Poll Position: Do we need moderators in presidential debates?
Through three debates — two between the presidential candidates, one featuring their running mates — there’s been one constant: The moderators have been part of the story each time. PBS’ Jim Lehrer was faulted by some for being too hands-off; ABC’s Martha Raddatz for being too quick to interrupt; CNN’s Candy Crowley for playing fact-checker during one particularly heated exchange between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Do we need moderators for presidential debates?
- Absolutely (131 Votes)
- Never (53 Votes)
- Only in some of them (46 Votes)
Total Voters: 230
Loading ...(As an aside, as someone who’s moderated several debates myself, Crowley was wrong to intervene in that manner for two reasons, neither of them partisan: First, it wasn’t her place to offer an opinion; if she was trying to cut off the debate and move on to another topic, she should have simply said, “This one will have to go to the fact-checkers.” Second, fact-checking isn’t part of the moderator’s job largely because the moderator has too much else going on to be counted on to be a reliable fact-checker, from keeping track of speaking time to paying attention to which question comes next and even whose turn it is to give the first answer to that question. Crowley was, we can only assume, going off memory about what Obama said at a press briefing almost five weeks earlier, and with more than 60 million people watching. She was just as likely to make a mistake or misspeak as the candidates were.)
Rather than arguing about which moderator did the best job, or which style is best, my question to you today is: Do we even need moderators for these debates?
Throughout the primary season, Newt Gingrich famously challenged anyone and everyone to “Lincoln-Douglas style debates” without moderators. How much would you like to see Obama and Romney taking turns asking each other questions rather than relying on journalists and “undecided” voters bound to be accused of being partisan? (One thing I thought was clear from Tuesday night’s debate was that none of the questioners sounded all that “undecided” — their questions were aimed at one candidate or the other.)
Ah, you may ask, but who will cut off the candidates when they speak too long if there isn’t a moderator?
Well, the first three debates have proven human moderators aren’t very good at cutting off the candidates anyway. A CNN honcho even defended Crowley’s over-allowance of time to Obama — a repeat from Lehrer’s moderation of the first debate — on the ludicrous grounds that Obama speaks more slowly than Romney and might not have gotten in more actual words during his extra minutes of speaking time.
In any case, technology would do a much better job: Simply flash a red light when a candidate has 5 or 10 seconds left, and then cut off his microphone when the time has elapsed.
And what about the questions? Wouldn’t the candidates just make the debates meaningless or overly partisan by getting bogged down in gotcha-style questions?
Oh, you mean like George Stephanopoulos, apropos of nothing, asking GOP candidates about banning contraceptives last January?
It’s a problem that already exists with moderators. But it’s also one that, if the candidates themselves did it, would force voters to evaluate the candidates for asking such questions rather than letting the moderators take the blame. If Obama or Romney asks a gotcha question, he’d have to defend his choice as much as the other candidate had to defend his answer.
You might guess where I land on this issue, for at least one debate per cycle. But what say you? Do we need moderators in presidential debates?
It’s the return, after a brief hiatus, of the Poll Position question. Answer in the nearby poll and in the comments thread below.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
266 comments Add your comment
Gallup. Are you sure?
October 19th, 2012
6:35 pm
Rafe
Should George HW served? After all he was part of an administration that sold weapons to a declared enemy of the state……. then shamefully allowed a Lt Col to take the fall.
My dad is a retired military officer. No Lt Cols are brokering deals on that level without knowledge of some higher ups.
I’m not absolving Obama of anything, but I am saying that they all lie and they lie big. For the most part, those on the left cry when it is a Repub. Those on the right cry when it is a Democrat. And most of both sides will give their own side a pass or downplay the incident.
It is what it is.
LeRoi2
October 19th, 2012
6:37 pm
MarkV you are just the impossibly close minded people i talked about. It is obvious what went on here, but you refuse to see the obvious. Your god Obama is going to be repudiated by the electorate, for the incompetent lying fool that he is, on November 6. See you on November 7, maybe the shock of the truth will bring you out of your coma.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
October 19th, 2012
6:38 pm
Gallup, you have me mixed up with someone else. I read that post as well, but I don’t watch Bill Maher, don’t even know what channel he haunts. The post was the first I had heard of that conversation. I did see Luntz interview that post debate crowd of former Obama voters the other night. I think he was shocked that most of them were now voting for Romney. I’m guessing he might have changed his mind by now.
MarkV
October 19th, 2012
6:42 pm
LeRoi2 @ 6:37 pm
All that talk, and not a speck of facts as evidence. That is all people like you can do – make accusation, write insults, and when asked for evidence, just sputter and bluster.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
October 19th, 2012
6:43 pm
Gallup
Don’t think 41 was aware of what LTC North was doing in IRAN/Contra, Maybe Reagan, but doubtful 41 knew about it.
Yes, they all lie, but explain to me how Watergate was more egregious or damaging to the country than this current cover up. Why Nixon and not Obama?
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
October 19th, 2012
6:50 pm
MarkV
If you think Obama is being honest about this, your assessment of people’s intentions and character is suspect to say the least, so you calling me a liar carries little weight. I have been called worse by more astute people.
BTW: Obama lied!
MarkV
October 19th, 2012
6:53 pm
Rafe Hollister @6:50 pm: “BTW: Obama lied!”
You failed to provide any evidence that the President lied, as you claimed. You claimed that you had provided the evidence, and you did not. You are a liar.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
October 19th, 2012
8:42 pm
Anyone who reads what I posted know that Obama lied. Anyone, that is, except those who are so blind with worship for their dear leader that they can not see.
MarkV
October 19th, 2012
11:16 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 8:42 pm
You have again failed to provide any evidence that the President lied, as you claimed. You are a liar.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
October 20th, 2012
2:52 am
Jay Carney doesn’t utter a word unless the statement is approved by the chief of staff or Obama. Neither does Susan Rice. Obama goes on Letterman and the View weeks later and still says “We don’t have all the facts” or “It was the video” despite confirmed knowledge 24 hours following the attack.
Obama and his administration lied from day one – top to bottom, MarkV.
Your inability to accept this stark reality displays a mental disorder that needs immediate attention.
Georgia
October 20th, 2012
4:50 am
Benghazi was preplanned in the sense that terrorists are now putting eyes and ears on a specific target and then smart mobbing any opportunity that shows itself. That means that all of our embassies are being watched for any target opportunity. Knowing this, it should be easy for us to set up an ambush with bait. That’s hardly news, and it’s also not the point of Monday night. The whole crux of the entire coverup is what did Hillary know and when did she know it. The key is Hillary. KISS
Joel Edge
October 20th, 2012
8:45 am
IF we could get an unbiased moderator, then include them. Under the current circumstances, then no.
MarkV
October 20th, 2012
8:50 am
The “stark reality [that] displays a mental disorder” is the inability of some people to address, what has been disputed. The accusation was that the President lied. No verbal deflections can change that fact. The evidence would be simple: A quote of President’s sentence, and showing that it was a lie. The moral cowards, like Rafe, Lambeau and Tiberius, are capable of spewing out such accusations, but when challenged, incapable of either presenting an evidence for that accusation, or taking it back.
As for the presumed “cover up” by the Administration, that is a different issue, one that shows the inability of those who make that accusation to think, even to the point of showing political insanity. But it is a different issue.
Dusty
October 20th, 2012
11:33 am
Well, it is long after the facts presented here. But what I see is two honest people, Rafe & MarkV, strong in their beliefs, each quite sure that they are correct. I would call it a misunderstanding.
Only President Obama knows exactly what he was referring to when he said “terror”. Terror can be general or specific. He could have been referring to the most recent incident killing four Americans or he could have meant the terror of militants around the world or even any terroristic acts by people not considered trained terrorists.
I do not think that Preisdent Obama has been an effective or successful president but I cannot read his mind.
So I suggest that all honest ;people stop calling each other “liars” when there is no effort to be unthruthful on either side. It is a difference of opinion. That’s my opinion with one suggestion: don’t call me a liar.
MarkV
October 20th, 2012
12:33 pm
Dusty @11:33 am
As I took some pain to explain many times already, this had not been a matter of a “belief” about what Obama referred to when he said “terror.” The primary issue in my exchanges with Rafe and others was their very specific, unmistakable accusation the President had lied. There is no misunderstanding possible. If I say that somebody lied, I must be able to quote his verbal or written statement that I can show was untrue. If I cannot, then I lied. When Rafe refuses to do that and substitutes “anyone who reads what I posted know that Obama lied,” one can only shake head.
You may be right that “only President Obama knows exactly what he was referring to when he said “terror,” but that does not mean that he did not say what he said.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
October 20th, 2012
3:44 pm
Markv, when the President is asked”was this a terrorist attack” and he answers “we don’t know” as he did at least twice, when his CIA station chief confirms it within 24 hours, the president LIED.
No wordsmithing can be used to refute this fact.