And thanks to CNN because of their stupid rules. Oh, and there's no audience. So that helped Trump because he did not feel like he had to prove the audience anything.
I wonder if a covfefe would revive Biden, possibly a meet and greet at the border where it’s about 115 degrees.
The Republican guest mentioned all the concerns that we had about the ability of CNN to moderate a debate but said he was surprised about how "perfect" it was and that he had no complaints.
Kurtz set up the question to Marshall about how it was the job of the candidates to "fact check" each other and the moderators should stay out of the way. If one candidate wasn't up to the task of countering the other, that's not the fault of the moderators. Marshall said that she completely disagreed with that and felt that it is absolutely the job of a moderator to step in if a candidate is saying incorrect or misleading things.
I've been reposting my analysis of the Nixon-Kennedy debates, and one thing stands out: up until the 1996 debates, the network broadcasting the debate had the host limited to moderating the debate, that is, timekeeping and enforcing the rules. A separate panel of questioners were from mixed media, including the competing networks and print and wire journalists. Beginning with the 1996 debates (the Clinton-Dole debates), the only people questioning the candidates were from the network hosting the debates.
I've argued that it's too much for one (or two) to do: moderate the timekeeping and rules, asking the questions, listening to the answers, following up with other questions. To add fact-checking and interrupting the flow of the debate on top of that crosses a line.
I guess liberals are only happy when everything is a three-on-one confrontation.
-PJ