Here's a question: What role does a debate moderator have? Should moderators ask "tough" questions, what kind of questions are fair, should the moderator ask follow-up questions, what should they do if a candidate avoids answering or lies?

 

It seems like this is going to be an issue following the CNBC mess where candidates are now leveraging for changes in how the debates are handled. We've had a bunch of comments and discussion in here over the moderators, so I'm curious how people will answer the above.

The reason CNBC is getting blasted is because they looked bad doing what every other moderator recently has being getting away with - the "gotcha" question:

"Candidate #1, why does candidate #2 so awful?"

Let the questions be about the issues, the candidates will involve each other themselves.

Tough questions are expected . No doubt . Leading questions like " Have you stopped beating your wife " ? are not expected . Referring to a candidate as a cartoon character probably isnt a good idea ( EVEN IF HE IS CARTOON CHARACTER ) . Starting a debate with " whats your biggest weakness ?" isnt good . I thought M Kelley was great , tough , balanced , hard questions .

In a Primary Debate

1. Has to be a voting member of that party

2. Ask questions that will help differentiate the candidates i.e. specific policy changes ask all of the candidates what there tax reform plans are so voters can hear a candidate with a plan that they like

 

General Election:

1. Unbiased. If this is even possible anymore. For example, I believe in 2012 the 2nd debate, the moderator, a flaming liberal, refuted a claim that Mitt made that was correct, but since she refuted it, this painted a bad picture on Mitt.

2. Ask questions that the voters want answered. Don't allow them to make their own questions. I believe that is the biggest problem. They ask questions about policy stuff that I find interesting, but I know for a fact that the majority of voting americans don't.

The reason that the GOP hasn't abandoned having media people ask questions should be rather obvious: It's all about ratings. If a bunch of party hacks ask softball questions, who's going to watch? The event becomes an infomercial.

Here's an exchange from the last debate that I mentioned in the other thread.

 

BECKY: Mr. Trump, let's stay on this issue of immigration. You have been very critical of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, who has wanted to increase the number of the H1B.

 

TRUMP: I was not at all critical of him. I was not at all. In fact, frankly, he's complaining about the fact that we're losing some of the most talented people. They go to Harvard; they go to Yale; they go to Princeton. They come from another country and they are immediately sent out.

 

I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.

 

[...]

 

BECKY: You had talked a little bit about Marco Rubio. I think you called him Mark Zuckerberg's personal senator because he was in favor of the H1B.

 

TRUMP: I never said that. I never said that.

 

This is from Trump's immigration reform plan on his website that was the basis of the questioning: "Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities." I said the moderator bungled this because she asked the question and didn't know the source and thus couldn't follow-up effectively.

 

Am I correct that the moderator should have corrected or challenged Trump's claim?

Here's a question asked to Carson about his tax plan. During Cruz's rant he characterized this question as "Ben Carson, can you do math?"

 

BECKY: Dr. Carson, let's talk about taxes. You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes. And I've looked at it, and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.

 

If you were to take a 10 percent tax with the numbers right now on total personal income, you're going to come in with bringing in $1-1/2 trillion. That is less than half of what we billed bringing in right now.

 

And, by the way, it's going to leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?

 

Is this question unfair?

Here's a question asked to Carson about his tax plan. During Cruz's rant he characterized this question as "Ben Carson, can you do math?"

 

 

 

Is this question unfair?

 

Nope. A fair question on a substantive issue.

Here's a question asked to Carson about his tax plan. During Cruz's rant he characterized this question as "Ben Carson, can you do math?"

 

 

 

Is this question unfair?

Yes, the question was worded in a way in which Carson has to spend his time countering the claim that the moderator made instead of actually explaining his tax plans and all the numbers that go along with it. Ask the question in this way, "Dr. Carson, you have some interesting ideas as far as tax reform, will you explain your tax plan and how exactly your ideas would be an improvement on the current system."

I know it's hard with this many candidates, but I think :30 is ridiculously short in which to give a response with any meat to it. It's a sound-bite, and nothing more.

 

Would it be possible to lengthen the amount for a response, and narrow the fields of topic down for each debate? Say address education, the environment and maybe something else in debate #1. Then immigration, states' rights, and something else in debate #2. Taxes and the economy could be debate #3. Military and foreign policy could be a fourth, and so on.

 

Even with that, you can't have the moderator going for the "gotcha" moments. You've got to be unbiased. It's about the candidates, not the moderators. It's like referees...the good ones are those that you never really knew were there when it was all said and done.