One thing that really impressed me with the GOP debate was just how brutal the questions were from Fox. I find that liberals ask Obama questions like; why are you so wonderful? and what is your favorite flavor of ice cream?
By contrast, look at the withering questions that conservatives gave to the GOP candidates last night. Megan Kelly took Trump apart on multiple occasions; "When did you actually become a Republican?”
Chris Wallace had some very sharp questions for Scott Walker at point saying, "Given your record in Wisconsin, why should voters believe you?”
There is no WAY Obama or Hillary would ever face these kind of questions from a liberal panel. Three cheers for Fox. They did a great job.
I think one of the reasons for this is that liberals usually see anyone who disagrees with them as evil. You hate blacks, or the poor, or gays, etc. etc.
While conservatives view people with whom they disagree as just wrong and deluded, but not evil. So if anyone asks Obama or Hillary a tough question, s/he is right away tagged with one of these labels, homophobic, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, etc. To avoid this, reporters and TV hosts just don’t ask the hard questions lest they be associated with one of these hate groups.
I was pleasantly surprised too. I was sure the questions would all be along the lines of “Just how disastrous would Hillary be as President?” and so forth.
The kiddie-table questioning was nice, too, starting with “Why are you people even bothering?”
i guess you think tough questions are better than making the candidates actually answer. I agree the questions were sometimes harsher than usual, but that is because there were 10 candidates and limited time. They skipped much of the perfunctory stuff. I am sure you can find every democrat subject to 5 minutes or so of tough questions in the standard debate.
The questions were good and tough. But I reject the premise of the OP that an MSNBC debate for Democrats would consist of only soft ball questions. Let’s bookmark this thread and see how many questions about Ice Cream get asked at the first Democratic debate.
As for “making them actually answer the question”, that is something that is never done in the debates, and I can’t fault this one for that. It would be nice if it could be done, but it’s just not done.
So for years conservatives tell us how Fox is fair and balanced as opposed to the other guys who have a liberal bias. So they host a debate and now they say “Hey look! OUR network was tough on OUR guys!” So make up your mind- is Fox an unbiased news source and therefore should be expected to ask tough questions of Republicans or is Fox a shill for your party and deserves praise for being tough on it?
Well it obviously *can *be done. The moderator simply has to say “yeah, yeah, that’s all great but you did not answer my question. Would you like another shot at it ?”, and move gradually from there to “So help me god I will turn this debate right around if you keep refusing to answer my goddamn question you annoying, perfunctory little git !”. Or very polite words to that effect
I thought the questions were pretty good overall, though there were some insane softballs. “Please tell us about how you like God and veterans.”
The infographics in the beginning were horribly biased though. For two or three candidates they included negative statements, and for the chosen candidates they might as well have been written by the campaign.
Some journalists are capable of following up on questions. I would love to see Mehdi Hasan moderate one of these debates. (Of course, the GOP would never allow this because he is a Muslim. But he is one of the best interviewers alive, IMHO.)
The moderators included some questions taken from facebook. (Dunno if there was any live audience crafted questions.) Do you know if that specific question came from facebook, or was it a moderator crafted one?
The ‘debate’ was about how well the candidates are aligned with FOX News conservatism. The only questions that were remotely ‘hardball’ were reserved for Trump, the rest of them were intended to evoke canned responses from the other candidates. However the Democrats won’t get anything more pointed. Someone remind me who the moderators were at the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
I think it was FB, but I don’t agree that there’s a practical difference between crafting a question and selecting a question out of thousands submitted.
I dunno. Obviously, there is going to be some kind of filter applied to facebook questions. (No moderator is going to “forward” the [few] questions about the “cattle mutilation crisis”, or what does Trump think about FDR “letting Pearl Harbor happen”.)
While I don’t care about a candidates spiritual faith, I realize some voters do care.
As a moderator, should I cull the spirituality questions just because I don’t personally care (assuming that there appears to be sufficient interest expressed via the social media tools provided to the viewers)?
Looks like ‘13% of voters think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ’ (which is still :eek: to me) and ‘including 22% of Romney voters’. Romney voters don’t = all Republicans, but I suppose any way you slice it it IS ‘a significant portion of Republicans’ which is pretty scary…as are some of the other weird shit people believe in your cite. I think that warrants another :eek:!!
