To everyone complaining about Debate moderation...

Our candidates should have been rejecting the premise for about half of them at least.

There is no good answer to the question "when did you stop beating your spouse," yet this is not that far from some of the incredibly biased and leading questions asked (especially Tapper).

It is almost as if he was concerned about who might be watching (and tweeting)...

The question, will Bernie's radical policies hurt Democrats chances of beating Trump.

I want to see if cnn attacks Biden like that, if it doesn't that tells me they want Biden to go up against Trump.

I felt stressed myself listening them trying to talk so fast, and from the interruptions.

Unless you want the Party to arbitrarily decide up front who are “real candidates”, then you need to limit the answers or hold longeer events, which night not have as big an audience.

terms of complexity, with differing time allotment for the (fewer) most complex questions.

Having been involved in debate in high school and college, this approach is anything but unusual. Given the high stakes and $$ involved in these debates, I believe at least THAT amount of pre-thought and pre-planning would have been appropriate.

But, you know what? Wasting nearly a half-hour with the flag ceremony followed by the Star-Spangled Banner, however nice, was totally unnecessary and especially so when time is so critical to accommodate this many people.

for one thing.

...to answer with anything than talking points.

I hope this will be resolved in later debates...

That part of the procedure where there are only fifteen seconds to respond was where it got tricky, especially in attempting to clarify something on a difficult issue like health care. It might have been better to expand that to thirty seconds. Some very good responses were stepped on by the well-meaning moderators. But I thought it was fair and that the questions were excellent. The moderators didn't make it about themselves, which I appreciated.

More serious, less audience reaction, moderators handled the candidates better. No chuck todd talking more in one hour than the candidates in 2 hours.

Some of the questions were RW talking points, candidates need to expect and be ready for that.

it was that every question was framed around right wing talking points.

BS finally had enough and rejected the premise, but imo, they should all have been doing so with the majority of Tapper's questions.

reframe the question. If right wingers are listening, they'll get it.

When Bernie rejects the premise, he shows how he'll reject all the false premises of Trump and every other debate moderator.

It's a good lesson for listeners.

It's why the right wingers like Bernie and think he's honest. He knows how to convey reality without making listeners feel wrong.

When time runs out... cut the mic volume slowly, or play music that gradually increases in volume until they're drowned out (like they do with Oscar winners that go over their allotted time.)

ok it's right wing framing...great, it allows our folks to come up with great responses to right wing framing.

I don't understand why so many folks are afraid of these debates being anything other than how great democrats are and what we will do and not brook any criticism, questioning, fighting, attacks, or you know the things that toughen up our eventual nominee to address those things well.

Your subject line is very unnecessary (and rude).

except I'm glad our candidates are getting tested in the fire vice some kumbaya-fest where they emerge into the GE ill prepared.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/debate-moderate-progressive-democrats.html

2020 Democrats’ New Foe: CNN’s Debate Format

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/everyone-hates-cnns-debate-format.html

I'm sure there are folks who share your collective opinion.
I don't think that changes the reality that complaining about it isn't going to do squat, looks weak, and accomplishes nothing.
Our candidates, for the most part, are dealing with it and getting prepared to answer it for the GE.
so thank goodness they are made of strong stuff to deal directly instead of complain...and thank goodness they are getting prepared now vice going into the GE not ready.

Nah, an opinion. An unfavorable one perhaps, but not an insult.

Sorry, but complaining about the media looks weak.

for one thing. There are too many running. Many of them need to stay in the Senate so we have a chance to win the Senate.

so should Buttigieg, they would be a big asset.

members of their own party.

MJ Hegar is a war hero, with a purple heart, wounded in action. She is BADASS. Rides a Harley Davidson, A pilot, she was shot down and strapped herself to the skids of a freaking helicopter, returning fire on the Taliban while being evacuated. There is also a black woman, Amanda Edwards, Harvard law graduate, running. Every single time a Democrat says they "wish Beto would run" are MINIMIZING these women. It must STOP. Beto is NOT running for Senate, period. He is running for president. People need to support his choice to run for whatever the hell he wants to run for or just STFU and support these Democratic women and stop harming their ability to get the attention and support they deserve.

/rant off

Whining will not win for those folks.

I don't recall anyone last night actually being penalized for going over their time. That's because they kept within the tolerance level of the moderators, who often only had to shut them down twice with "Senator, thank you, Senator" etc.

You could do it with a computerized system that shuts down a microphone after the allotted time, but that wouldn't be satisfactory, either.

In a 2 1/2 hour debate like last night, that would mean each set of five would get 75 minutes.

They were serious dignified people and not into spectacle for spectacle’s sake.

They have “MSM” people do it.

...and while I may have conflated some of them, this is what I remember: for the first time ever, exit polls disagreed with the final result. So instead of questioning the final result, the MSM stopped doing exit polls and moved on.

Prior to that, I remember the televised debates as being different, and just a more sober enterprise on the part of moderators. I know LWV was involved somehow.

I guess my most urgent question is this: when did it become the job of the MSM to act as gatekeepers for candidates, and why do we let them continue?

are the only thing that the recipient of the DNC endorsement will get to deal with once the primaries start. The Troll in chief is very very good at just that, trolling. RW talking points will dominate the candidates life for a good while. Why not figure out who can stand up to these lines of questioning? It seems like we keep tweaking the format of these events to get the outcome we want rather than throw our gladiators to the wolves and let Darwinian principals pick our warrior.
I think we make it less of a spectacle, and more about content. Maybe we use social media and polling to find the biggest concerns of the majority of Americans today, build a set of questions, and let the candidates all have some time to see if they can come up with solutions that make sense rather than off the cuff talking points for the news to regurgitate later. I couldn't care less if candidate X has an answer for a world problem or even a plan immediately. I do care if they are smart enough to actually come up with a plan though. If we keep caving into creating food for this hungry desperate media and the Cheetroll to consume, then we deserve the diarrhea we are subjecting ourselves to today.

There was less interruption, which was good, but they kept going back to the same people over and over again and it was really obvious.