Full disclosure, I have been following your prep on this substack, and will only watch the debate this weekend. My comment is that I was disapointed in the questions. After solicitating questions from readers, then not using any, makes me think that you are just playing a game and was never going to listen to us anyway. The questions you did ask however I feel had a slant. As mentioned, I need to listen to the candidates replies, and I am still open to making my final choice, I got the destinction on every question, that I knew roughly where candidate Burnley stood, but not candidate Wilson. The more I read through it, I got the feeling that this was a planned for candidate Wilson to get his message out, on questions candidate Burnley had answered, which feels/sounds/smells like it was the plan all along. If I got it wrong, after I watch the full debate, I will update.
Great work! I really enjoyed the debate and for hosting you did a fine job. Glad I watched the whole thing!
One additional note is that when we switch to another candidate with the same question, it would probably help the candidate to restate the question so they don't accidentally rebut or address something the other candidate got them thinking about.
This article comes at the perfect time. I really liked your sistematic approach to 'easing my cognitive load' with the run of show. Such practical methodologis are key to effective moderation.
I reject your premise. Like every political ethics class says, it's not just a conflict of interest that matters, it's the appearance of one. As you obviously knew *else you would not have asked for the money back.* Once you have publicly placed resources behind a candidate there is no reason supporters of another candidate or even neutral bystanders like me should trust you to operate in good faith. You definitely owe Willie's campaign an apology--and honestly if you're trying to position yourself as an above the fray political observer, anything you wrote on this election should have a disclosure, at least.
Full disclosure, I have been following your prep on this substack, and will only watch the debate this weekend. My comment is that I was disapointed in the questions. After solicitating questions from readers, then not using any, makes me think that you are just playing a game and was never going to listen to us anyway. The questions you did ask however I feel had a slant. As mentioned, I need to listen to the candidates replies, and I am still open to making my final choice, I got the destinction on every question, that I knew roughly where candidate Burnley stood, but not candidate Wilson. The more I read through it, I got the feeling that this was a planned for candidate Wilson to get his message out, on questions candidate Burnley had answered, which feels/sounds/smells like it was the plan all along. If I got it wrong, after I watch the full debate, I will update.
Great work! I really enjoyed the debate and for hosting you did a fine job. Glad I watched the whole thing!
One additional note is that when we switch to another candidate with the same question, it would probably help the candidate to restate the question so they don't accidentally rebut or address something the other candidate got them thinking about.
This article comes at the perfect time. I really liked your sistematic approach to 'easing my cognitive load' with the run of show. Such practical methodologis are key to effective moderation.
What was the rules question that came up?
Did you get in some good parades questions à la the NYC mayoral debate?
I'm curious: what moments in the debate did you feel I was being less than fair? The full video is above so please share timestamps.
I reject your premise. Like every political ethics class says, it's not just a conflict of interest that matters, it's the appearance of one. As you obviously knew *else you would not have asked for the money back.* Once you have publicly placed resources behind a candidate there is no reason supporters of another candidate or even neutral bystanders like me should trust you to operate in good faith. You definitely owe Willie's campaign an apology--and honestly if you're trying to position yourself as an above the fray political observer, anything you wrote on this election should have a disclosure, at least.
You wrote/generated the questions - you were able to select/omit questions that may have swayed voters in a certain direction.
Plus, Jake Wilson knew he had your support which would make him immediately more comfortable on the stage.