Debate moderator knocks wind out of Kamala with a hard gut punch about her past

[mystery-ak]

Debate moderator knocks wind out of Kamala with a hard gut punch about her past
September 13, 2019 | Samantha Chang

ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis, who was one of the moderators of the Democratic primary debate, humiliated Democratic Senator Kamala Harris by asking why Harris did nothing to advance criminal justice reform when she was the attorney general of California.

Davis referenced Harris’ new plan for “criminal justice reform” while pointing out Harris’ indifference to the topic during her years as California’s law-enforcement czar from 2011 to 2017.

Davis said: “[Your criminal-justice reform plan] does contradict some of your prior positions. Among them, you used to oppose the legalization of marijuana, now you don’t. You used to oppose outside investigations of police shootings, now you don’t.”

Davis continued: “You said that you’ve changed on these and other things because you were, ‘swimming against the current and thankfully, the currents have changed.’ But when you had the power, why didn’t you try to affect change then?”

more
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/09/13/debate-moderator-knocks-wind-out-of-kamala-with-a-hard-gut-punch-about-her-past-824631

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I hate it when moderators rather than candidates make arguments.

[austingirl]

Kamaltoe had a lousy night with her nasal voice, unfunny jokes, and braying laugh at said jokes.

[XenaLee]

I hate it when moderators rather than candidates make arguments.

Asking legitimate questions (regarding past stances on issues) and pointing out discrepancies is not "making arguments".

[verga]

I hate it when moderators rather than candidates make arguments.

Well at least someone had the sens/ courage to ask her.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Asking legitimate questions (regarding past stances on issues) and pointing out discrepancies is not "making arguments".

It is a clear opportunity for bias because the moderator can ask much toughter/more antagonistic questions of candidates he/she likes, than of those he/she doesn't.  We've seen that consistently in the debates where moderators toss softballs to the Democrats, and go hard at the Republicans.

In the primaries, they should have candidates ask each other questions, drawing from a hat ahead of time to determine who gets to ask who the questions, and to be sure they balance out.  The bias is much more likely to even out at that point.

In the general election, you have each side nominate moderators/questioners so that you can ensure tough questions be asked of both sides.

[XenaLee]

It is a clear opportunity for bias because the moderator can ask much toughter/more antagonistic questions of candidates he/she likes, than of those he/she doesn't.  We've seen that consistently in the debates where moderators toss softballs to the Democrats, and go hard at the Republicans.

In the primaries, they should have candidates ask each other questions, drawing from a hat ahead of time to determine who gets to ask who the questions, and to be sure they balance out.  The bias is much more likely to even out at that point.

In the general election, you have each side nominate moderators/questioners so that you can ensure tough questions be asked of both sides.

What's wrong with asking "tough questions"?   It's kind of important that voters know the answers, wouldn't you agree?  I think ALL of the moderators should ask those tough questions of all of the candidates.  But that's just me.   

[Jazzhead]

I hate it when moderators rather than candidates make arguments.

I hate it when moderates are contentious with some candidates, and lob softball questions at others.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What's wrong with asking "tough questions"?   It's kind of important that voters know the answers, wouldn't you agree?  I think ALL of the moderators should ask those tough questions of all of the candidates.  But that's just me.   

It's not just you -- I agree that all candidates should be asked tough questions. 

The problem is that moderators don't ask tough questions of all candidates consistently or evenly, and they can never be relied upon to do so.  Again -- do you remember how Republicans have been treated in those debates versus Democrats?  It's a joke -- the largely left-leaning journalists generally ask Democrats softballs, and Republicans get fastballs.  That tilts the playing field to give Democrats an advantage in the eyes of the undecided.

The same thing happens in the primary.  A moderator who leans further left is going to ask tougher, potentially more embarrassing questions of the less radical candidate -- or at least tilt their questions to endorse more radical views.  That's also not fair.

Let the candidates who are competing against each other ask each other the tough questions.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I hate it when moderates are contentious with some candidates, and lob softball questions at others.

That's exactly my point.

We can't take the bias out of the legal system -- lawyers are always going to act in their self-interest to help their own clients.  So, we harness that bias and make the process adversarial so that every witness gets asked tough questions by the other side.

No reason not to structure debates similarly rather than continue with the facade of allegedly unbiased moderators.

[XenaLee]

It's not just you -- I agree that all candidates should be asked tough questions. 

The problem is that moderators don't ask tough questions of all candidates consistently or evenly, and they can never be relied upon to do so.  Again -- do you remember how Republicans have been treated in those debates versus Democrats?  It's a joke -- the largely left-leaning journalists generally ask Democrats softballs, and Republicans get fastballs.  That tilts the playing field to give Democrats an advantage in the eyes of the undecided.

The same thing happens in the primary.  A moderator who leans further left is going to ask tougher, potentially more embarrassing questions of the less radical candidate -- or at least tilt their questions to endorse more radical views.  That's also not fair.

Let the candidates who are competing against each other ask each other the tough questions.

I hope you're not counting on the candidates being nicer than the moderators when asking those "tough" questions...lol.    (See: Julian Castro verbally castrates Joe Biden).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/julian-castro-attack-joe-biden-1494504

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I hope you're not counting on the candidates being nicer than the moderators when asking those "tough" questions...lol.    (See: Julian Castro verbally castrates Joe Biden).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/13/julian-castro-attack-joe-biden-1494504

No I'm not -- and that's precisely the point.  I'm counting on the candidates being consistently tougher on each other than would be the moderators, who would be tough on some candidates but go easier on others.

I want tough questions all around, and using moderators who have their own individual biases isn't going to give us that result consistently.

[roamer_1]

IOW, Someone in the DNC does not want Kamaltoe to win... or she is behind in her dues.

[XenaLee]

No I'm not -- and that's precisely the point.  I'm counting on the candidates being consistently tougher on each other than would be the moderators, who would be tough on some candidates but go easier on others.

I want tough questions all around, and using moderators who have their own individual basis isn't going to give us that result consistently.

Then.... we are in total agreement.  Yay!   

[PeteS in CA]

Well at least someone had the sens/ courage to ask her.

Actually, the mod was either being very kind, or doesn't know about Kammy's record of abusing her power and supporting prosecutors who have abused their power.

[Wingnut]

Even standing at the podium she is buns-up kneelin.