Nikki Haley had a good night. You could say Ron DeSantis had a good night.
And the moderators of Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate — NBC News’ Lester Holt and Kristen Welker and conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt?
So-so. They had a so-so night. Some good and some bad and yet another reminder that moderating a debate is a thankless job. In fact, there might not be a more difficult job in all of TV journalism than hosting a political debate.
You have a bunch of candidates, all with their own agendas, looking to be the star of the show. Then you have moderators who have to keep the candidates and crowd from taking over, while asking pertinent questions of candidates who are willing to say just about anything to appeal to voters.
Should you be tough and fact-check every detail? Should you let the candidates say whatever they want? Should you emphasize follow-up questions or get through as many issues as possible? Should you pin the candidates down with uncomfortable gotcha questions or lob up topics to let the candidates simply state their positions, even if they are dangerous?
I get it. It’s not easy. Moderators are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, regardless of which tact they decide to take.
So that brings us to Wednesday night. After two debates hosted by Republican-friendly Fox News and Fox Business, Wednesday night’s third Republican debate headed to NBC News and a network that one assumed wasn’t going to be nearly as affable.
And while the debate provided more substance than the first two, one couldn’t help but wonder if the candidates were given a little too much leeway.
Just as an example, it seemed irresponsible to allow someone like Vivek Ramaswamy to use a good portion of prime time on a major TV network to spew “unhinged” junk in a desperate, Hail Mary effort to jump something like a million percentage points in the polls.
At one point, Ramaswamy had people asking, “Did he actually suggest we build a wall between the U.S. and Canada?” At another point, Ramaswamy broke the unwritten rule of dragging someone’s child into the conversation by saying Haley’s daughter is on TikTok. (That led Haley to tell Ramaswamy, “Leave my daughter out of your voice. … You’re just scum.”)
And in what felt like more of an audition tape to become a Fox News host than president of the United States, Ramaswamy came out swinging at the media, in particular NBC. After calling the Republican Party a “party of losers,” he suggested that the debate should’ve been hosted by the likes of ousted Fox News host Tucker Carlson, X owner Elon Musk and podcaster Joe Rogan.
NPR TV critic and media journalist Eric Deggans tweeted, “Vivek Ramaswamy wants Joe Rogan hosting a GOP debate. Only took eight minutes to go from 0 to crazy.”
Ramaswamy took aim at Welker, saying, “We've got Kristen Welker here. Do you think the Democrats would actually hire (Fox News’) Greg Gutfeld to host a Democratic debate? They wouldn't do it. And so the fact of the matter is, I mean, Kristen, I'm gonna use this time — ‘cause this is actually about you in the media and the corrupt media establishment — ask you the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that you pushed on this network for years. Was that real or was that Hillary Clinton made-up disinformation? Answer the question. Go.”
Holt and Welker were given credit by many for not taking the bait and getting into a spitting match with Ramaswamy, although I have to say it made the media seem a tad weak for not at least giving him an eye roll.
Then again, maybe the moderators figured they would simply hand Ramaswamy a microphone and let him expose himself.
On MSNBC’s post-debate coverage, Lawrence O’Donnell said, “He makes everyone else look better than they were ever going to because he's not just the most hated person by everyone on the stage, he's the most hateable character who's ever had a role in the presidential debate in either party.”
Ramaswamy coming out hot was no surprise. ABC News White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks reported that she spoke with him before the debate and he told her that his strategy was to “be unhinged.”
Mission accomplished.
Yet, other than Welker once saying, “We ask the questions,” the moderators never stopped him, or any of the candidates, from basically saying whatever they wanted. It wasn’t quite as bad as the infamous CNN town hall with Donald Trump, but far too many claims went unchecked and unchallenged, such as when Sen. Tim Scott said there were “sleeper terrorist cells in America. Thousands of people have come from Yemen, Iran, Syria and Iraq.”
Even NBC News.com said that claim was “likely false.” Poynter’s PolitiFact wrote, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection releases the number of times immigration officials encounter a known or suspected terrorist each fiscal year. But the government doesn’t disclose the nationalities of the people apprehended. Data about how many people from Yemen, Iran, Syria and Iraq have crossed U.S. borders under President Joe Biden’s administration isn’t available.”
While every claim can’t be checked immediately during a debate, Scott’s eyebrow-raising comment surely should’ve set off alarm bells to Holt or Welker, yet he wasn’t asked to back up his claim.
There is one theory that it’s not necessarily the responsibility of moderators to fact-check the candidates. For starters, the candidates are saying so much that it’s nearly impossible to do so. One could argue that the moderators want to go over as many topics as possible and should simply ask the questions and let the audience determine whether or not they agree or disagree with the candidates, and whether they find them electable or unelectable. If someone needs to be pushed back, let the other candidates do it. And, some might suggest, the moderators shouldn’t come off as adversarial.
But if that’s the case — if moderators from any network are simply going to acquiesce and say, “Well, let the voters sort it out” — then maybe it’s time to consider a whole new format for these things.
However, in CNN’s post-debate coverage, CNN’s Abby Phillip made a point that the moderators could use to prove it’s their job to merely ask the questions and let the candidates call each other out.
Talking about the dustups and obvious tension between Haley and Ramaswamy, Phillip said, “In some ways, the Ramaswamy thing is not super consequential except that it has made Nikki Haley look like a fighter. That has been really beneficial to her for these last three debates.”
By just asking the questions, the moderators let the candidates fight their own battles. It’s just that it often felt the moderators on Wednesday had their list of questions and, doggone it, they were going to try to get through as many as possible without being slowed down by too many follow-ups or clarifications.
That is not to say there weren’t good questions or good moments. Holt and Welker are knowledgeable and touched on many of the topics that Americans are interested in — Israel, Ukraine, China, the economy, abortion. And the debates got off to a really good start.
After all the introductions and preliminary comments, the first question from Holt started with two words:
Donald Trump.
There we go. Finally!
Trump’s name barely came up in the first two debates, except when initiated by the candidates themselves. Holt, however, started by asking the same opening question to each candidate: “Why should you and not him be the one to face Joe Biden?”
It was a good start, but unfortunately, that was the lone Trump question. The moderators passed up a perfect opportunity to ask the candidates specifically about Trump’s many legal woes — a situation that actually could prevent the former president from running again — but those questions never happened.
The moderators do deserve some credit for not letting the crowd overrun the debate with wild cheers and jeers. Holt, in particular, should be applauded for that. Just two questions in, after applause from the crowd threatened to stall the debate, Holt admonished the audience, saying, “Let’s not go down this road.”
This debate was not nearly as chaotic as the first two debates. The moderators managed the crowd and, more importantly, had decent control over the candidates. They were, undoubtedly, helped by the fact that there were only five candidates, fewer than the first two debates which had eight in the first and seven in the second.
There were only a few moments where the candidates talked over one another, but each time, the moderators did a good job of knowing when to let it carry out, when to step in and when to shut it down.
And afterward, the reaction seemed to be that the debate provided substance and clarity. A small group of Republican voters who watched the debate were interviewed by CNN and most agreed it was the most substantive GOP debate of this election cycle. Moderators certainly deserve credit for some of that.
NBC News got plenty of praise from many corners of the media world. Mediaite editor-in-chief Aidan McLaughlin tweeted about an hour into the debate: “NBC so far putting on the best debate of the 2024 primary. Moderators deftly handling Vivek Ramaswamy's outbursts. Good questions and disciplined management of the crowd and candidates.”
Bradley Cortright from the conservative Independent Journal Review tweeted, “This debate has been far, far more watchable than the last one. Despite all the frustration at NBC being chosen, the moderators largely kept control and knew what kind of issues Republicans care about.”
Another conservative analyst tweeted, “This is actually one of the best debates we've had in recent memory. Everyone got to talk, the mods kept control, and we all learned something about the candidates.”
So the moderators of Wednesday night’s debate had plenty of fans. Holt and Welker are seasoned journalists with sterling reputations that were neither bolstered nor damaged by Wednesday night’s performance. Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt was more like Who Hewitt. His impact on Wednesday was hardly noticed.
In the end, Wednesday night’s third GOP debate was far better than the first two debates this election season. Then again, the bar was already pretty low.
Vice President Carlson?
Appearing on the conservative “Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show,” former President Donald Trump was asked if he would consider former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson as a potential running mate.
Trump rambled for a bit then said, “I like Tucker a lot. I guess I would. I think I’d say I would because he’s got great common sense.”
New York Times hits 10 million subscribers
