "debate" into yet another "shoutfest."
It was clear from the introduction to the debate - it led with a graphic worthy of Monday Night Football - that this was merely a showcase for CBS and its two so-called featured celebrities/players - O'Donnell and King. They failed.
This "event" made two clear statements: one about the Democratic candidates, the other about today's news media and CBS in particular. Neither was anything near positive.
17
I could only stomach about five minutes of this food fight and turned it off. Let the next debate show the remaining candidates clearly state their positions on the topics addressed and how they intend to implement their plans. Nothing else. No talking over each other. Civility. (Remember civility?) And have moderators who know how to moderate and do it in a neutral manner, like Judy Woodruff.
13
Debates are a flawed concept. It's not a good way to find out about a candidate. It's the sportification of politics. Who won?
Who lost? The knockout punch!
In an attempt to be democratic, it's not terribly informative and these debates have shown that.
PS I don't care if my president is good at debating. I want her/him to have other more important qualities. Like ethics.
16
And crisis management skills. And the ability to assemble a team of competent managers. And analytical abilities. And manners. And compassion. Hmm, who doesn’t have ANY of those skills? Hint: he currently occupies the Oval Office.
7
@TNM I also hate that all political reporting seems to center around polls. The networks have reporters on the trail. Tell me what the voter says about what they're looking for, tell me what the candidate says, tell me the voters reaction to what the candidate says. This artificial gotcha format? No thanks. I didn't watch. From the reaction here, sounds like the right choice.
1
I believe that in the entire two hours, the word "environment" appeared in one answer, and that to a completely unrelated question.
All of the other topics "discussed" last night will be rendered irrelevent if we can't breathe the air outside, if our coastlines are submerged, if wildfires destroy people, animals and our natural forests, if meteorological catastrophes such as draughts and hurricanes leave thousands homeless or worse.
Priorities straight please. Worries of the world don't matter if there is no world left to worry about.
12
Letting the conversation flow is a bad reason not to limit speaking time. If a presidential candidate can't answer a question within the appropriate limit, they're displaying a lack of preparedness. The mics should be off unless it's your allotted time to speak. At second 76, the mic shuts off and nobody hears what you say, so you better stick to the time limit.
If they're going to keep doing it like this, where a moderator asks one candidate to please fight another one for as long as they please, then we need to stop calling them debates. They're just joint press conferences.
10
@Andrew Roberts
Indeed, when moderators look and act more like fight promoters, the game is over. And Gayle King was guilty of that problem. Being Oprah's best friend does not qualify anyone as a debate moderator.
This was a terribly moderated debate. Actually, it should really be called a slugfest because a debate implies an exchange of ideas
The moderators / tv networks should shut off the microphones whenever the candidates go past their allotted time
17
@Amy M Your solution doesn't account for moderator incompetence. What they need is a timed kill switch on each microphone and some sort of transparent sound barrier between the candidates. Admittedly, this solution is imperfect, because some of them would still try to interrupt by pounding on the sound barrier.
1
There have been 11 debates so far, each with the same basic format: multiple topics and just over a minute to respond. How much more meaningful and informative they would have been had there been a single topic for each debate--health care, gun control, foreign policy, voter registration, student loans, etc.--and a longer time for response. Viewers would have been afforded an in-depth look at the candidates' beliefs and policies and candidates would have had far fewer opportunities to stray from the topic of the moderator's questions. Why the media organizations sponsoring these debates have not realized this is puzzling.
29
@MEM
I agree! It would take some serious work on the part of the DNC, venues/hosts, and candidates (hopefully with the input of local voters), but this would make each debate much more substantive. Candidates couldn't hide behind their talking points, and with the extended time, hopefully account for prior postions/behavior, etc.
4
Money needs to be pulled out of politics. Period. No cable news debates. No private broadcast debates. No expensive tickets to attend debates. No tv commercials for candidates.
PBS needs to be the only host of political debates and provide Americans with honest, informative material about each candidate.
Then, leave it up to each American to educate themselves without the dog and pony show.
Enough already. Media these days is abysmal. Im embarrassed by it all.
43
@CLee
I couldn't agree more. Some readers have referred to the time limits required of the candidates on a topic. After 45 years in the marketing communications biz, I am familiar with developing those skills known as, the elevator speech.
In order for candidates to make their point, as in business, they need to do so concisely and compellingly. Unfortunately, the debate format promotes vagueries and misstatement.
Note to Tom Perez and the DNC: stick with PBS. Invite a few talented reporters to join the amazingly gifted Judy Woodruff. No commercial breaks. No ticket sales. No showboating by moderators.
6
Maybe we don't need debates or even a 2 party system. Since Trump is neither a Republican or a Democrat we should just let him finish his eight years and let him appoint the next President. Since current Presidents have the knowledge and constituency backing it makes sense. Just keep repeating this cycle and all the money being wasted at these debates could be used to solve the homeless crisis in San Fransisco.
4
@RS
I would suspect, when all is said and done, the amount spent on elections in 2020 will be somewhere close to $10 BILLION DOLLARS.
This is just another reason why the MSM would NEVER support a candidate like Sanders, who, with his goal to creating publicly funded elections and a restriction on super pacs and lobbyists money influence, the media would be looking at a considerable amount of that political ad money disappear before their eyes.
@RS Didn't we have a revolution in 1776 against a Monarchy?
We just witnessed a debate in which the audience pays over $1,000/ticket to cheer on the oligarch and boo the people's candidate.
We just witnessed a debate in which the media host of the debate (CBS) accepts big money to run a commercial opposed to one of the candidates center-piece proposals.
We just witnessed a debate in which CBS accepts money from the oligarch and runs his advertisement during a commercial break of the debate.
But remember folks....it is "Russia" that is interfering in our election process.
35
Candidates who abusively talk over other candidates, or grossly ignore the time limits, should be treated like the children they are. The moderators should immediately stop the debate, and send the offending candidate to a penalty box for a five minute time out.
The first time it happens will be the last. No candidate would want the humiliation of being sent to the penalty box.
8
All the debates should be on radio--that old fashioned thing.
The debaters might pay attention to their words and not act like they're actors in some side show.
11
@josie8
And that should be the case with congressional hearings as well...
1
The every-four-years Nomination Debates are useful reminders as to how vacuous the 'talking heads' on most major news networks actually are.
Not sure who actually thought Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King were qualified by dint of any political reporting or knowledge but they were definitely proved wrong.
22
It’s long past time to have the microphones turned off automatically when the debaters time is over. This is technically easy to do and would prevent all the carrying on.
31
Debates have turned into reality TV with politics as the topic. People tune in to hear people snipe at each other and be rude. The debates are structured to encourage the participants to attack each other instead of discussing policy.
5
So to gain access the seats were over $1,000?
Also notice how everything towards Bernie was setup as a negative question. While favored moderates for example are given T up easy hits.
So obvious. Worst debate ever.
21
A challenge to the news pundits who tell us "who won," etc. How do these exhibitions inform us of who will be a good US president? Donald Trump, I recall, was very effective in the TV debates with fellow Republicans in 2016.
3
@blgreenie
Trump's "gift" in debating is his entire rejection of truth. But he knows that lofting a lie into the conversation will leave most opponents scrabbling to correct that lie with real evidence. Trump lives in a fact-free world which is how he managed to get past his 2016 primary opponents. He smeared. He lied. He gave away his MAGA bling to his rally supporters. Give'em free stuff and they'll follow you anywhere.
Bernie is offering a lot of "free stuff" and so, his fellow revolutionaries lap it up.
1
These so called debates seem designed to guarantee that the candidates appear as unpresidential as possible.
17
Debates between more than 3-4 candidates are pointless...it's not like the country doesn't know pretty much everything they need to know about all of the candidates.
I'm a lifelong Democrat who hasn't watched a single minute of any of the primary debates...instead I've read about the candidates and determined who I'm going to support through discussion and analysis.
13
It's funny how an overall theme to this election is merit. We have people criticizing Trump's hand-picking nepotism of everything. The people speaking those criticisms hand-picked not by merit but knowing somebody as well.
4
One lesson, among many, that could be taken from the debates during this primary is that the networks are not the moderators we need. The idea that they are neutral arbiters is absurd. Their gotcha questions obfuscate more than reveal.
Networks are in this for their own reputations and profits. The Democrats this time around and the Republicans last time should demand better. If they can't or won't, voters should step up to say, "Enough!"
11
"The field spent most of the night yelling and waving like shipwreck survivors trying to flag a rescue helicopter."
This may be entirely 'off-topic', but now and again I'm reminded of why, as a Midwesterner, I subscribe to the NYT. This is a brilliant, accurate and downright hilarious summary of last night's so-called 'debate'. Thanks for this and the many other excellent articles I read each day.
40
@Guillermo Monteverde agree. This was more like a search and rescue operation.
In general they are meant to drag down than lifting up.
It also reinforces some of the bad rep media gets.
4
Judy Woodruff and PBS should moderate every debate. Period.
87
@Bill Ormusun Or bring back the League of Women Voters running things? But would men object because they were "left out"?
9
@Bill Ormusun
I think Yamiche Alcindor would do an outstanding job.
I think the first Democratic presidential candidate who declares he or she is embarrassed to part of the multi-candidate debate spectacle and walks off the stage should win the nomination. The absurd multi-candidate debate format made Trump president.
15
Early on O'Donnell and King lost control of the debate. It made watching and listening a joke. Couple that with the desperation of the candidates and it turned out a mess.
27
None of these televised cattle calls were "debates." The format stinks, and actually leads to desperate candidates talking over others with the floor in order to get in responses to the topic at hand. From experience they have learned to judiciously ignore the moderators: wasn't Biden chided in an earlier forum for coming across as too placid by abiding precisely by the time rules?
The limitations don't allow for thorough review of important topics - and for hearing all the responses at the moment. The League of Women Voters always had good strategies to guide debates -- not for entertainment, but to elucidate the candidates' positions.
We need a return to a mandate for fair public service coverage of elections, which should not be reliant on network attitudes, entertainment value or ad revenue.
44
What in the name of Walter Cronkite has happened to CBS News?
102
@Clyde
He and Edward R. Murrow are spinning in their graves.
@Clyde What happened is the corporate takeover of America’s political process.
It didn’t inform or clarify and allowing Bloomberg to run ads during the debate was a travesty. CBS shouldn’t be involved in this process. It was unfair to the voters.
The moderators should be ashamed of themselves for their trivial questions. With Trump purging the state department in true Stalinist fashion, Russia having actual permission from the White House to meddle in our "free" election, and a deadly virus about to strike the country, they asked about . . . marijuana legalization. Really, is this the burning question of today? Should people be choosing their next president on THIS? I turned the debate off right then.
98
@Lori
I felt the same way. Why I hung in there to the end is anyone's guess. But the whole debacle defined the need to keep all debates on PBS. No profit incentives. No more unskilled moderators.
Perhaps PBS could recruit the creme de la creme of print and TV journalists from the best of network and cable news departments. Stephanopoulos, Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, Robert Costa...
A highly admired mix from various news sources will avoid the perception of profit-motivated staging. I could even imagine a who's who from outside the media, such as Robert Reich. A well-known specialist from the diplomatic service could offer questions on foreign policy. Just saying ...
1
@Lori
Exactly. Marijuana legalization and sugary drinks. Climate change got short-changed again. And in Charleston, SC, of all places. A low-lying city on the ocean.
@Lori
It's about time someone talks about marijuana legalization. It's a policy point where the candidates actually differ, and it affects a very large portion of the country, including the swing state Ohio which might have it on the ballot this November. We need more democratic voters to come out in Ohio, and that is one way to boost the turn out.
Even if you couldn't care less you should be able to see how it does affect a lot of people, both democrats and potentially swing voters.
Maybe they should have strict time limits for responses, give a five second warning and then kill the mike. Do the same for rebuttals with a shorter time limit.
25
@Zamboanga also kill the mics of anyone who has not been asked the question so that there will be no comments over the person who was addressed.
1
gayle king does not have a journalism degree and it shows. she got where she is by being friends with oprah
60
Complete Bedlam, Sorry.....
Please no more excruciating unprofessionalism--
Rules Explained with no follow up
No Rules for Audience
Gayle King already on thin ice for unprofessionalism
PBS Puhlease!!!!
49
Debates should revert back to the control of the League of Women Voters, Yes, they will be drier but much more substance and civilized discourse. The network spectacles are only designed to generate advertising revenue and do little to inform the electorate.
52
Why did they pick the questions which were not open ended? Why did the questions seem irrelevant for the recent headlines in stock market crash and pandemic prep? Why did CBS allow ads by Bloomberg?
26
@Pamela H
Why does a glutton love his lunch?
Microphones are plugged into PAs which usually have mute buttons. Perhaps the threat of being muted would be enough to get the kids to behave.
10
@RickyDick I agree, but I'm not sure anything will help Biden organize and condense his thoughts and control his anger.
4
@AnnAnn
Bernie and Liz violated the rules more than Biden, Bloomberg or the others. They lost their way. Bernie went crazy to protect his "front-runner" status. Liz went crazy to regain her lost footing.
As for Mayor Pete, he showed why he will be a great candidate in 2024. He is certainly one of the brightest bulbs on the stage, intellectually speaking. But his "Doogie Hauser" persona makes him easily beaten by a thug like Trump.
1
HELP!
Was it a candidate debate or recess at a kindergarten?
MODERATORS
- moderators should make and enforce rules like mic dead at time limit, replace distracting hand raising and writhing for attention with electronic notification to moderators that you’d like to comment, one live candidate mic at a time, rules to limit distracting audience reactions
- moderators should ask questions with better focus and ensure all or most important topics are covered
CANDIDATES
- should sign a petition for better regulated debates
- candidates should agree to abandon endless arguments about individual wishful detailed but publicly incomprehensible plans for health care and instead acknowledge reality with general principles, such as moving toward health care for all - subject to later imperative study, debate, and negotiation for solutions. We are not picking a dictator; this is what happens in a democracy.
- Democrats must more forcefully emphasize differences in policy and from Trump and importance of rule of law.
20
As with several of the previous debates, this debate was difficult to watch, yet the lackluster stage craft and technical miscues present in the CBS performance stood out, making the entire production appear unpolished.
The technical failings addressed in the article were far more numerous and uncomfortable than one might glean from this summary. Stark and even jarring exit music that cut in far to early, oddly cutting off and displacing the moderators prepared remarks meant to guide the audience into a commercial break, which featured undemocratic stump speeches by Bloomberg. Poorly rehearsed and executed camera maneuvers with shaky pans during the transition to commercials. The inability to extract coherent responses to questions.
If U.S. citizens are well versed in one thing with respect to TV political debates it is the televised aspect, which we are experts at. In his Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman reminds us that Television is not a place for deep thought or even the appearance of thought whether it be five minutes or five seconds. He remarks that five seconds on television, in which silence pervades the space, is tantamount to a lifetime of uncertainty - the dreaded pause of the thinking person unable to react. While many of us may not be familiar with the mass media critiques of Postman, Boorstin or Ewen, we can for ourselves, expertly sense when something has gone so terribly wrong. Last nights shoddy production was likely obvious to most who watched.
15
@Anton Bredl
Commercial breaks in this kind of debate are disgusting. They represent what's wrong with our politics and the money that drives it.
It tops it off that Bloomberg was able to buy time during the process. I'm a little surprised that the Trump campaign didn't jump at that. Probably next time.
The debates have generally worked for me. This one just cemented my opinions, but did bring clarity on Steyer. My order of preference for President is: Pete, Amy, Tom Steyer, Bloomberg, Biden, then, hold my nose, Warren. Any of them would be fine, and Warren is not going to make it. Notice who’s missing? I will not vote for Sanders. Trump is bad enough. Who needs a socialist narcissist in the White House. Before the debates I felt the same way about Sanders, but my order of preference for the others was dramatically different. Not that my vote matters. We don’t vote until March 10. I imagine that my choice will be between two of my least favorite candidates; Biden and Bloomberg.
13
@Retired Hard Worker
Thank you Bret Stephens!
1
Last night’s debate was just a repeat of the 2016 Republican debates that turned into brawls with Trump doing most of the brawling. Great for ratings. Bad for voter understanding. There’s a simple solution that I kept thinking four years ago, but moderators never learned. Simply turn off their mikes.
24
It's not that they didn't learn it, the chaos is intentional. Networks are there for ratings, not for Civic virtue.
65
@Ken C
Indeed. CBS was programmed for "fight night," not the debates. Silly. Tragic. Embarrassing to all.
1
@Ken C Correct!
1
I did enjoy the commercials especially the one for Bloomberg where he had women who held high ranking positions in his business and in NYC when he was mayor saying what a great guy he was. I liked it because it seemed to support what Warren said during the last debate that Bloomberg's defense of his treatment of women was that he treated some women well.
My other favorite was from Republican Jews that essentially called Sanders an anti-semite and threw in a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry by citing the Muslim congresswomen who support him. I have to admit I never would have predicted that the first Jew to have a real chance at a major party presidential nomination would be accused of hating Jews.
21
@Steve The American Jewish establishment does not represent all American Jews. Just as the Democratic Party establishment does not represent all Democrats. Bernie argues for a society similar to that which the founders of today's Israel fought for: a society with healthcare, education, and respect for all. The politics of today's Israel are no longer based on those ideas. There are many American Jews and Democrats who believe in the ideals that Bernie has expressed over the course of his whole political life. If he does become our first Jewish president he will be a hero for those of us who are not super rich but who buy into the hope that one day all Americans will be treated with respect and dignity, the ideals shared by our country's founders and the founders of modern Israel.
9
@Steve Wow! I TiVo'd the debate and sped through the commercials, and so I missed out on that Islamophobic ad. Shame on CBS for airing it!
5
@Robb Kvasnak
I was being sarcastic in my comment as I too am a Sanders supporter.
I enjoyed the brawl. I get annoyed at moderators constantly speaking over the candidates that their time is up. We get to see how candidates act under stress and being challenged both personally and with their policies. It was very revealing. After such a disastrous first debate for Bloomberg he regained his footing. Bernie was steady and on topic as usual as was Warren. Buttigieg to me looked like weak tea and he and Klobuchar spent far too much time bickering trying to cut each others legs off. Biden was more confident than I have seen him so far. Steyer was a mere distraction.
9
I heard this morning that the audience paid a minimum of $1700 per person. Who are these people? Pretty suspicious that Bloomberg got the most cheers despite his poor performance. If there must be an audience tickets should be given for free through a lottery.
71
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends ...
Another call for bringing back the League if Women Voters and airing the debates on C-SPAN so ratings aren’t a goal.
82
@TimesnLatte And without celebrity moderators, please.
1
Tickets at the debate were priced at $1750 to $3000. Likely why Bloomberg was getting many cheers and Bernie boos. Also Bloomberg was able to pay for an informercial during the ad break and a Superpac aired an anti-Medicare for All commercial - this is corrupt. We need to have debates being on Public TV with the League of Women Voters moderating
187
Why in heaven's name don't the moderators switch off the candidates' microphones when their responses exceed the designated time limits? Or perhaps really embarrass them by "playing them off" vide the Oscars? Or- particularly in Elizabeth Warren's case- threaten to not send additional questions their way if they continue to speak out of turn? Sorry, Gayle; this wasn't an R Kelley interview. Non-intervention doesn't equate to maintaining control in this sort of environment.
60
@stu freeman Agree on both designated time and Gayle King.
They may warn with a beep at say 15 seconds left, and fade away the sound. 1 min. and 15 seconds is too short for the debate debate.
4
These "debates" are planned as political reality TV, with conflict intentionally created by the moderators ("Mr. Sanders, how do you respond to Ms. Warren's assertion that you...?"), just as it's done on the "Real Housewives" and other such series. If these moderators were Real Reporters, they would focus on policy questions, and how the candidates will accomplish their objectives. There is almost no need at all to ask candidate A about candidate B. Sadly, these TV "news" people are all about entertainment, not a clear presentation of the information we need to be informed voters.
128
@G Pecos thinking of how different debates were before this toxic climate erupted since trump became president. Our values have been diminished, our civility is disappearing, remember when debates revolved around facts and agreed time limits. These moderators were not competent and did the viewers a great disservice. It was a disgrace. I long for the debates moderated by Jim Lehrer.
@G Pecos
I agree 100%. It was disgraceful how the two moderators handled this obvious reality tv show. From the very beginning I was put out with how the questions were worded.
@G Pecos
Sadly, Gayle King really tarnished the CBS New division with her silly questions unrelated to foreign policy, violations of the Rule of Law by Trump, economic policy, issues before the Congress ...
Given that Nora O'Donnell hosts the CBS Evening News, and does an admirable job of it, I hope last night's food fight, and Ms. King's assault on integrity, does not hurt O'Donnells's reputation as a solid journalist. Once she lost control of King, she lost control of the debate. And to that point, why didn't the other reporters join the discussion from the beginning. Margaret Brennan has a long history of excellent interviews and reportage. She would have been a great partner with O'Donnell. Same with Major Garrett. Was the need for a black moderator more important visually than expertise?
Frankly, other than being Oprah's best friend, I don't see Ms. King's value to CBS. She is no Gwen Ifill.
I think the Times' story months ago on everyone's positions was the best way to get their messages across. There is no substance in these debates. There are no numbers - just accusations flying everywhere.
Why not create a matrix summarizing the key issues and where they stand?
Healthcare & its estimated cost and savings per capita
Climate Crisis-specifics
Supreme Court
Minimum Wage
Taxation
We need clarity from our press - not sure we've ever gotten it from our politicians but sure need it from you
24
The moderators were truly just awful for this most recent debate. In addition to being unable to rein in the combatants they often remained silent when candidates droned on and on, rather than enforcing the rules that everyone had agreed to, including allowing candidates an opportunity to be next in line to respond if their name was invoked in a negative manner.
It also seemed as if they took great pains to make this an ongoing commercial for CBS, mentioning the host network with incredible frequency
39
Gayle King was a disaster. She is superb as an entertainer on the CBS morning show, but why they put her on last evening’s debate is a mystery. Very poor. She was out of her depth and it showed as she and the others were trampled.
110
@Brett B , yes. She was awful, as was O'Donnell. The other 3 weren't much better.
The way all the debates are conducted are really bad for the voter. At the moment, I"m sick of all the candidates.
4
The lead-in, staging, sets, breathless introduction with video clips, and game show atmosphere were the worst of all the debates so far.
No wonder Bloomberg referred to the others as “contestants”.
1 minute and 15 seconds is a ridiculously small amount of time to address major issues. It leads to staccato questioning and canned responses. I've given students 2-3 minutes in classroom policy debates and that's often too short. For the presidency, it needs to be much longer.
The moderators were incompetent; the candidates loud and rude. If such a format is used in the future, the moderators should have control over the mikes, ONLY turning on the one for the person responding.
However, the format needs to change. Lose the game show sets; do NOT charge people to attend—reports are that tickets cost several thousand dollars! Organize the debate around discussions of major topics.
Finally, do not let moderators or moderates get away with focusing on the costs of Warren's and Sanders's plans, while ignoring the costs of inaction, the toll that incrementalism takes in illnesses, lost work, lead poisoning, injuries, deaths, etc.
I highly recommend Robert Reich's excellent column on this.
“Bernie Sanders' plans may be expensive but inaction would cost much more”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/22/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal-medicare-for-all-expensive-inaction
It's a gem.
110
"Oh what a circus, oh what a show". From selling seats to selling ads. They are so tough when asking Bernie how is he going to pay for all that and they are the same people who'd swallow their tongues in front of trump and would not dare ask how he's paying for: take your pick, war games, wall, tax brakes for billionaires, etc. etc. We really need the Political Revolution!
51
It gets eyeballs when questions are about controversial subjects that can't be implemented without a sea change in the way government works and everyone argues. Basically it is talking about tilting at windmills. A few of the candidates alluded to structural changes that keep the people's will from being done and impeding progress, but the moderators basically took a pass on discussing specifics because structural change isn't sexy. Even though it came out of two no chance participants (Warren and Steyer), Warren proposed elimination of the filibuster (which would de-fang Mitch) and Steyer talked about twelve year term limits, which while interesting I don't see anyone passing the Limitations of Feeding at the Public Trough Act. What I was looking from any of the candidates was restrictions on the revolving door between Washington and Financial Interests that have business before the Federal Government. Moderators never touched the subject, likely because it is tye 3rd stool of some candidates retirement funding. On the bright side, maybe everyone is keeping their plan to drain the swamp, a secret from the public for now. Overall the moderators had less gotcha questions than the previous debate, but there were still several unhinged participants that regardless of who airs the debate can't follow the rules. Luckily by not acting Presidential, they have self selected an early exit.
6
First rule of the debates should be that if you raise your hand, you don’t get called on.
21
@Marc
The hand flailing was laughable.
I almost felt like they needed a Jeopardy button instead, just for fun.
1