CNBC GOP Debate

Mr. Deez

Mr. Deez

Beer Prophet
I'm surprised no one has commented on this. I spent the last several days entertaining guests, traveling, and drinking beer, so I didn't see the debate until this afternoon. A few thoughts on this.

First, it was the most poorly moderated debate I've ever seen. The moderators asked far too many irrelevant questions (fantasy football???), jumped into smack-talk and editorializing, and often lost control of the debate. Republicans always blame the media for this sort of thing. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. They're right about this crew. These guys suck ***, and the RNC should never work with them again.

Second, Trump was more civil than I've ever seen him. He somewhat de-emphasized immigration and was much kinder to his opponents on stage. He still bragged about how great he is, but he came across as much more serious than he has in the past.

Third, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Jeb Bush need to quit this race. Paul isn't connecting with anybody, and I think he's hurting his long term political future. It's just not going to happen for him. I actually like a lot of what Mike Huckabee has to say, especially about investing more in medical research as a means of controlling healthcare costs. I'm not sure why few talk about that angle, but I think he makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, he's more than just a preacher up there. He does have some brains on policy. Nevertheless, his overall appeal is narrow, and he's not going to be able to raise the kind of money it takes to win. Bush is so uninspired that it's painful to watch him. His heart is not in this, and it shows. He needs to back out and be a team player - should endorse Rubio.

Fourth, I think Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were the big winners. They were both sharp, focused, stayed on point, and distinguished themselves from the others. Chris Christie was almost as good.

Finally, I thought Carson, Kasich, Trump, and Fiorina tread water. They didn't hurt themselves but didn't help themselves either.
 
I watched only 25% of the debate. I'd agree that the moderators were abhorrent. The attempts to "ask the hard questions" crossed the line. I heard it best on one of the Sunday morning news shows when one of the commentators stated (paraphrasing) "the moderators lacked the depth to ask the tough second follow-up question".

Unfortunately, CNBC just played right into the Republican narrative that "they are out to get us" which I don't believe is true of all mainstream media. Anderson Cooper asked some very tough questions in the Dem debate.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I watched only 25% of the debate. I'd agree that the moderators were abhorrent. The attempts to "ask the hard questions" crossed the line. I heard it best on one of the Sunday morning news shows when one of the commentators stated (paraphrasing) "the moderators lacked the depth to ask the tough second follow-up question".

Unfortunately, CNBC just played right into the Republican narrative that "they are out to get us" which I don't believe is true of all mainstream media. Anderson Cooper asked some very tough questions in the Dem debate.
Click to expand...

Well said. Personally, I don't have a problem with tough policy questions. When the candidates are blabbing about how they're going to adopt a flat ten percent income tax, I don't have a problem with moderator asking about the impact on the budget, how they'll respond to Democratic criticisms, etc. The same degree of scrutiny should get thrown at Democrats when they talk about free tuition, single payer health care, etc. However, these moderators went beyond that and resorted to cheap shots that had little to do with policy.

And I would agree about Cooper. I'm sure he votes Democratic, but I think he has enough integrity to generally keep his opinions from impacting his duties as a journalist.
 
I pretty much agree with everything in the OP. Terrible moderators. Several candidates need to go. Rubio and Cruz were the big winners. The debate solidified my opinion that Rubio will win it all. Brief post but I thought Deez nailed it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm surprised no one has commented on this. I spent the last several days entertaining guests, traveling, and drinking beer, so I didn't see the debate until this afternoon. A few thoughts on this.

First, it was the most poorly moderated debate I've ever seen. The moderators asked far too many irrelevant questions (fantasy football???), jumped into smack-talk and editorializing, and often lost control of the debate. Republicans always blame the media for this sort of thing. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. They're right about this crew. These guys suck ***, and the RNC should never work with them again.

Second, Trump was more civil than I've ever seen him. He somewhat de-emphasized immigration and was much kinder to his opponents on stage. He still bragged about how great he is, but he came across as much more serious than he has in the past.

Third, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Jeb Bush need to quit this race. Paul isn't connecting with anybody, and I think he's hurting his long term political future. It's just not going to happen for him. I actually like a lot of what Mike Huckabee has to say, especially about investing more in medical research as a means of controlling healthcare costs. I'm not sure why few talk about that angle, but I think he makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, he's more than just a preacher up there. He does have some brains on policy. Nevertheless, his overall appeal is narrow, and he's not going to be able to raise the kind of money it takes to win. Bush is so uninspired that it's painful to watch him. His heart is not in this, and it shows. He needs to back out and be a team player - should endorse Rubio.

Fourth, I think Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were the big winners. They were both sharp, focused, stayed on point, and distinguished themselves from the others. Chris Christie was almost as good.

Finally, I thought Carson, Kasich, Trump, and Fiorina tread water. They didn't hurt themselves but didn't help themselves either.
Click to expand...

Well said, Deez. Republicans have always complained that debate moderators are hard on them and easy on Democrats. I've never bought it. I think the previous moderators have been tough but fair to both Republicans and Democrats, and I've found the debates to be informative. This time, I thought the moderators crossed a line.

It's not that the questions themselves were unfair. With a few notable exceptions, most of the questions were things I wanted to hear the answer to. Overall, I didn't think the questions were meaningfully less substantive, or meaningfully harder, than in the prior debates, Democratic or Republican.

What was different was how the questions are worded. To frame a good question, it is often necessary to have a substantive lead-in, which will inevitably editorialize to some degree. However, more than a few of the questions in this debate included not just editorial comments, but unnecessary jabs.

For example, the lead-in to the very first question was a litany of Trump's crazy ideas and statements. I thought the lead-in was a fair set-up for a reasonable question -- whether Trump's candidacy should be taken seriously. But the question was phrased in terms of whether Trump is a "comic book" candidate. Good question, unnecessary jab.
 
I've often wondered why the RNC doesn't insist of some kind of parity when it comes to moderators. Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer killed Mitt's chances to win that debate in the 2012 election. I doubt either one of them ever voted Republican in their lives.

I realize you don't want the political parties to be able to place "their guy" as a moderator in the debates, someone who will only ask the questions that they want asked (you know, like an Obama press conference), but come on. The debates are always packed with liberal mods.
 
Clean said:
I've often wondered why the RNC doesn't insist of some kind of parity when it comes to moderators. Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer killed Mitt's chances to win that debate in the 2012 election. I doubt either one of them ever voted Republican in their lives.

I realize you don't want the political parties to be able to place "their guy" as a moderator in the debates, someone who will only ask the questions that they want asked (you know, like an Obama press conference), but come on. The debates are always packed with liberal mods.
Click to expand...

At this point, I think that they should just give up on having a normal debate for the general election. Have two mods, one conservative and one liberal. They each get an equal number of questions and they can throw softballs to their guy and hardballs at the other. Each side will have a chance to "shine" and still face some tough questions. Neither side can complain about moderation being unfair.
 
Larry T Spider said:
At this point, I think that they should just give up on having a normal debate for the general election. Have two mods, one conservative and one liberal. They each get an equal number of questions and they can throw softballs to their guy and hardballs at the other. Each side will have a chance to "shine" and still face some tough questions. Neither side can complain about moderation being unfair.
Click to expand...

I may be naïve but I think that further politicizes an already political process. There are very reputable media personalities that have done excellent jobs. I think we could all agree on a handful of media heavyweights that have delivered in the past. The problem is the desire to allow partisan news organizations (FoxNews/MSNBC) to host the debates OR when we have fringe personalities who try to make a name for themselves (Cindy Crowley). For the general debates, we need to do everything possible to inhibit partisan zealots from sitting in the moderator chair. Heck, I'd be happy if Jim Lehrer did every debate this cycle. Tim Russert (RIP) and Tom Brokaw were excellent in the past.
 
Larry and SH,

I think you both make good points, and I wonder why we can't incorporate both ideas. Not long ago, I watched one of the '84 debates (Reagan v. Mondale), and Fred Barnes was part of a panel of questioners. He was clearly coming from the Right, but he wasn't a loudmouth and wasn't a blatant hack for the White House either.

Here's an option. You have a real moderator who's not in the sack with either side (a Jim Lehrer-type), but you also have a panel that has a left-leaning and right-leaning questioner. However, you don't get partisan blowhards. Instead, you get guys who think for themselves and have real insight. Think David Brooks, not Sean Hannity.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Larry and SH,

I think you both make good points, and I wonder why we can't incorporate both ideas. Not long ago, I watched one of the '84 debates (Reagan v. Mondale), and Fred Barnes was part of a panel of questioners. He was clearly coming from the Right, but he wasn't a loudmouth and wasn't a blatant hack for the White House either.

Here's an option. You have a real moderator who's not in the sack with either side (a Jim Lehrer-type), but you also have a panel that has a left-leaning and right-leaning questioner. However, you don't get partisan blowhards. Instead, you get guys who think for themselves and have real insight. Think David Brooks, not Sean Hannity.
Click to expand...

I prefer that idea to mine, I just don't know if that is possible in this environment. If it is, why in the world did the republicans end up with the clowns that they got? If its easy to get great mods then heads should be rolling at the party HQ for that disaster.
 
While I was disgusted by the shameless bias exhibited by CNBC, I was more disgusted by the constant mismanagement at the RNC. Why did they ever agree to letting any NBC affiliate hosting one of their primary debates? Were they really surprised that any NBC network would exhibit a strong left wing bias? They just never seem to learn from their previous mistakes such as agreeing to let Crowley moderate one of the 2012 debates.

I don't see the Democrats working with Fox News on their primary debates and Fox is the most watched cable news network. I just don't get why the RNC is so clueless in this regard.
 
As I read through these posts, I tried to think of a potential moderator who could remain unbiased. I came up with nothing. Deez' post about Jim Leher is one I missed, but would be a great option.
 
theiioftx said:
As I read through these posts, I tried to think of a potential moderator who could remain unbiased. I came up with nothing. Deez' post about Jim Leher is one I missed, but would be a great option.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I just ripped off SH's suggestion.
 
UTChE96 said:
While I was disgusted by the shameless bias exhibited by CNBC, I was more disgusted by the constant mismanagement at the RNC. Why did they ever agree to letting any NBC affiliate hosting one of their primary debates? Were they really surprised that any NBC network would exhibit a strong left wing bias? They just never seem to learn from their previous mistakes such as agreeing to let Crowley moderate one of the 2012 debates.

I don't see the Democrats working with Fox News on their primary debates and Fox is the most watched cable news network. I just don't get why the RNC is so clueless in this regard.
Click to expand...

The RNC isn't run by the sharpest people. I think they assumed that people from CNBC would operate more fairly than MSNBC people, because it's a business network. However, the entire NBC operation has largely gone Left, and the DNC certainly wouldn't let Fox Business moderate their debate. They weren't going to behave like Rachel Maddow, but the RNC should have known they'd be hostile.
 
Why does this guy get to moderate a deabte?

CWUD1JsWcAI0ajT.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top