Was the CNBC debate a political attack? A quiz!

[Rukh]

So a lot of air has been spent on who won or lost the CNBC debate, but it looks like the result went exactly as I predicted. The whole field crying victim in unison. The RNC has accused CNBC of being too tough on the GOP contenders, which I guess is considered unfair to people who may lead the worlds leading superpower.

They contrast this with Democratic debates where candidates are asked softball questions such as "Governor O’Malley, the concern of voters about you is that you tout our record as Baltimore’s mayor. As we all know, we all saw it. That city exploded in riots and violence in April. The current top prosecutor in Baltimore, also a Democrat, blames your zero tolerance policies for sowing the seeds of unrest. Why should Americans trust you with the country when they see what’s going on in the city that you ran for more than seven years?" pfft why don't you just powder his butt cheeks while you're down there?

How tough was CNBC really though? Washington Post contributor Philip Bump has formulated a quiz to see if you can pick out which questions were from the CNBC debate and which were from other debates:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...other-debates/

How did you do on the quiz? Was CNBC really more harsh than other debate avenues or is this a political tactic?

[Revi]

No relevant question is too tough for someone wanting to be the leader of a country. If the GOP wants better treatment in some way, thy could start with focusing more on policy and less on personal attacks.

[obdigore]

It's just more GOP trying to claim they are the victims.

For a party of generally rich, white, old people, they sure do seem to have this communal need to be the underdog.

[Acidbaron]

I find all american debates to be rather easy on the canidates, here they get grilled a lot more even weekly on our sunday polical morning show. Were both majority and opposition get pushed into a corner to explain their statements and even political moves. Outrageous statements get even fact checked.

[Rukh]

I find all american debates to be rather easy on the canidates, here they get grilled a lot more even weekly on our sunday polical morning show. Were both majority and opposition get pushed into a corner to explain their statements and even political moves. Outrageous statements get even fact checked.

Fact checking!
http://www.politifact.com/

[usiris]

Who cares?

If you cant explain why I should vote for you with your 10% flat tax that by your own estimates falls short 800 billion a year or how you wont say anything to become the president, then you shouldn't be running.

[obdigore]

I find all american debates to be rather easy on the canidates, here they get grilled a lot more even weekly on our sunday polical morning show. Were both majority and opposition get pushed into a corner to explain their statements and even political moves. Outrageous statements get even fact checked.

I wish we could have that. I in the US the presidential candidates should have 3 nationally televised debates where everything they said is fact-checked on air. Of course, I also think they should be forbidden to lie about their opponents, and should only be allowed to claim their positions and what they are going to do for the country if elected.

The entire culture of fearmongering around elections needs to be ended in the US.

[Acidbaron]

Fact checking!
http://www.politifact.com/

Yes but here it happens on our national TV news programming. You don't have to get out of your way and they do it decent as well in the sense that 'they are right on that if this and that' 'they are wrong on that if this and that'. Basically removing the nonsense they can hide behind.

We had things were the parties made a claim and it gets completely dissected to the point that they even toned down on the one liners.

Best point is, this is a state tv station completely funded with tax money.

[Bakis]

Ignoring the victim complex of GOP the debate is widely percieved as being really poor.
CNBC fucked up. I'm not sure it is in the interest of GOP to cut ties with them though as they wrote in a letter to CNBC.
Might want to give CNBC a chanse to get their shit in order given the amount of debates left.
Or GOP could not do that and even more paint themselves into the victim complex corner.

[micgre8162]

I suppose your opinion of whether or not candidates were asked softball questions depends on your political point-of-view. I scored 10/14 on that quiz. Not too bad considering I'm still waiting on my coffee to brew.

That question you quoted is a legitimate question. It questions Gov. O'Malley's judgment, which is important to consider with someone who would be President. If you extend the question a bit, the parallels between Gov. O'Malley's policies contributing to unrest and Pres. Bush's policies contributing to mid-East unrest are apparent. So the question is basically, if your flawed judgment led to the Baltimore riots, why should we trust you to make a similar mistake on a larger scale?

Candidates should be asked hard, probing questions to find out if they are capable of doing the job. I don't object to the questions CNBC asked (mostly), but I do object to how they managed the debate. They should have enforced time limits and forced candidates to answer the question asked from the start. If you'll recall from the previous two Republican and the one Democratic debate, that's exactly what the moderators did.

I wish that six or eight of the Republicans would drop out of the race, so that these debates can have some actual meaning. You can have a debate with three or four people, although it's better with two. Ten or fifteen people in a debate is just unmanageable. In a pre-Citizen United world, a lot of these campaigns would be gone or wouldn't have even been started. Now, a campaign just needs one wealthy donor to stay afloat. I think it's an embarrassment.

[Acidbaron]

Ignoring the victim complex of GOP the debate is widely percieved as being really poor.
CNBC fucked up. I'm not sure it is in the interest of GOP to cut ties with them though as they wrote in a letter to CNBC.
Might want to give CNBC a chanse to get their shit in order given the amount of debates left.
Or GOP could not do that and even more paint themselves into the victim complex corner.

I'm not surprised that they take on that role, it is almost a given that they would object to CNBC coverage.

All this points out is the problem of news coverage in the states it being way too divided and based on targeting an audience, their audience for revenue purposes.
That's not news reporting sadly. Since regular CNBC viewers expect them to treat the GOP canidates harshly, and GOP supporters also expect this to happen to merely magnify their view of 'other new station reporting'.

All the more reason, why private money should -stay the fuck out of news reporting- in my honest opinion.

[micgre8162]

I find all american debates to be rather easy on the canidates, here they get grilled a lot more even weekly on our sunday polical morning show. Were both majority and opposition get pushed into a corner to explain their statements and even political moves. Outrageous statements get even fact checked.

That used to happen here. I miss the days when moderators would call out lies on the spot. I feel that is part of the moderators' job. I love politifact, but unless the lie is exposed at the moment it happens, while the candidate can squirm trying to explain it, people won't pay attention.

[Acidbaron]

I wish we could have that. I in the US the presidential candidates should have 3 nationally televised debates where everything they said is fact-checked on air. Of course, I also think they should be forbidden to lie about their opponents, and should only be allowed to claim their positions and what they are going to do for the country if elected.

The entire culture of fearmongering around elections needs to be ended in the US.

That's something you don't see in the US, here and in the UK etc also if candidates go back to their usual rhetoric the moderator interrupts them and ask them to clarify that point on their question.

these are people in charge of leading and deciding things for millions even representing a large chunk, they should never have an easy time explaining themselves if they take unpopular stances or choices they should be forced to explain it. Since otherwise if they can't why did they do that in the first place.

[Noradin]

Now, a campaign just needs one wealthy donor to stay afloat. I think it's an embarrassment.

"Just needing one" or "needing just one"? Personally I find the former more troubling.

[Spectral]

For a party of generally rich, white, old people, they sure do seem to have this communal need to be the underdog.

As far as the candidates go, I think you may have the wrong party - all of the Democratic candidates are rich, old, and white (I guess maybe Bernie isn't "rich"). The Republican candidates are younger and more diverse by a wide margin.

In any case, when did "white" and "rich" become sneer terms?

- - - Updated - - -

...I do object to how they managed the debate. They should have enforced time limits and forced candidates to answer the question asked from the start.

I agree completely with this - allowing candidates to just say whatever they were in the mood to mood to without any serious limit on the time they had available turned the event into an even more pointless circus than usual.

[Rorke]

Leftists like the majority of the losers on these forums will say that CNBC was fair and the Red team are just a bunch of sensitive bitches that have nothing good to say other than to try and direct issues with "media is left wing durrr" propaganda.

Right Wing people will say that CNBC wasn't fair because the liberal media is always tougher on the Red team than they are with the Blue team. Then these people will compare both the red team debates with the blue team debates to argue further.

Center people will try and be all critical and will use "wellllllll it was fair but..."

Thread is over. This shit is so tired and old.

[Rukh]

As far as the candidates go, I think you may have the wrong party - all of the Democratic candidates are rich, old, and white (I guess maybe Bernie isn't "rich"). The Republican candidates are younger and more diverse by a wide margin.

In any case, when did "white" and "rich" become sneer terms?

- - - Updated - - -


I agree completely with this - allowing candidates to just say whatever they were in the mood to mood to without any serious limit on the time they had available turned the event into an even more pointless circus than usual.

I don't think he was saying them as sneer terms but that people who are rich old white people really don't deserve to play the underdog card.

[micgre8162]

I'm not surprised that they take on that role, it is almost a given that they would object to CNBC coverage.

All this points out is the problem of news coverage in the states it being way too divided and based on targeting an audience, their audience for revenue purposes.
That's not news reporting sadly. Since regular CNBC viewers expect them to treat the GOP canidates harshly, and GOP supporters also expect this to happen to merely magnify their view of 'other new station reporting'.

All the more reason, why private money should -stay the fuck out of news reporting- in my honest opinion.

I had a similar conversation with one of my very conservative coworkers. Oddly enough, we both agreed that debates should be broadcast on as wide a range as possible, not on cable stations that some people may not get.

[Shennanigans]

Its ludicrous to even ask a question like this on this forum. Its so biased. OFC there is a difference in the debates, the mediators were all leftist.

[Rorke]

I agree completely with this - allowing candidates to just say whatever they were in the mood to mood to without any serious limit on the time they had available turned the event into an even more pointless circus than usual.

These stupid debates are always a circus no matter what the moderators do. The shit is literally fucking scripted from start to finish. Politics is as real as WWE is real. It's fake actors following a scripted fake storyline. The winner has already been decided years ago.

Nothing that comes from these politicians is insightful and what they say doesn't matter anyway because they aren't regular people like us. I can't believe some of you actually take these things seriously like somehow if the right person wins and says the right things, the whole world is going to somehow turn into this grand utopia.

It's not going to change. This world is the devils playground.