GOP Debate Threads

[sirkickyass]

The Clown car moves on! Last night's was the most interesting even though it featured the least Trump Fireworks. Here's how I viewed what I saw last night.

The upshots that I got out of it:

Overall: The CNBC moderators were repeatedly criticized by the candidates for asking vicious questions and being mean. It appears we've reached the point where literally reading to candidates what their plans are qualifies as attack journalism.

Ben Carson: Just totally ****ing clueless. The guy was openly struggling to figure out 10% and 15% increments of big round numbers. Watching him try to tip at a restaurant must be a disaster.

Donald Trump: His biggest accomplishment so far was negotiating the debate down to two hours from three hours. That proves he would be a good president. Incredibly, that was an actual argument and not a joke.

Marco Rubio: The Madame and I think this guy is going to be the eventual nominee. He's made of Teflon.

Jeb Bush: This man is dead inside. He doesn't know why he agreed to be onstage either.

Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee: These guys are running for Vice President. It's incredibly clear they are edging each other for who can more reliably deliver evangelicals.

Carly Fiorina: She wants the tax code to be three pages long! I kept waiting for someone to ask how many pages HP's merger with Compaq was. Alas, no one was that quick-witted.

Chris Christie: This guy is a straight bully. You can tell that he was a prosecutor because he always acts like he has all the cards and all the power all the time, even when he's in 8th place. I'm astonished no one has said "Bridge-Ghazi" yet but frankly he's not worth using ammunition on. Also, he's still fat so his prominently placed neon fit bit is clearly an ironic accessory.

John Kasich: The Jon Huntsman memorial adult in the room who has no chance to win.

Rand Paul: I'm sure he'll still have fans when he's running again in 2032.

 

[Stoked]

I watched this debate. The moderators were absolute trash and were repeatedly booed by the crowd. They took personal shots at candidates and asked idiotic questions. These mods deserved 0 respect. Fantasy football? Comic book villains? Resign? Trash

Regardless of the clown car Rs on stage the CNBC mods were trash.

Bush, Huckabee, Kasich and Paul are dead men walking.

Cruz, I want him nowhere near deciding social issues. Same for Huckabee!

The Carson 10% v. 15% thing was the moderators doing and Carson told them right off it wasn't 10%. He is clearly the smartest man on stage. Problem is that he is also clearly the most low key and to conservative socially to win over any libs in a general election.

Agreed on Trump, guy is insane.

Christie, guy is brash and direct. Politics need that and it is refreshing. He isn't going anywhere.

Fiorina is now running on her record as a woman.

I agree that Rubio will be the eventual nominee. Smartest choice for the Rs honestly.

 

[sirkickyass]

I watched this debate. The moderators were absolute trash and were repeatedly booed by the crowd. They took personal shots at candidates and asked idiotic questions.

I'll direct you to this Ezra Klein post on the issue. This truly was an instance of asking substantive questions.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

Also, keep in mind who the audience was. This is an 11,000 seat venue that only had 1,000 seats filled. Those attendees were carefully controlled and friendly to the candidates. Audience reaction, let's say, was not representative of much of anything. They created a literal echo chamber.

The Carson 10% v. 15% thing was the moderators doing and Carson told them right off it wasn't 10%. He is clearly the smartest man on stage. Problem is that he is also clearly the most low key.

I view Carson as a lesson in personal humility. The man is living proof that you can be a genius at something specific but have no clue what is going on in areas outside of your expertise. He honestly appeared lost to me for the entire thing. Like a guy trying as hard as he could to remember what was on that flashcard he read last night. Patton Oswalt nailed the Carson thing. Intelligence and no wisdom.

Christie, guy is brash and direct. Politics need that and it is refreshing.

I've dealt with prosecutors before. A very large percentage of them act like that. The thing about those guys is they fare poorly the minute they work outside of government and they aren't literally holding you in custody and have all the cards. They also fold like cheap tables when you actually get them. That's been the Christie story in New Jersey. Christie is a charade but he's a less attractive charade than Rubio.

 

[Stoked]

I'll direct you to this Ezra Klein post on the issue. This truly was an instance of asking substantive questions.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

Where there some good questions? Yes. But the tone, wording and subject of many of these questions was absurd. The was an intentional hack job by CNBC. They even took jabs at candidates after their answers.

Like when they took a shot at Carson over his "vetting ability" and fitness to lead the nation because he did a paid speaking gig for a company they didn't like.

2-3 times the crowd didn't even let the mods finish asking their questions before they booed them down.

If I was an advisor I would have told my guy to go off and walk off stage. The mods were the worst I have seen in a debate and as a result of several initial questions being trash they lost all control. Having your candidate go off on the mods and demand a real debate and walk off would have been eaten up by the crowd.

I almost thought Christie was about to when he was pissed his question was about fantasy leagues and taxing them. This attitude of his is what endears him to so many. It will play against him strongly for those that don't like him and build him up for those that do. Big strength and big weakness all at the same time.

Plenty to dislike about the stances and policies of the people on stage but these mods were the worst I have ever seen.

 

[Stoked]

Just waiting for all sorts of "quotes" about bad mods to come out of this lol.

 

[Stoked]

CNN usually does the best in modding debates.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The moderators were an embarrassment last night. They were absolutely awful. Their attitudes were snarky, their facts were incorrect, their agenda was obvious. for someone trying to make up his mind from among the people on the stage the involvement of those moderators was an absolute joke. It would make a million times more sense to use moderators who were actually trying to decide which Republican candidate to vote for, rather than those three who clearly had a completely different plan.

I was more impressed with these candidates than I had been up to this point. I'm still disappointed in the choices we have to make (I wish there was someone I really felt strongly about) but I do feel it's critical that Hillary is not elected. I would agree that at this point Rubio looks like the most likely to eventually win. I would pick Romney over any of them in a heartbeat. In fact, I believe he would have been an excellent president.

 

[magic]

Overall: The CNBC moderators were repeatedly criticized by the candidates for asking vicious questions and being mean. It appears we've reached the point where literally reading to candidates what their plans are qualifies as attack journalism.

LOL the unbelievable bias in this statement ensures that nobody will take your post seriously. Yeah, stating a candidate's plans and then calling him a comic book villian is totally not attack journalism. GTFO.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

LOL the unbelievable bias in this statement ensures that nobody will take your post seriously. Yeah, stating a candidate's plans and then calling him a comic book villian is totally not attack journalism. GTFO.

This.

Liberals consistently try to marginalize conservative people and ideas by painting them as laughable, uninformed and/or callous. They become so comfortable in their cocoon of imagined intellectual superiority that their biases are completely invisible to them, even when the wording and tone are so slanted that they seem impossible to miss.

Even if you think these ideas are dumb, it is not impossible to ask about them (especially in this particular format where the moderator should facilitate but not interfere) in a non-biased or non-condescending way. BTW, the mods in that debate ought to make all of us very thankful for the mods on this site.

 

[sirkickyass]

LOL the unbelievable bias in this statement ensures that nobody will take your post seriously. Yeah, stating a candidate's plans and then calling him a comic book villian is totally not attack journalism. GTFO.

I'll just post this again because I can't do a better job explaining it than Vox did.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

The moderators did NOT call Trump a comic book villain. The question started like this: "Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it. Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit." and ended by asking why his policies sound like "a comic book version of a presidential campaign."

That question is tough. But it is NOT an ad hominem. The reality is that those proposals, as accurately stated, are outlandish. This is poe's law territory, if you were going to write a ridiculous policy platform that's pie in the sky it would be hard to top that one. John Kasich was the only person on stage willing to say as much and the moderators were attacked for effectively holding a candidate's feet to the fire. Paradoxically, that's exactly what we usually ask journalists in these situations to do.

The full text of the question that was framed as "Can Ben Carson do math?" is here:

"You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes," said moderator Becky Quick. "This is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. If you were to take a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?"

The ensuing exchange is worth quoting at length:

CARSON: The rate — the rate — the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.

QUICK: 15 percent still leaves you with a $1.1 trillion hole.

CARSON: You also have to get rid of all the deductions and all the loopholes. You also have to some strategically cutting in several places.

Remember, we have 645 federal agencies and sub-agencies. Anybody who tells me that we need every penny and every one of those is in a fantasy world.

So, also, we can stimulate the economy. That's gonna be the real growth engine. Stimulating the economy — because it's tethered down right now with so many regulations...

QUICK: You'd have to cut — you'd have to cut government about 40 percent to make it work with a $1.1 trillion hole.

CARSON: That's not true.

QUICK: That is true, I looked at the numbers.

CARSON: When — when we put all the facts down, you'll be able to see that it's not true, it works out very well.

That is a substantive question. What is the fair way to say "your math doesn't add up, please explain?"

 

[Stoked]

This lacks all tone, body posture, inability to control the debate and the multiple other attacks on candidates. Some of which have been stated in this very thread.

I am glad you keep bringing up Vox. If you care to look that are other media sites calling it a train wreck.

Defend the mods, that's fine. I won't budge from them being horrendous.

 

[♪alt13]

This.

Liberals consistently try to marginalize conservative people and ideas by painting them as laughable, uninformed and/or callous. They become so comfortable in their cocoon of imagined intellectual superiority that their biases are completely invisible to them, even when the wording and tone are so slanted that they seem impossible to miss.

Even if you think these ideas are dumb, it is not impossible to ask about them (especially in this particular format where the moderator should facilitate but not interfere) in a non-biased or non-condescending way. BTW, the mods in that debate ought to make all of us very thankful for the mods on this site.

FACT: If the Republicans nominate either Trump or Carson the next president will be a Democrat.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

FACT: If the Republicans nominate either Trump or Carson the next president will be a Democrat.

We all know which Democrat is getting the nomination. It is a woman who has become so comfortable lying to the American public that she believes there is nothing wrong with it. Amazingly, the media forgives/ignores her behavior again and again and again. If the Republicans can't find a candidate who can beat this unapologeticaly dishonest woman it will be a very sad day for this country.

 

[Stoked]

FACT: If the Republicans nominate either Trump or Carson the next president will be a Democrat.

Ugh, Trump or Clinton?

I might be sick.

 

[franklin]

I watched this debate. The moderators were absolute trash and were repeatedly booed by the crowd. They took personal shots at candidates and asked idiotic questions. These mods deserved 0 respect. Fantasy football? Comic book villains? Resign? Trash

Regardless of the clown car Rs on stage the CNBC mods were trash.

Where there some good questions? Yes. But the tone, wording and subject of many of these questions was absurd. The was an intentional hack job by CNBC. They even took jabs at candidates after their answers.

CNBC is consistently the most upright, honest, and unbiased media outlet in the world. They report to highly intellectual deep pockets who have no place for bias or spin. If you saw their questions as attacking it's most likely that you were offended by them not outright supporting your positions than it was any actual attacks on the candidates.

Your complaints seem to amount to nothing more than a panel challenging your guy(s) with real questions. That's what journalists are supposed to do. Also, who give a rats *** what a crowd full of conservatives boos? They're biased, they're going to boo anything that doesn't sing to their tune, just as you are right now.

 

[franklin]

I'll just post this again because I can't do a better job explaining it than Vox did.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

The moderators did NOT call Trump a comic book villain. The question started like this: "Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it. Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit." and ended by asking why his policies sound like "a comic book version of a presidential campaign."

That question is tough. But it is NOT an ad hominem. The reality is that those proposals, as accurately stated, are outlandish. This is poe's law territory, if you were going to write a ridiculous policy platform that's pie in the sky it would be hard to top that one. John Kasich was the only person on stage willing to say as much and the moderators were attacked for effectively holding a candidate's feet to the fire. Paradoxically, that's exactly what we usually ask journalists in these situations to do.

The full text of the question that was framed as "Can Ben Carson do math?" is here:



That is a substantive question. What is the fair way to say "your math doesn't add up, please explain?"

Not to mention how CNBC has helped build up Donald Trump by having him as a guest on their shows numerous times over the last several years. CNBC is always challenging but at the same time very respectful of their guests and let them get their opinion across.

I am glad you keep bringing up Vox. If you care to look that are other media sites calling it a train wreck.

In other words, the R candidates are all so wonky that they cannot stand up to real criticism from the best professional journalists who make a living day in and day out by questioning all sides of an idea.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

CNBC is consistently the most upright, honest, and unbiased media outlet in the world. They report to highly intellectual deep pockets who have no place for bias or spin. If you saw their questions as attacking it's most likely that you were offended by them not outright supporting your positions than it was any actual attacks on the candidates.

Your complaints seem to amount to nothing more than a panel challenging your guy(s) with real questions. That's what journalists are supposed to do. Also, who give a rats *** what a crowd full of conservatives boos? They're biased, they're going to boo anything that doesn't sing to their tune, just as you are right now.

You either didn't watch this particular debate or you do not believe that these candidates deserve professional treatment. The difference between the way this debate was moderated and the way the Democratic one was is impossible to miss.

 

[♪alt13]

Ugh, Trump or Clinton?

I might be sick.

Right? It's ****in insanity.

I never thought Clinton was electable in the general election but against these clowns she'll win easily.

 

[franklin]

You either didn't watch this particular debate or you do not believe that these candidates deserve professional treatment. The difference between the way this debate was moderated and the way the Democratic one was is impossible to miss.

CNBC hosted a democratic party debate?

 

[franklin]

To be fair, I think Elmo and the Sesame Street gang should host the republican party debates. In the name of fairness.