In today’s NYTimes: He Came, and He Saw, but Did He Moderate?

The first debates after the Iowa caucuses were a crucible for the candidates, but they were also a test of the Gibson Doctrine: “The less of a moderator, the better.”

None of us controlled where the candidates sat. I supposed we could have drawn straws for the seating like we did for the order of opening statements but it never occurred to me. It was unfortunate that one of the mics was shorter than the other two but that wasn’t our doing either. Vance pulled the mic from the stand initially but put it back.

As for the joking around, it was intentional. We stated up-front that our idea was to re-create the atmosphere of our radio show/podcast which is laden with laughing and interruptions no matter who our guest might be. But in hindsight, I think the criticism is justified. I overdid it and I can see how that sometimes distracted from the candidates and the discussion.

It would be great if the LWV and LG could get together for elections, etc.

Thanks

It’s always dangerous to try something new, but on the whole I think the debate format worked. I do think that allowing clapping would be preferable next time -- maybe hold it over the weekend so that time isn’t as much of an issue. Also, I’d never been to the Grand before; what a great venue!

While the setting (candidates around the table) was good, the vagueness of the issues candidates were asked to address didn’t provoke conversation, but rather, encouraged “speachification.” I wish each candidate had been asked beforehand to submit questions they would like to ask the other candidates to discuss on any given issue. For example, rather than “talk about property taxes,” the question might be “A city councilor told me that too much of a burden has been placed on property taxes to fund local services. Why would he make that claim? do you agree? Explain your answer and if so, what you will do if elected to correct this.” The more focused the question, the more concrete the response and, I suspect, the more interesting the answer and the more clear the thinking which generates the response.

It would have been less distracting (taking the attention of the audience away from the candidates and toward the triumvirate) if the 3 had been at the table with the other 3, assuming that they play a supportive role. By being in the no-man’s land between the speakers and the audience, they drew too much attention to their own personalities. How would it work for the triumvirate to sit with the candidates and for them to ask follow up questions? They might from time to time insert comments into the conversation to provoke further discussion among the candidates. Of course, this presumes the triumvirate is familiar enough with the issues to follow the discussion and jump in with just the right question! And, someone would have to be aware of the time lapse so that other questions could be raised the answered.

I don’t have a problem with the triumvirate’s bias. There was full disclosure at the outset. In the scenario I’ve suggested, it would be risky for members of the triumvirate to be biased, but it could also add to the spiceyness of the conversation.

It was great to see the crowd at the Grand last night -- and to see that not all the heads were as grey as mine. While I don’t believe in turning candidate forums into entertainment, I think last night’s format helped tip the balance away from the more formal League of Women Voter style, and toward a format which not only reveals different qualities of the candidates, but can be more engaging for the audience.

Maybe the League and Locally Grown can learn from each other and co-sponsor events like last night’s in preparation for the 2008 elections.

I read about the format before I went and the candidates must have agreed on the format. There was no mention of clocks, etc, and that worried me. But, I thought the candidates mostly talked until they were done --with the exception of the times when people clapped. At those time, the moderators told us to be quiet, and then the conversation shifted away to another candidate.

All in all, it went pretty well.

Why didn’t the league of women voters organize a debate? They could have.

I agree with John and Josh on some points: Ray has the most visibility because of his roles on the school board and in the House, and one could argue that Kevin has visibility as a teacher of many Northfielders or their children, and were it done over again, I’d guess that Vance was perhaps the candidate with least public visibility, and if you’re having a round table with only one facing the camera, I’d have put Vance there. Or have three chairs facing the front, with tables in between for water, and have them draw straws for who gets the middle seat. It’s too easy for Ross, Ray’s brother-in-law, so say afterward that he didn’t think it was so bad or deserving of John and Josh’s criticism, when, hey, Ray was in the middle facing the camera. Disclaimers, and your best efforts to appear unbiased, quickly seem thin, unhelpful, ineffective even if sincere. People with biases have blind spots, so disclaimers alone are not enough.

I thought Suzannah Ciernia had a wonderful question about the recent news on the superbug/bacteria, but as it was an issue others — or the candidates — may not have read about, it needed a bit of introduction and context. The moderators gave the candidates time to talk at length, but sometimes (especially Griff?) were too quick to cut off questioners, asking, “So what’s your question?” Kevin Dahle made a great point about the importance of listening, and when the moderators were not cutting questioners off, there was some listening going on. Some questions require some background, and it’s OK to let questioners give it, even if it takes a few extra seconds.

It was obvious that the lack of time limits was a problem. Yes, it’s good to be generous with time limits, but it seemed that the lack of time limits gave Ray freedom to speak at great length about his past legislative experience, sometimes in ways that were not entirely relevant to the questions. If you want to be objective, you could watch the tape and see which candidate took the most, or least, time talking. Regardless of disclaimers and efforts at objectivity and input regarding format, statistics give a glimpse that disclaimers and best intentions do not.

I didn’t say that it was negative. I thought it was quite nice, and was providing feedback.

What I did say, is that I had some perceptions of what was going to occur, and those were not what the ground rules were. Thats an okay thing, not a comment good or bad. I also stated that there were several things I did not understand. I must context that by also saying that I was late in arriving, as I was attending another meeting from 8 to 9. Had I been on time for the start, the ground rules would have made sense, and I would have less questions.

I don’t want it to seem like I am always a detractor to what you guys do. That is not the case. I thought that what you guys did by setting this up was a really good thing, and great for Northfield’s citizenry.

The comment I made was that there was not as much debate as I thought there was going to be. The canidates were all extremely nice to each other, there was no interuptions, and everything was very civil. The canidates were given equal oppurtuinty to respond on all things, but Ray was definately much more informed on the issues, and spoke much more elloquently on the issues, therefore taking more time in his responses.

Equal time would have been given, if the other canidates wanted to use it, but they were not as “up” on many of the topics presented.

I thought it went rather well during the time I was there. Had I arrived on time, I would probably understand the riding crop in your back pocket. My assumption is that it had something to do with folks not holding the microphone.

I will wait for the video.

Again, I do not percieve a whole bunch of negativity in my posting. I just posted my perceptions. It went really well, as no one really knew what to expect.

The venue was good, and the closeness to the canidates was really nice. Thanks for taking the time to set it up, as it is not often that you get all 3 canidates in the same place, at the same time.

I would urge you three to look at doing more of these as more elections come to pass. It is a great thing for the community.

Please do not paint me as “Mr. Negativity”. That is just not the case.

Again, thanks for taking the time to set it up. I hope to see you downtown this holiday season.

I hope that those citizens who were unable to attend aren’t so discouraged by those two’s comments that they don’t listen to the, admittedly lengthy, tape of the event.

Although it’s probably impossible for candidates to be completely candid and casual in any type of public format, I thought that all three of our guests did a really fine job of raising their priorities and revealing their passions, in spite of the apparent excess of shussing and joking by the LG crue.

Thanks again to Kevin, Ray and Vance.

I thought it went quite well, considering the myriad possibilities for disaster of one sort or another.

In the hour I was there, there was no debating, and there was definately not equal time.

It was nice to see the three canidates, and the interaction was very dignified. Mr. Dahle was interesting and think he has some great plans.
Mr. Cox was very practiced, very well informed, and very polished.
Mr. Norgaard struck me as hunched over, and single threaded. He kept coming back to peak oil, peak oil, peak oil. He had some great talking points, but did not come accross real well.

It was nice to see the three canidates take the time to speak with the public, but there was no debate, and the interaction was very limited and heavily moderated. On many occasions, Griff offered Mr. Cox an out from a questions, and I did not see that offered to Mr. Norgaard and Mr. Dahle when I was there.

I personally want to learn more about Mr. Dahle in the very short time we have before the election.

One question I didn’t hear asked to the canidates was a simple one. Why are you running? Its simple… What to you hope to accomplish? What is calling you to run.

I have to respect, and applaud the effort for Tracy, Griff, and Ross to put this together… but I do feel that is was just a tad overly moderated. I would have like to have seen more interaction directly between the canidates, and the citizens that will elect them.

I am looking forward to viewing the videotape, to go back over some of the answers and interactions again.

Holly, I’m startled at your comment #5 that

“Instead of trying to draw information out of the candidates in a respectful manner (as a non-partisan host might), this most likely will be a situation where you’re ready to trap or roast the other candidates.”

Our intent is be respectful to all the candidates and insist that audience does likewise. And format is designed to minimize the moderator role so that the candidates can talk with each other.

Maybe it won’t be a case of doing all the work and then leaving it behind because of distraction (as in Frost’s Wood-pile poem).

Also, Tracy, I don’t know if you can call the Democrats the “underdogs”. All Northfield wards voted Democratic in the last Rep. election, didn’t they?

But I suppose the Senate 25 race is another story.

Thanks for the podcast and see you tonight w/my teenagers in tow. Might as well have them watch and listen. So, nobody get too wild. Keep it in line.

http://vancenorgaard.com/40
http://www.kevindahle.net/wordpress/?p=13
http://raycox.net/post/1672/

Here are the top ten candidate issues after getting the top five from each of them:

E-12 Funding
Property Taxes
Transportation
Local Government Aid
Health Care Costs
Higher Education Funding
Metro Transit Funding
Energy Policy
Impact on Economy
Climate Changes

Our plan is put each of these on a piece of paper into a hat and draw from it during the first 40 minutes or so… no idea how far we’ll get. During the final 40 minutes, we’ll encourage the audience to ask questions related to those we don’t get to, as well as troll thru the questions submitted here to see which ones might related closest to the issues on the list.