He was hard on Trump as well as Clinton.

terrible. He let them talk.

I thought he was pretty awful.

The more Trump is allowed to talk, the better Hillary looks. Let's be honest here.

I really hope that after November 9, we will get a massive respite from that vile, loathsome creature.

He ENABLED Trump by letting him go over his time, interrupt HRC over and over and OVER again without being chastised (yet he chastised Clinton when she defended herself), and tossing him softball questions with a wingnutty slant. Bullying, indeed. Sexist, too. Enough, already.

Wallace sucked.

She showed some real balls (figuratively speaking) under his torrent.

She was on point every single minute of this debate. That was an impressive performance, and it completely took away any opportunity for Trump to slander her health and stamina.

the more t'rump rambles on..the more he sinks his own ship.

after a while it was like

promise to respect and acknowledge the election results and Trump refusing to say yes.

He retired. Maybe Wallace should follow suit, because he's a right wing hack.

Deliver

Perception.

I originally posted that I agreed about Wallace doing a good job. Clinton doing as well as she did and Trump performing like Trump might have skewed my perception of Wallace.

Interesting thought.

Best moderator this cycle.... Although, kudos to old what's his name for asking if he ever sexually assaulted anyone before...

When he called Trump a liar, I felt that was a sign he was attempting to be fair.

Were slanted in manner for trump to wail on Hillary

Trump would have had to have much more help than that, to have benefitted

The final question. Their statements.

interrupt while cutting Clinton off. At one point, they both talked over her at once. Really rude.

When he corrected trump, he was more deferential. But at least he kept the audience in check.

saw him interview Trump and also his commentary about it him and he called him out. He also called out Clinton she did a sit down with him too.

wingnuts to give Trump an advantage. The questions were framed in Limbaugh fashion from a right wing slant, and accusatory towards Clinton. Trump was allowed to talk over and interrupt repeatedly.

The "journalist" actually did all he could to help Trump; he even scolded Clinton for sticking up for herself after he allowed Trump to "Wrong! Wrong!" and go over his time again and again--he was OBVIOUSLY biased...the bit of "mansplaining" was a cute trick, too that went over like a lead balloon.

Basically, Clinton beat Trump with one hand (Wallace) tied behind her back. She ruled--but not because there was any "journalism" on that stage or that the contest was fair. The only reason Wallace is getting any thrills is because of Trump's RESPONSE to the question about accepting the results. Had Trump said "Sure" people would give Wallace's shit performance the critique it deserved.

He pushed the forced-birthers and gun nuts back into Trump's camp. Now it's a matter of who turns out to vote.

Those people are gonna vote trump no matter what so it's moot , HRC kicked ass tonite

of all the moderators of the debates I think he did the best job.

Not that it mattered to Trump, the oaf.

Trump talked all over him as though he were a lowly woman.

Most of his questions seemed tinged with right-wing biases

he was heroic!

bad as he might have been but feel he fell well short of a high standard.

I don't really like him much, I trust him less, and he works for rightwing propagandists.

I am delighted I was proven wrong. He upheld his journalistic integrity.

He continually allowed Trump to interrupt Hillary. Just because he help trump's feet to the fire on 2 or 3 questions, I won't go as far and say he did a great job. If he had fully done his job, Trump would not be allowed to interrupt like that.

that's when Trumpet spouts his best nonsense.

Gave Trump a chance to gather his thoughts while she had to bring it with no time to mentally prep.

He was a HORRIBLE moderator. I just can't believe that people did not see the bias, the favoritism, the ignoring of rudeness and interruptions, and the bit of mansplaining that he tried to pull. He was a sexist asshole. I don't think his father would be pleased. Regardless of party affiliation, his father didn't carry political water like that.

Wallace brought up a quote from a speech Hillary made a few years ago to bankers in which she used the phrase "open borders" without mentioning that she had been talking about financial transactions and necessary international procedures and regulations for them. Plus he ignored the fact that Trump had used the same phrase in a similar context a few years ago. They made a big deal about it, as though they had caught her in a lie and proved that she wants to remove all border protections.

Chris Wallace is a cringing, cowardly, sexist, Conald-enabling, woefully biased Fauxsnooze asswipe. He is NOT a "journalist" -- he is a HACK.

He couldn't hold a candle to his old man, and he never will.

He was really good. Thanks Chris.

interrupt and go over his time constantly, mansplain, and ask biased, slanted questions that were softballs to the unprepared orange blivet up on the stage.

He was HORRIBLE.

No need to 'eat crow,' he should be buying us all porterhouse steaks for having to watch his shit performance.


And even at that, with all that advantage, Trump couldn't survive. He is INEPT.

and then trumpet could spew nonsense as a rebuttal without knowing fact 1 about anything.

surprised . He did a good job.

He did fact check Trump a few times.

I think he was the best in this cycle.

He didn't walk over Wallace.

But not Lester Anderson or Martha

you could hear a bit of trembling in Wallace's voice. This was a very difficult event to manage, with the candidates going at it hard and the audience trying to jump in.

I am glad Wallace was the moderator because that pretty much eliminates the possibility of Trump claiming the moderator was against him. And Hillary did what she needed to do. She was masterful.

Ultimately, this is all about whom you can trust to keep their head in a crisis. What we have seen is that Trump, at his very best, can remain under control for 20 minutes. After that, he becomes a human pinball. And we have also seen just how easy it is to set him off. Anybody think Putin wouldn't know how to push those buttons?

But other than that, the sanity of this debate was after Trump was highly encouraged and coached to not go off script. But that didn't last long of course, as you note. Trump became unhinged at around the 20-30 minute mark and he couldn't recover.

The irony is that if Trump simply stayed fucking calm for the entire debate he would've won. But he couldn't do it.

As I and many other observers knew he couldn't do. It's Trump.

did a decent job. Which only highlighted Trump's incredible inadequacies. There was no contest, folks. Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Despite all the whining to the contrary.

Boom!

There was a distinct bias to his language, the way he phrased the question. But it gave Clinton a chance to swing hard, and she hit a few out of the park. And he kept Trump on his leash, to some extent.

Within the first 5 minutes.

If Wallace were going to slant disgustingly it would have been via tone and emphasis to Hillary on the first question, regarding the Supreme Court.

Once that didn't happen I knew I had been overly fearful toward Wallace's performance. It was fine, other than allowing Trump to hog the final answer several times. However, since Trump was rambling incoherently by that point, it didn't help his cause or hurt Hillary.

I was frankly shocked that Wallace didn't mention the deplorables line, and that he didn't hit the email topic with overboard emphasis. Hillary seemed more willing to talk about WikiLeaks than Wallace was determined to devote time to it.

I think he may have done the best job out of everybody, and I don't say that lightly, as I'm highly suspicious of
Faux News, and I was really prepared to hate him.

I thought he'd never finish asking the first one about SCOTUS appointments.

Except for Trump, of course.

Because it caused Trump to shit all over himself. I actually thought the plan was that Trump would say, "Of course I will accept the results of the election." And I think that was the plan. Pence telegraphed it before the debate. But when push came to shove Trump could not physically make himself say it, because in fact he cannot accept a loss as that means he is a loser.

He stuck primarily to policy and was fair in keeping the time to answer & reply fairly equal.

I thought Anderson Cooper was pretty good in his debate. I've seen other moderators who do pretty well too.

The main reason I liked this one is that I feel it allowed each candidate to explain & outline their policy positions. Obviously as a liberal democrat I preferred Hillary Clinton's policies over those of the immature dude.

Good job Chris Wallace.

but he did.

over and over and over again, and mansplaining Clinton?

Yeah, he did a good job, all right....a real good job.

Haven't experienced it throughout their careers as many women have. It's the responsibility of the moderator to at least limit and call attention to it.

Trump bullied him and he rolled over a few times.

His father must be spinning in his grave.

it's not just women who get that treatment--if you are black, or brown, or tawny, or have an accent, or look, in any way, different from the guys who graduated with Wally Cleaver, you're gonna get that same treatment. YES, the women get it the worst, but I hope they know that they have allies in the multi-colored, multi-accented community of men as well, who have put up with that same "You're Different So That Means You Must Be Stupid" bias of the male caucasian hierarchy.

The moderator was one of the "owners" of the privileged road, not one who is trying to break new ground, so he didn't see it--or chose to ignore it, because he was carrying water for the GOP.

which meant she was supposed to have two minutes. About 30 seconds in, Trump interrupted her and took over answering the question. Wallace just sat there and let it happen without a peep.

Most of the questions asked were framed and informed by the thoughts of the RW fever swamps.

Other than that, yeah, he did well.

Who got "scolded?" Hint: Not Trump.

And Wallace is supposed to be a "good moderator?"

FUCK him. Pardon my Freedom French!

This was the best debate as far as both the moderation and the format, an example of how it should be done.

He maintained authority and control, gave more than enough time for responses, his follow up questions were appropriate, the flow was good, even if tense at times.

Even though he works for Fox he's basically a straight journalist, like his father was.

Lester Holt wasn't that good, Elaine Quijano was awful, Anderson/Radditz was ok but the weird hybrid debate/townhall format was really at fault in that one.

repeated rudeness and interruptions.

He was no Mike Wallace--he was a sniveling and biased coward. He tried to mansplain HRC at one point--he came off like an asshole.


Even at that, Clinton blew the doors off. She crushed Trump. She overcame a shit moderator.

I'm sure he has conservative biases, but he seems smart enough to know that not only is Trump NOT a conservative, but that he will wreck what's left of his party if he becomes president.

Why not climate change? Family leave? Better protection of our food supply?

He was focused on policy and fitness

I think he and most at Faux Nees abhor Drumpf and aren't willing to do him any favors.

but he gave Trump the last word on nearly every topic. Also he did that at the end. The fact that Trump could not take advantage of this is a testament to how bad a candidate he is.

Also how could he let Trump get away with the "nasty woman" comment while Clinton was answering his question. He really should have called Trump out on that one after Clinton finished her answer. Remind him of how a presidential candidate should behave.

I would be curious to see the number of interruptions count. I got to think it will be highly skewed toward Trump again.

But no less than Howard Dean once told me that Wallace was the closest thing Fox "News" had to a journalist. Howard also told me about 7 years ago that there was a lot more to Tim Kaine than most people thought, too. Maybe I should trust his judgment more, and my own biases less.

on track, much more so than the previous debates.

impressed. I personally saw no bias. The questions he asked were completely appropriate for both candidates, and he was in control. I watched with a friend (who's very picky) and we both thought he was one of the best, if not the best, moderators we've ever seen-what an amazing night for liberal political geeks!

Reminding us that he really could do the corporate journalism thing passably well, though, just makes me resent his usual propagandist role even more.

After he stated publicly that he wasn't going to fact check the candidates and considering he is on Fox News I thought that he would tank the debate in Trump's favor.

He was the most successful moderator in trying to get the candidates to drill down on the topics. He did call Trump out on a few things and let Trump sink himself when Trump insisted on doing so.


Even with putting out some questions that would have set up a better debater to take down Hillary nothing was going to help Trump.

Trump is truly his own worst enemy.

I had been dismayed that a Fox anchor was allowed to be a moderator by the debate commission (how low do we go?), but Wallace honored his responsibility.

Wallace may have felt that playing it straight is now the way to go.

and how he himself is portrayed in the history books, but not the outcome of the presidential election.

"The history of the third 2016 Presidential Debate - How a simple but proud journalist changed the face of debates forever"
By Chris Wallace

mentioned for all the wrong reasons. There will be a lot of books written about, or that otherwise examine, this election in various disciplines. Plus, Fox's role as a political player is already the subject of some books.

He can't grab those women by their whatevers anymore.

to defend. There were no discussions of issues such as jobs (trades is a cop out), racial discrimination, the environment, education, our decaying infrastructure, the changing role of the military, consumer debt, or policing.

Wallace only looks good because Trump was so awful. He was bigly awful.

He did ok.

shade of "good."

If you're a Democrat, and a person who believes in equality in ALL its forms, that performance was a fucking disgrace.


The privilege...it burns!!!!!

smDh!!!!!!

None of the other moderators was able to do that. Perhaps this is the case that Trump was actually polite for the first 20 minutes, thinking that he couldn't blame a Faux moderator of being in the tank for Hillary. So perhaps the other mods never had a chance, because they had to deal with the 4-year-old Trump from the very first minute of the debate.

Nobody here is saying that Wallace was objective, only that he did a pretty good job of having a debate where the contestants could actually state their views. Hillary was on fire and easily overcame any inherent bias from Wallace.

The "good moderator" is a relative thing. Imagine how it might have been if Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol, Krautheimer or one of those other Faux personalities had been the sole moderator.

There is no excuse for a real "journalist" to slant ANYTHING.

He softballed Trump all night. He allowed him to interrupt THIRTY FIVE TIMES. HRC interrupted ten times--after being stepped on time and time again--and got MANSPLAINED by that hair-dyed asshole.


And with the O'Reilly/Kristol/Krautheimer shit? Are you SERIOUS????? How OFFENSIVE!

Those idiots are commentators, not reporters--but how weird that your only defense is "It could have been worse."

NO NO NO--or as Trump would say....Wrong. Wrong!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

He's either a journalist or a shill. He can't be both as one is exclusive of the other. Wallace was a shill and he merits NO praise. His daddy, he ain't, and he Never Will Be.

Your comments are supportive of a VERY LOW BAR for Trump. "He created the atmosphere of a real debate....." (atmosphere? Really? Please!) even as he fucked over Clinton with biased questions and refused to call Trump on his misbehaviors while tut-tutting HRC when she responded in kind (far fewer times, too).

She kicked his ass DESPITE these challenges.

If Trump had been faced with a left wing moderator who tossed Clinton softballs and allowed her to interrupt and mock and talk over her time, over and over again, the wingnut brigade would be demanding BLOOD. Probably from her eyes and "where evers" no doubt.


You really should recalibrate--I don't think you even SEE what you are saying, and the approach you are offering, here. Put the shoe on the other foot (OUR foot, frankly).

It's NOT acceptable to let a moderator be a sexist, wingnut asshole and insist that "It could have been worse." PFFFFFT.


It's not a good look. I think this thread is bogus praise for a LOSER moderator, frankly.

JMO, YMMV.

different things. I admit, my expectoration was based on what Fox folks normally do, so that might tint my opinion, BUT, I thought he did a solid job, regardless of party affiliation.

Honestly, automatically sneering at them simply because Murdoch signs their paychecks is as bad as how some of their more vehement, virulent, vile, vampire-like villains vilify viewers while claiming victimhood verily, while violating voters' values.

To quote the Donald.

This has to do with WALLACE's actions as a moderator.



He forfeited his "journalistic integrity."

Did he not let Trump repeatedly go over his time, and scold HRC for doing the same? Why yes, he did.

Did he not let Trump interrupt thirty FIVE times, and when Clinton finally responded in kind (a mere ten times), he MANSPLAINED her? Why yes, he did.

Were his questions not formulated from a wingnut perspective? Why yes, they were.

Did he not pitch the tough questions to HRC, in order to give Trump time to figure out the topic? Why yes, he did.

And did he not give both the first AND the last question to Clinton (NOT DONE if you're any good at this) , in order to make HER have to think on her feet while Trump had time to ruminate? Why yes--he DID.

Your "automatic sneering" comment is unsupported by the evidence. This is "sneering for cause" and if you can't see it, then YOU need to recalibrate. You didn't see what people who are used to getting shit on, second guessed, talked down to, treated like they are less-than, by the real "establishment" -- not the lame, fake, made-up one -- have to deal with every damn day. He was sexist, dismissive, condescending and he set a VERY low bar.

He should not be praised or enabled. He was a reliable tool of the GOP and even at that, he couldn't hand the win to the Conald.

smDh.