I think the fix was in at Fox News debate

Everybody is gushing about how tough the moderators were on Thursday night, but my impression was that they were a lot tougher on Trump than on Bush, so I thought I’d try to quantify it. I used this transcript as my source.

Before I went through the transcript, my assumptions were that Fox would try to promote Bush and Walker, the so-called establishment candidates, and to trash Trump and Cruz, the rebels. Now that I’ve done it, I think I was right about Bush and Trump, but wrong about Walker and Cruz, unless they very seriously miscalculated Walker’s (lack of) foreign policy expertise. I also thought they would mostly ignore Carson and Kasich, since they aren’t widely known; be nice to Huckabee (since he had a show on Fox News for a long time) and Rubio (since he’s their “younger generation” guy), and be mean to Christie and Paul (since Paul is more a libertarian than Republican, and Christie is damaged goods after all his problems of the last couple years). I seem to have been right about Huckabee and Rubio, mostly right about Paul and Christie, and mostly wrong about the others.

Bottom line, it seems clear to me that the questions were designed to help Bush, and hurt Trump. Trump got nine very hostile questions (out of ten); nobody else got more than seven questions total. And every question Bush got was an open-ended opportunity to say pretty much whatever he wanted to say, particularly on subjects he’s flubbed before and thus was extremely likely to have practiced, while almost all the other candidates got questions that forced them to say yes or no on something very controversial, or to talk about subjects they probably would rather have avoided.

I got tired of doing this about a third of the way through, so I’ve scored the questions very generally. Hostile questions, like almost all of Trump’s, got a -10. I define a hostile question as one that is either very skeptical (an actual question for Trump: “With that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?”), and/or one that is preceded by an attack on the guy (“You said this terrible thing last year…”). Super softball questions, like the incredible one that Rubio got at the end asking what he thought about God and veterans, got a +10, but as I saw how long this was getting, I stopped trying to be precise and ended up giving a +10 to just about any question that anyone should have expected he’d be asked, and so had a prepared spiel ready. Only a couple of questions got anything but a plus or minus 10. One question was so stupid that I couldn’t score it, and it had an equally stupid answer, as I noted in the summary below (just do a search on “stupid question”. And the Rubio question I mentioned above was so pillowy soft that I gave it a +20.

The biggest surprise to me, after reading the transcript (I did watch the debate on TV, but was multitasking with the PC at the time, so I missed a lot), was how abysmally clueless Scott Walker is on foreign policy. He seemed to have a prepared answer for one of the FP questions they asked him, but really floundered on the others, and they asked him a lot of them, leading me to think it may have been on purpose. He had a reputation for being weak on FP, and they may have been trying to help him by giving him all those chances to show off how much he had crammed, but it ended up making him look like an idiot. IMO. I already didn’t like him because of his attacks on labor, but that’s a difference of opinion. I now think that he is absolutely unqualified to be President, and that electing him would be a disaster.

And although I expected them to go easy on Rubio, I was a bit surprised how easy. IMO, he got the four softest softballs of the night. Rubio, Bush, and Huckabee were the only candidates who didn’t get a single negative question.

Anyway, rather than spend any more time making my evaluations more exact, I offer this summary of questions for debate, to see if others get the same impression I did about Fox News having their thumb on the scales for the candidates they especially like (Bush, Rubio, Huckabee) and dislike (Trump, Paul). The questions are in order for each candidate, if you want to check the transcript, but of course they skipped around among the candidates when asking the questions. Anything not in direct quotes is a paraphrase, and I was not completely objective when I paraphrased, so again, check the transcript. And where I tried to provide context before giving the question, where I say “after talking about X…,” I mean the moderator, not the candidate.
Trump:

  1. You won’t pledge to support the party’s nominee?? -10
  2. How can you win after saying all these terrible things about women?? -10
  3. (Immediately after Bush’s softball question on immigration) Show us your proof for what you said about Mexicans being rapists. -10
  4. Immediately after Trump, in answer to the previous question, does what everybody else in every debate ever held has done, and says what he wants to say, rather than giving a direct answer, the same Chris Wallace who responded to Jeb’s equally free-form answer by saying “Thank you, sir,” says: “I’ll give you 30 seconds to answer my question, which was, what evidence do you have, specific evidence that the Mexican government is sending criminals across the border? Thirty seconds.” -10
  5. Why have you flip-flopped on health care? -10
  6. “Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies. Use – you’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi.” -10
  7. After talking about Trump’s multiple bankruptcies, “With that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?” -10
  8. After Trump says he just took advantage of the law, Chris Wallace details Trump’s latest bankruptcy, where he says lenders lost over a billion dollars, and over 1000 people lost their jobs. “Is that the way that you’d run the country?” -10
  9. After accusing Trump of being pro-choice and anti-assault weapon: “When did you actually become a Republican?”
    -10
  10. An Iranian general is meeting with Putin. How would you respond to that? +10 (first and only non-hostile question for him of the night)

Carson:

  1. (After quoting list of blunders he’s made) “don’t they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?” -10
  2. “As president, would you bring back water boarding?” -10 (no good answer for this)
  3. Do you agree that we need tax reform? +10
  4. How would you oppose Hillary Clinton? +10
  5. Would you have used military force against Assad after he used chemical weapons in Syria? +10
  6. Race relations? 0 (Why was he the only one asked that?)
    Rubio:
  7. Why would you be a better president than Jeb Bush? +10
  8. Is Trump right when he says our leaders are stupid? +10
  9. Tell us how you would help small businessmen. +10
  10. Why do you favor a rape and incest exemption for abortions? +10
  11. Tell us about your views of God and veterans. +20 (What, no apple pie?)
    Bush:
  12. Do you understand the concern about dynastic politics? +10
  13. (After quoting Bush giving a pretty enlightened view on immigration) Tell us more about your policy on immigration? +10 Note: Bush’s time-exceeding answer was followed by Chris Wallace saying, “Thank you, sir,” the only time those words were spoken all night. So an extra +5 for that.
  14. Here, we’ll give you yet another crack at saying whether invading Iraq was a mistake. +10
  15. You support common core. Tell us more about your views on education. +10
  16. How would you cause record economic growth as President? +10
  17. Did you call Trump a clown and buffoon? +10 (gives him a chance to say no, but then trash Trump for being “divisive,” and then swerve into another recitation of how great Florida’s economy did under Bush)
    Cruz:
  18. (After saying he has a toxic relationship with his colleagues) “How can you win in 2016 when you’re such a divisive figure?” -10
  19. Are you against illegal aliens murdering American citizens? +10
  20. “How would you destroy ISIS in 90 days?” (I’m unable to score such a stupid question, especially after Cruz gave such a stupid answer: By speaking the words, “radical Islamic terrorism.” But he got a lot of applause.)
  21. “Why is Governor Bush wrong on Common Core?” +10
  22. “Have Russia and China committed cyber war, and if you were president, what would you do about it?” +10

Christie:

  1. (After listing several bad things about NJ’s economy) “So why should voters believe that your management of the country’s finances would be any different?” -10
  2. Tell us why Rand Paul is helping terrorists opposing NSA spying on American citizens. +10 for Christie, -10 for Paul
  3. Is Huckabee lying when he says he can save Social Security without cutting benefits? -5
  4. What do you think of Rand Paul wanting to cut aid to Israel? +10
    Walker:
  5. “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?” -10
  6. Since you’ve changed your position on immigration, “are there other past positions that we shouldn’t hold you to?” -10
  7. What Arab country not currently in our coalition would be our greatest partner? -10 (It’s actually a neutral question, but Walker flubbed the answer so badly (“America’s a great country!”) that IMO it must have been picked to show how weak he is on foreign policy).
  8. “Given your [terrible economic] record in Wisconsin, why should voters believe you?” -10
  9. What would you do instead of the Iran nuclear deal? 0 (good question, but his ridiculous answer again shows how clueless he is on foreign policy, and he’s getting foreign policy questions a half hour before the foreign policy part of the debate. They see to want to target his weak areas.
  10. Do you think police shooting black people is the civil rights issue of our time? +10 everybody should have been ready for this
  11. What would you do if Putin threatened the Baltic nations? +10 (Walker actually appeared to know what the Baltic nations were)
    Huckabee:
  12. Given your conservative views on social issues, “how do you persuade enough Independents and Democrats to get elected in 2016?” +10
  13. Is the government too big for even a Republican to shrink? +10
  14. Explain how your plan on Social Security would work. +10
  15. What do you think about Rand Paul’s views on Iran? +10 (MUCH more open-ended than the yes or no question they gave Paul)
  16. How would you handle women, gays, and transgenders in the military? +10
    Paul:
  17. (After saying he blamed the rise of ISIS on Republican hawks) “Why are you so quick to blame your own party?” -10
  18. Would you tear up the Iran deal? +5 (yes, it gives him a chance to expound, but it’s a yes or no question, and any attempt at nuance is bad for a Republican).
  19. “What will you do to ensure Christians are not prosecuted for speaking out against gay marriage?” +10 I guess, but FFS, what a straw man.
  20. Do you still support cutting aid to Israel? -10
    Kasich:
  21. “Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won’t use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program?” -5
  22. Tell us what you hate about Trump’s position on immigration. +10
  23. After Kasich responds by talking about how great he’s been for Ohio’s economy, the same Chris Wallace who just blasted Trump for not answering directly, " Respectfully, can we talk about illegal immigration?" +10
  24. How will you take on Hillary Clinton? +10
  25. How would you explain your opposition to gay marriage if your child was gay? +10

No argument. I thought it was apparent. The questions for everyone but Trump were designed to evoke canned responses. They made it clear that Trump did not meet the Fox News standard.

I’m a bit torn. It’s true that Trump got asked harder questions, but they were all questions he should have been pressed hard on – particularly the one about the Mexican government. His position as frontrunner means he should expect that. Christie likewise. So to me it’s less that Trump was unduly beaten up on than that Bush was treated with kid gloves.

Apologies to my readers, but I’m going to re-post this link for the third time. Over at Vox.com, Ezra Klein describes the incentives at Fox News and explains why they slipped the knife into Trump.

Ezra Klein: Donald Trump’s fight with Fox News and Megyn Kelly, explained.

        [INDENT][INDENT]Fox News is a strange beast. It is a conservative advocacy organization run by a longtime Republican operative. It is a profit-hungry cable network run by a talented media executive. And it is a news operation that employs some talented journalists who want to be taken seriously by their peers.

        These missions conflict with each other. [/INDENT][/INDENT]

Trump had gotten great press from Hannity, Ducey and other Fox News hacks. But some at the network think of themselves as journalists, and they were asking the questions Friday evening. Furthermore, “Fox News’s incentives had switched. Early in the campaign, the way to get bigger ratings was to build Trump up. But now the whole country was tuning in, and what most people wanted to see was Trump torn down — or at least the fight that would result if Fox News tried to tear Trump down.”

Pretty good article that covered a fair number of moving parts. Recommended.

Falsehood in advertising
When you think about it, there’s nothing wrong with a journalistic organization with a point of view. It’s their denials of that that makes it clear they are playing their audience. Anyway, studies have shown that post-debate commentary matters more than the debate itself (most people hear about Presidential debates on the news after all). And Fox News followed up their debate with an hilarious take-down hosted by Fred Luntz: his focus group was almost uniformly hostile to Trump.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall premise, but I would like to point a few things out about Trump’s questioning.

  1. He’s a new face to real politics, so we haven’t had a chance to hear from him on issues that the others have been weighing in on for years.
  2. He really is a recent Republican and has about-faced on a number of issues that the GOP sees as core stances (gotta feed the base, baby).
  3. He really has said some remarkably stupid shit, much of it in the past when he was just a huckster and entertainer, but some of it since he declared. Almost every other guy on the stage has generally been more circumspect in their public speaking, seeing as how they’ve all been politicians for a long time.

I think these things mitigate some of the “bias” given that they simply don’t apply to the other candidates. Several of these also had easy answers that he simply didn’t give.

So

  1. You won’t pledge to support the party’s nominee?? -10
    See 2 above. It’s the GOP nomination and he is, at best, shaky GOP.

  2. How can you win after saying all these terrible things about women?? -10
    See 3 above. “You have a record of saying stupid shit as an entertainer and we’re already seen (fairly or not) as the party of wimmen-haters. How do you fix that?” Softball question and he chose to throw a hissy-fit.

  3. (Immediately after Bush’s softball question on immigration) Show us your proof for what you said about Mexicans being rapists. -10
    See 3 above. He’s been given a million chances to walk this stupidity back and he keeps doubling down. He should be pounded on this.

  4. Immediately after Trump, in answer to the previous question, does what everybody else in every debate ever held has done, and says what he wants to say, rather than giving a direct answer, the same Chris Wallace who responded to Jeb’s equally free-form answer by saying “Thank you, sir,” says: “I’ll give you 30 seconds to answer my question, which was, what evidence do you have, specific evidence that the Mexican government is sending criminals across the border? Thirty seconds.” -10
    See 3 above. He’s made specific accusations and LITERALLY refused to say specifically what he would do to fix them. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, CLAIRE!

  5. Why have you flip-flopped on health care? -10
    See 2 above (and some 1).

  6. “Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies. Use – you’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi.” -10
    See 2 above. Again, I think this was a bit of softball and should have given him a chance to emphasize that he’s not a career pol and that he was a businessman.

  7. After talking about Trump’s multiple bankruptcies, “With that record, why should we trust you to run the nation’s business?” -10

  8. After Trump says he just took advantage of the law, Chris Wallace details Trump’s latest bankruptcy, where he says lenders lost over a billion dollars, and over 1000 people lost their jobs. “Is that the way that you’d run the country?” -10
    See 1 above. He’s running as a businessman turned patriot (“This country needs ME!”). Why shouldn’t he answer questions about that record? It’s all we’ve got on him.

  9. After accusing Trump of being pro-choice and anti-assault weapon: “When did you actually become a Republican?”
    -10
    See 2 above. His inconsistencies (or evolving views, if you will) on key GOP issues is something GOP primary voters deserve an answer to. He’s asking them to make him the Party leader/standard-bearer.

When you’re the front runner, when you’re the one grabbing the headlines, you’re going to get the attention. If he can’t deal with it, then he won’t be a front runner for long.

Or maybe he will be. Maybe it’s all working to his advantage - at least for now. The irony is, it just leads to more controversy and more free pub for the Donald. And since his voters aren’t a particularly discriminating bunch, they seem to get more excited with each new incident.

I agree with the general premise, but I’m not sure which post-debate commentary matters the most anymore. If you’re a Republican (or anyone else, for that matter), you can see what your friends are saying about the debate on Facebook, or see what the people whose tweets you follow are saying, or you can go to a bunch of different sites and blogs to get your debate analysis/discussion, or maybe even see what Fox News or Morning Joe has to say about it.

Also, if you’re in the prime GOP demographic, you’re not exactly a spring chicken, and you’re probably doing this the next morning because you went to bed before 10 pm. So what they were saying at 11:20 pm Thursday night isn’t that important unless that guides what everyone else says that you’re picking up your impressions from.

Excellent post, Tony. I have to admit that The Donald may have a valid beef. Clearly, while they were lobbing meatballs for Bush to hit out of the park, he was getting the high heat. Of course, he wouldn’t have had to answer “you won’t pledge to support the nominee?” question if he had the sense to keep his hand down. But he couldn’t resist the temptation to grab the spotlight. Of course, he’d have been better off to address that matter directly rather than hint at the moderator’s menstrual cycle. By the way Donald, it’s two days before the period that you want to avoid talking to women.

Bleh. The Donald got far more face time than anyone else behind a podium. For a candidate, difficult questions should be opportunities.

I was slightly surprised at how evenhanded the moderators’ approach was, though I only saw the second half. Everyone got a softball and everyone got a hard question. The transcript left out the question where Bush was asked why he was on the board of a Bloomberg charity that gave funding to Planned Parenthood.

With so many threads on heavily overlapping topics, it’s a good idea to post this link wherever relevant. Ezra’s one smart fellow, and this piece is insightful even by the the standards he sets. Read it, folks!

I’m gonna link to it in the “Megyn Kelly’s bloody vagina” (band name!) thread since it’s especially relevant there.

The smoking gub. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised they were this blatant.

The transcript in the OP’s link is from CBS, although apparently the initial source was Fox News. On further googling, DKos is suggesting the question and answer were deliberately left out by Fox News. I’m a genius!

Obviously, as a foreigner, Megan Kelly was a mere name to me before this — and maybe not even that; it is difficult to recall what one knew about the thousands of people one sees odd references to, or not: there is always false memory to contend with — however I must point out how infinitely lucky Americans are to have so many lovely blonde newsreaders. No doubt they are skilled, and no doubt they are normally excellent at their rather pointless, yet entertaining, jobs; but whether so or not, they can entice viewers by their mere looks. Which is no small thing. In Britain newsreaders may just as easily be propagandist harridans, but they do not give pleasure to the eye ( and are often smug grey-haired old men ): if having to watch the news, better to see a charming young woman if the news/opinions are worthless either way. Or even if those were worthy opinions. It is a mistake to think that only the homely are serious and clever.
Miss Kelly in that link looks very fit, and looking her up last night, I saw that as well as Trump’s polls soaring immediately in a sort of rebound, the right are angered at her bullying of their future president, and putting the knife in. These two pages from The Powdered Wig Society ( ‘Dedicated to the restoration of and strict obedience to the United States Constitution’ ) also took the opportunity to show decent pictures of her whilst deploring her lascivious wantonity.

Megan’s carefully engineered Gotcha
Little miss choir girl hypocrite

As with many things else. Americans have no idea how fortune has blessed them through luck: America’s Young Blonde Anchorwomen are national treasures.

Trump — Romney 2016 !

Kelly practiced law for nine years, so she’s not just a pretty face (though she has said some astoundingly dumb things for a smart person). Anyway, British newsreaders are hardly culled from the ranks of school lunch ladies. I wouldn’t kick Fiona Bruce out of bed, and Sky News has some certified hotties like Georgia Thompson and Lisa Burke.

Thanks for the link to the PWS. It’s always nice to see what others are thinking and saying.

My impression was that the questions were perfectly fair. When the debate was over, I felt like they were too generous to Trump, who preferred blathering provocatively to actually answering questions.

I mean, if you walk around saying “My Presidency will issue tin foil hats to stop the space alien invasion” then you should expect to be hammered on the utility of tin foil hats and the evidence for space aliens, especially when you have repeatedly promised to reveal your evidence.

Well, that’s strange. The transcript I used was from CBS, because that site was easier to read in my browser, but it said it came from Fox News. And a quick google of other sources also doesn’t find any transcripts of a question about Bloomberg, or any mention that the transcript is edited or abridged.

So if Fox deliberately left the only hardball question Bush got out of the official transcript, I guess that proves my point.

But you may enjoy this one: First Republican Debate Transcript Revealed Early | The Daily Caller

Well, sure. I am all for tough questions, and for follow-up questions when the answer is stupid.

But I would argue that most of the other candidates have said stuff just as stupid, both before and during the debate, and didn’t get hammered like Trump did.

Heck, the first thing Huckabee said in that debate was that science has proved that a fertilized egg is a person from the moment of conception, and I can only find a few ultra-liberal or pure science sites who have even noticed. The mainstream seems to have given him a complete pass.

All but one of Walker’s answers on foreign policy, which he’s supposedly been boning up on, were embarrassingly ignorant, and they didn’t follow up on any of them, e.g. to ask him exactly how he would get other countries to reimpose sanctions on Iran after he wiped his ass with the agreement they worked so long to get.

I’m still agape that they even asked Cruz “How would you destroy ISIS in 90 days?”, as if this were a weight-loss infomercial, and even more agape at his answer, which was (approximately) “I would use the term, ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ And by the way, our generals are idiots,” and everyone just beamed and cheered at this horseshit.

A lot of that is a Fox News thing. Roger Ailes is careful to view his news hosts with the sound off before hiring them. This applies to males and females, albeit for different reasons. (Bill O’Reilly is attention grabbing, even if he’s a little ugly).

According to Fox mole Joe Muto not a few of the female faces crash and burn due to the narrowness of their skillset shall we say. But M. Kelly has risen through the ranks and aspires to be serious, sort of.

Not sure I buy that. I can’t think of any non-ugly male Fox News personalities other than maybe Shep Smith. Keith Ablow is one of the ugliest people in the world. Sean Hannity makes you want to punch him long before you realize he *deserves *it.