Have you ever seen watched something and said “man this is trash”? That’s what it felt like watching the first 2016 presidential debate. Instead of getting an intelligent, productive debate, we got a Jerry Springer episode… “president edition.”
How did it come to this? On Sept. 26, the world was subjected to watching two people banter back and forth about topics that we’ve already heard. Mind you, not policies and economic plans, but rather, lifestyle choices, differences in beliefs, and comments on a former Miss Universe. And after all that was over, we heard all the theories of why the debate was so bad.
There hasn’t been a shortage of conspiracy theories surrounding the presidential debate. Some said CNN was working with Hillary Clinton, and there’s been a plethora of videos showing her scratching her nose as a “sign” for moderator Lester Holt to pass on the question to her. There have been others that showed a purpose behind Donald Trump’s broken mic as a sabotage to his performance. There were those cheering from Clinton as she proclaimed victory after Monday, and there were the cameras snapping shots of Trump as he proclaimed.. the same thing. And then there was everyone else, screaming a consensus of the debate’s low, low quality.
We have very limited choices of candidates debating in this election season – a limited choice of two, to decide who will have absolute authority over the country’s military power, foreign relations and executive decisions. One prides himself in evading taxes for what some people are saying has been as long as 18 years. And the other, has changed her stance on critical issues for more than twenty consecutive years. And that limited choice was in plain sight at the debate. In fact, hard to miss.
From the time Trump began to interrupt the moderator and went on to talk anti-Obama policies, to when Clinton received claps and cheers (which were supposed to be prohibited during the debate) after yelling the name of the Miss Universe Trump has been bashing on. Whose points were stronger was overshadowed by their manner of delivering them: interrupting, speaking over Holt (who almost faded away into the audience after the first five minutes), and above all, Trump’s weird duck faces, called for an unprofessional, under-qualifying debate.
Moving forward to the next debate held next Sunday, on Oct. 9, moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Ravitz need to be more assertive and have some “base in their voice”. When a candidate is talking too long, they need to be stopped. Candidates should not be allowed to talk around a topic for an unlimited amount of time. It is the job of a moderator to keep them on task. And since we can’t change the candidates, the best we can do is keep them in check, have them obey a certain format so that they’re almost forced to talk about what the American people want to hear. For example, where their money will be going for the next couple of years, and what the immigration policies will look like.
What are your thoughts on this topic? Email a Letter to the Editor at signalopinions@gmail.com
