Grade Lester Holt's performance as moderator.

[Panda Express]

grade

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

I gave him a B. He did pretty well considering who he was up with (against?)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

D- because he didn't go full on Candy Crowley, but was biased.  Voted F.

[Lief 🗽]

I thought he was exceptional.

[Santander]

D, he approached Candy Crowley territory with the "fact" checking.

[ProudModerate2]

B

[Helsinkian]

C. The questions he chose favoured Clinton (no questions on immigration, Trump's main issue), and he was unable to stop the crowd from applauding several times.

[Suburbia]

B.

[Xing]

B, since he did a decent job, though could've respected the time limits a bit better, and done a better job of preventing the audience from responding. To everyone whining about how he's "biased" because he called out Trump for accusing him of lying: It should be the job of moderators and journalists to hold candidates accountable, and not let them blatantly lie. The American people deserve to know the truth, not the version of reality that sounds nicer.

[IceSpear]

C. The questions he chose favoured Clinton (no questions on immigration, Trump's main issue), and he was unable to stop the crowd from applauding several times.

What was he supposed to do? Leave his desk and start punching them in the face? I blame the Trump supporters applauding over MUH EMAILZ. Obviously the Hillary supporters weren't going to let them get away with that with no counter applause, and then it snowballed from there.

[JerryArkansas]

B.   Much better than I expected.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

D, he approached Candy Crowley territory with the "fact" checking.

Those pesky facts are so damned biased against Trump. It's just not fair!

That's why your cult leader can't release his tax returns: numbers are biased against Trump too!

(I voted 'A'. If Trump cultists are upset about facts, he must have done a great job.)

[Maxwell]

I give him a B. Pretty good if low energy performance, but I thought the low energyness of it actually worked because he let Trump answer his questions generally, which did not benefit Mr. Trump.

[7,052,770]

I was thinking C while it was happening, but upon further reflection, I'll bump him up to a B.

D- because he didn't go full on Candy Crowley, but was biased.  Voted F.

D, he approached Candy Crowley territory with the "fact" checking.

And sure enough, neither of you give any examples of Holt getting a "fact-check" wrong...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Fantastic. One of the few in the media who realizes that it's his job to report on the truth and that the truth is, Trump has said and done way more objectionable things than Hillary Clinton.

[SteveRogers]

A-

For those complaining about the moderator's role in "fact-checking," all of the initial questions were basically things like, "What are you going to do about ISIS?" and "So what's up with race relations?" Now, if a candidate responds to an open-ended question like that with rambling nonsense and "X [blatant lie]," then a proper followup question might be, "isn't it true that [reputable source] indicates that [not X]." If you have a problem with Holt calling out Trump's blatant revisionism re: the birther nonsense, then maybe the bias is with you.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Totes fantabulous! I was blown away by his performance, almost as good as the master himself.

[TarHeelDem]

B. Could have done more fact-checking, but overall a beautiful performance. #Don'tHassleTheHolt

[Gass3268]

Kellyanne Conway said he did a "great job"

[Illiniwek]

C. Kind of made clear when trump was spewing bs and talking too long, but didn't do anything to stop it. I get the split screen thing too, but I would have occasionally liked to see his face to know he was still there.

[PeteB]

C

A solid performance but he should have kept away from debating Trump. Also, the questions could have been more balanced.

[Kleine Scheiße]

D+.

Weak-willed Lester Holt got what was coming to him from Trump after the borderline horrifying way he treated O'Malley during his moderation of the Democratic debate. His fact-checking was acceptable. His softball questions towards his obviously preferred candidate were not.

[Pandaguineapig]

A-

His questions were somewhat favorable to Clinton and he let Trump get away with some b.s. but he was respectful and understood that the debate was about the two candidates and not himself unlike candy Crowley

[GoTfan]

I said B. I think he did a fine job, but was a bit too passive. Of course, this was the impression I got listening on the radio.

[Sir Mohamed]

C+. He let Trump get away with somethings or even refusing an answer. He didn’t answer how he would heal racial divisions. He just came up with a murder statistics in Chicago and the unconstitutional polices of Rudy Giuliani. He also didn’t answer how to prevent US citizens from terrorist attacks because his immigration ban, all he has, wouldn’t solve the problems. He also got away with not answering what to do about cyber-attacks from overseas.