Harris relents on muting debate microphones

[wing2000]

So basically we need a real life Will McAvoy to handle debates instead of each network taking turns doing softball questions.

Yea, only in the movies.

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry, even with my most objective lenses Im not seeing that extent of drama here.

"Let's have another circus instead of a debate," is not the sort of thing a politician is supposed to say out loud. An overt attempt to undermine the democratic process is not merely self-serving, especially coming from a nominee who did not receive any votes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Apropos. The moderators of the last debate did a fine job in my opinion. More than that and it would make the debate about the moderators instead of the candidates.

That seems like a "quest for mediocrity" in which we'll all get stuck with "not so great choices", permanently, if the standard is "the moderator may occasionally ask a tough question, but will let you skate on it if you dodge it, or drift off into another rant".


I think a "tougher" debate environment (in terms of moderation) being the norm could serve as a deterrent from entering the political arena for the kind of people we wouldn't want to be in high elective offices.

And I say "tougher", but what's being asked of them isn't really all that "tough".
- Answer the question that was asked (not the one they wish was asked)
- Stay on topic
- Don't interrupt
- Don't present false information


In reality, high school debate teams probably have "tougher" moderation standards to follow than our elected officials do.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"Let's have another circus instead of a debate," is not the sort of thing a politician is supposed to say out loud.

Every debate is a circus.

An overt attempt to undermine the democratic process is not merely self-serving, especially coming from a nominee who did not receive any votes.

Letting Trump off his leash is not an example of "undermining the democratic process." It would be giving the voters more information about Trump's temperament and behavior, which would, ideally, inform their voting. Undermining the democratic process would be something like lying about the results of an election, then leading an army of lawyers, politicians, and duped voters in an attempt to submit fraudulent electors and steal the election.

 

[zippy2006]

That seems like a "quest for mediocrity" in which we'll all get stuck with "not so great choices", permanently, if the standard is "the moderator may occasionally ask a tough question, but will let you skate on it if you dodge it, or drift off into another rant".

They pressed the candidates when they dodged, sometimes multiple times, and eventually left off. What should they have done instead? Made a spectacle by attempting to overpower the candidate and demand that they answer the question? I don't think many people recognize all of the subtle dynamics at play during a debate, especially between two of the most powerful people in the world.

And the moderators did not limit themselves to softball questions in the last Trump-Biden debate. If they did then there wouldn't have been any dodging.

 

[zippy2006]

Every debate is a circus.

 

[loveofourlord]

"Let's have another circus instead of a debate," is not the sort of thing a politician is supposed to say out loud. An overt attempt to undermine the democratic process is not merely self-serving, especially coming from a nominee who did not receive any votes.

remind me wich canidate was complaining last month due to the other side wanting in real time fact checking and mics muted? And I thnk seeing trump at his truest self IS important to the presidency. if he can't control himself during a debate, how you expect him to control himself when dealing with a hostile goverment?

 

[Vambram]

remind me wich canidate was complaining last month due to the other side wanting in real time fact checking and mics muted? And I thnk seeing trump at his truest self IS important to the presidency. if he can't control himself during a debate, how you expect him to control himself when dealing with a hostile goverment?

Remind me again under which administration we saw NO new wars??

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They pressed the candidates when they dodged, sometimes multiple times, and eventually left off. What should they have done instead?

Declared, "you haven't answered the question, so before we move on, the record will show you didn't answer the question, are you sure you don't want to answer?"

Even if it gives the perception of the moderator "overpowering" the candidate, so be it. The moderators are often times members of the media/press (who act as a quasi-check on the power of government). It's their job to ask tough questions and demand answers (and expose people when they don't give answers)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

remind me wich canidate was complaining last month due to the other side wanting in real time fact checking

Which media outlet was sponsoring the debate and who was going to be designated as the "arbiter of truth" fact-checker?

My dislike for Trump aside, I can completely understand why any conservative would be opposed to someone like Daniel Dale doing it, whose definition of "non-partisan fact checking" involves putting every single word republicans say under a microscope, and then tossing in 2 or 3 benign-sounding fact checks against the democrats to give it a patina of "fairness".

"Here's the 94 lies the republican told...oh and when this democrat said 74%, they were wrong, the number is actually 73.8%...see, we're fair and balanced"

"Fact checking", while a perfectly well-intentioned idea, is a hollow concept when each of the factions has their own "facts", and they're deferring exclusively to "experts" who are ideologically aligned with them.


Would you want Jessie Waters or Sean Hannity to be in charge of fact-checking the debate based on citations from articles published by CATO? I think we all know how that would turn out.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Remind me again under which administration we saw NO new wars??

What’s the scope of this? No new wars in which the US is actively fighting? No new wars anywhere on earth?

 

[DaisyDay]

Remind me again under which 5150administration we saw NO new wars??

Edited per iluvatar:
Carter, Ford and Trump.
Carter, Ford, Trump and Biden.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Carter, Ford and Trump.

We’re not fighting in any new ones under Biden, either.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm watching the debate now. I'm not impressed by either of them. We need to have the option to vote no confidence in our leaders, like is often seen in countries with parliamentary systems. These two clowns can't possibly be the best we can find.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm watching the debate now. I'm not impressed by either of them. We need to have the option to vote no confidence in our leaders, like is often seen in countries with parliamentary systems. These two clowns can't possibly be the best we can find.

Yeah, they should've let RFK and the libertarian party candidate in there to make it a 4-way match up and keep things interesting

 

[keith99]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/04/harris-trump-debate-muted-microphones-00177420

The vice president made an unsuccessful push to have Donald Trump’s microphone left on when it wasn’t the former president’s turn to speak.

Vice President Kamala Harris agreed to ABC News’ rules, relenting on her campaign’s demand that both candidates’ microphones be unmuted for all 90 minutes they are on stage.

In a letter to the network, Harris’ senior adviser for communications Brian Fallon wrote that he believed the format “fundamentally disadvantaged” the vice president, denying the former prosecutor the opportunity to fully cross-examine the GOP nominee, according to a person familiar with the missive.

The muted mic, Fallon wrote, “will serve to shield Donald Trump from direct exchanges with the Vice President. We suspect this is the primary reason for his campaign’s insistence on muted microphones.”


It's an odd turn of events. The reason they went to muted mics before was because of Trump's non-stop interruptions in the 2020 debates and Biden's team was asking for it, while Trump's team was criticizing the muted mic rule claiming it was "tilting it in favor of Biden"

Now they seem to have switched positions, Trump wants them muted, and Kamala wants them unmuted.


Perhaps I'm a tad cynical, but am I the only one who thinks that the argument and party-switch on the "muted vs. unmuted mics" has nothing to do with decorum (pertaining to interruptions) and/or "being able to cross-examine the opponent", and has everything to do with Kamala wanting to make sure there's ample opportunities to use her "I'm speaking" catchphrase that people are wearing on t-shirts now (and Trump not wanting her to be able to use it).

If Trump does not want her to have a chance to use that catchphrase all he would need to do is not talk when it is not his turn to do so.

 

[zippy2006]

Declared, "you haven't answered the question, so before we move on, the record will show you didn't answer the question, are you sure you don't want to answer?"

As far as I can tell that's just what happened, but in a more ideal way. By showing instead of declaring that the candidate did not answer the question, they avoided unhelpful spectacles and achieved the end in a better way. Such "declarations" would constitute an unnecessary and unhelpful show of authority and animosity, which would destabilize the debate. The integrity of the debate is the central concern here.

(I haven't watched the debate yet, FYI.)

 

[zippy2006]

And I thnk seeing trump at his truest self IS important to the presidency.

That's not what debates are for. Progressives who want to hijack a debate for political expediency, using it to try to show flaws in Trump's demeanor, deprive the nation of a debate and lie about what is supposed to be occurring. In a debate the participants are supposed to debate, and rules which aid this purpose are good, not bad. If someone is upset because a debate that is supposed to be a debate is occurring, they should go find a non-democratic country to live in, where debates and discourse are not important, and propaganda reigns supreme.

 

[durangodawood]

That's not what debates are for. Progressives who want to hijack a debate for political expediency, using it to try to show flaws in Trump's demeanor, deprive the nation of a debate and lie about what is supposed to be occurring. In a debate the participants are supposed to debate, and rules which aid this purpose are good, not bad. If someone is upset because a debate that is supposed to be a debate is occurring, they should go find a non-democratic country to live in, where debates and discourse are not important, and propaganda reigns supreme.

If the event is supposed to be just about ideas, then it should all be done in writing.

 

[zippy2006]

If the event is supposed to be just about ideas, then it should all be done in writing.

Debates are not just about ideas. Nor is writing.