Next debate suspended over 'gotcha' questions per RNC

Politics & Elections
41

Separating all the partisan nonsense from it, the fact is the CNBC moderators did an atrocious job. Moderators in Presidential debates are expected to not clearly take sides or try to help or hurt one specific candidate over the others. They’re expected to at least try and give some balanced amount of time to each candidate.

Part of the problem is 10 candidates makes balancing time extremely difficult. But I gotta agree, when you give one candidate time by asking him a question about the front runner, that’s really poor performance as a moderator. The guy is already the front runner, and you’re going to give one of the low polling candidates a question that just gives more attention (and rebuttal time) to the front runner? That is really to the detriment of the candidate being asked the question as they lose time to talk about their issues and have to respond to a personal question about the front runner’s campaign. (This was the question given to Huckabee about Trump.)

Stuff from a candidates personal life is clearly not off limits, there’s a gray area in American politics. But a lot of the questions asked weren’t tough questions about things these candidates had done on the campaign trail, issues they’ve held or etc, they were just off the wall questions that legitimately had nothing to do with who should be President. Focusing on trivial issues like DraftKings, and also REPEATING questions that have been asked at every other debate. When can we quit hearing about Trump’s four business bankruptcies or Carly being fired from HP? Those questions have been asked at every debate, and the answers have not changed. The job of CNBC is to try and give the electorate more information on which to base their decision, and asking questions that have been asked (and answered identically) in every other debate do not further that. A candidate asked a question once is going to be coached to respond in a very particular way to the exact same question asked again, those represent a wasted question.

CNBC did a terrible job. You can RNC or GOP Presidential candidate bash all you want. Politicians are liars and hypocrites and giant babies, this is very true of the front runner for the Democrats as well. There’s not nearly as much active stupidity from the two Democrat candidates, but none of that is relevant to analyzing CNBC’s performance. CNBC’s performance was terrible, and the RNC is right to hold them to account for it.

I’ve been watching Presidential debates since the 60s, and this was simply the worst moderated debate in that entire time. I’m familiar with the few televised debates that predate my watching TV, and given that I think it’s safe to say this was the worst moderated Presidential debate in the history of televised debates.

42

I wasn’t trying to make an analogy.

My (badly expressed) point is that face to face dealings with world leaders entail far more pressure and far higher stakes and consequences than a mere debate with pointed, awkward or even “unfair” questions. If they couldn’t handle a debate without folding and whining, how will they do on the world stage?

Regardless of how poorly run this debate was, the candidates showed and continue to demonstrate the quality of their character and just how inadequate they are to lead and represent America.

43

The RNC goes to the election with the candidates they have, not the candidates they wished they had. Do you seriously expect the RNC to do nothing if they think the image of their candidates is being tarnished?

Keep in mind that this isn’t about selling the candidates to you or most of the people on this MB. Most of you guys aren’t going to vote GOP no matter what. Frankly the RNC doesn’t care what you think in this instance, nor should they. (And for this election, at least, I’m in the same boat with you.)

44

They should’ve asked serious questions, like what their Secret Service call signs would be, or what woman they’d put on money.

A lot of Americans confuse the freedom of speech (an ideal of liberal societies) with the first amendment (a specific, parochial law in the United States). I partially blame XKCD for this, because that silly comic seemingly always gets posted whenever the topic comes up on the internet. The Hayes code and the Comic Code Authority limited speech and the government had nothing to do with it. Not to mention all sorts of campaigns by culturally regressive busy bodies.

45

Transgender Muslims. Do try and keep up with the boogeymen du jour. :slight_smile:

46

Well, the parties argue about debates all the time, so this isn’t really anything particularly unusual. Do you honestly think that either the DNC or the RNC has the best interests of the American people in mind when they negotiate the terms of the debates with either the candidates or the debate sponsors? Do you think that the candidates themselves, once they are chosen to run, have the best interest of the American people in mind when they negotiate the number and venue of the debates to be had? These are all tactics to win elections, so let’s not pretend they’re anything other than that.

47

Bernie Sanders has been in politics for some time now. Clearly his campaign is not a joke. Trump has made a career of being a professional buffoon. He is a carny. That’s his thing, and it has been for a long time. His campaign is, very clearly, a joke. Or, at best, a publicity stunt. There have been many, many discussions of this over his numerous presidential “campaigns” over the years.

The two are not comparable.

48

Who cares if Trump or Carson or whoever is an imbecile. If they are invited as debate participants they should be treated as such. People seem to have a problem separating the performance of the candidates and that of the CNBC moderators. If the candidates are a joke they shouldn’t be invited to participate.

49

And there’s still a year to go before the actual election. Oy vey.

I can see both Clinton and Sanders providing a reasoned, adult response, *sans * any foot-stamping or temper tantrums, regardless of the idiocy of the question.

50

Oh, that’d be interesting… Let the White House press corps come up with the questions.

51

Ah, yes, that is the elephant in the room indeed.

52

Actually, no it is not.

The “moderators” of these debates serve as the public’s proxy, asking the questions that the public has. To some degree it is a chance for a candidate to address those concerns of the public head on … or to confirm them.

As Cheesesteak pointed out, to Clinton it was directly addressing the public portrayal of her as someone who will just say whatever is politically expedient, will say anything to get elected. It is probably the worst negative that circulates about her among those who are already supporting her. It gave her a chance to address that head on and apparently the public was satisfied with her response.

Trump’s possibly biggest negative among those who do not support him is that his plans are unrealistic, not thought out, and yes, frankly cartoonish. Yes the candidate should be given the opportunity to address that negative head on.

Yes it is fair to ask Sanders “Don’t you think you are too extreme for the general election and that it is unrealistic to think America will vote for someone who is a self-described socialist? Isn’t that a bit of a joke?” It is not only fair, it is something he needs to be asked so he can address it and potentially neutralize it (or fail to do so). The success of his campaign to those who do not yet “Feel the Bern” hinges on his being able to address that.

I am not defending or condemning this particular moderation … did not see enough of it to be able to. From what I did see the problem was less rudeness than a lack of preparation: falsehoods stated by candidates were let be because the moderators did not have their cites in hand and referred to as part of the question. But the idea is not for moderators to be impartial but for them to represent the public’s questions and concerns.

My fantasy is that CBS and ABC back up NBC in stating that of course their moderators will all behave professionally and that part of that professionalism will be asking tough questions that may be embarrassing and asking candidates to address specific accusations made about them in the public sphere; that they will be prepared to challenge the candidates on answers that are factually false. That such is true for GOP and Democratic candidates alike. And that if those terms are not acceptable then their networks can and will each find other programming for those nights.

53

Oh really? Then you would have no problem with a moderator’s first question being, “Welcome Mr. Trump. Fuck you! What’s your answer to that?” Or how about, “Welcome Ms. Clinton. As the public’s proxy, I have an obligation to ask you questions the public has of you. Here’s their question - you seem like a total robotic bitch. When is your software going to be upgraded so you can actually pretend to be human? The only human thing you seem capable of is lying. Why is that?”

So that would be totally okay then? No objections?

54

The moderators mostly are a bunch of journalist who are as much in it for themselves as the candidates are. They’re looking to make their mark just as the candidates are. And let’s face it, these “debates” are hardly deserving of the term.

*Sec. Clinton: Tell us how you plan to solve the problems in the Middle East. You have 2 minutes.

They’re a show, and maybe a candidate gets a zinger in that gives him a pop in the polls, or sticks his foot in his mouth and tanks his campaign. I’m not sure the make a whole lot of difference in the end.

55

None of these GOPers would survive a Q & A like the ones they have for SCOTUS nominations. That’s, what, three days of questions on their past decisions and statements made about one subject to another. With Trump, he’d get questions about bankruptcies, divorces, NBC contracts, statements about Mexicans-- he’d run screaming in an hour.

56

:smiley:

A lot of people defending the Republican line on the CNBC moderator seem to be viewing the word “debate” from some vaguely remembered style of debate undertaken in high school or a speech class in college. The presidential debates are nothing of the sort, though maybe they should be.

One of my sisters won a letter in high school for debate, and I guarantee you that she would have mopped up all of the Republican candidates in the recent “debate”. And the Democrats in theirs, for that matter.

These are not real debates. Never have been.

I’ll add that people whose main political information comes from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have no fucking room to complain about bias.

57

The tenor of the moderation reflects the tenor of the candidates public statements. These network debates are shallow and are basically rorshachs for what the participants have already determined to be the issues and the atmosphere. Maybe it wasn’t good but at this point these candidates behave in a way that demonstrates they don’t deserve better treatment. Got to suck it up some time.

Anyway I’d be perfectly happy for the questions to be laser sharp issue oriented and fact checked in real time. That’s what they want right?

58

As I do not think that “Fuck you!” asks any question that would be of any import to convincables (in either direction), or clarifies an apparent contradiction in what a candidate has said, or gives the candidate a chance to take on a circulating meme about him/her head on, no.

Please note: “Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?” (not “Are you a comic book …”) does address the major negative meme out there about Trump. It was a soft lob to address that concern, something that his continued growth as a candidate requires.

How did Clinton respond to the question of “Will you say anything to get elected?”

She responded calmly: “Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings – including those of us who run for office – I do absorb new information. I do look at what’s happening in the world. …” and with additional details.

But the moderator did not stop there.

“Secretary Clinton, though, with all due respect, the question is really about political expediency. … Do you change your political identity based on who you’re talking to?”

Dayum! Harsh. MUCH harsher than “Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?”

Did she whine? Complain that the questions are biased against her and Democrats? Cry about how unfair it was?

Nope. She took the opportunity presented. Answered "No. I think that, like most people that I know, I have a range of views, but they are rooted in my values and my experience. And I don’t take a back seat to anyone when it comes to progressive experience and progressive commitment.

You know, when I left law school, my first job was with the Children’s Defense Fund, and for all the years since, I have been focused on how we’re going to un-stack the deck …"

And used the interchange to get in one of her most effective lines of the night: “I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done …”

Yes, that line of attack against her was an opportunity for her and she took full advantage of it, a moderate fast ball in the middle of the strike zone that she hit for a standing double.

Trump and the rest just saw someone pitching to them and threw down the bat whining “unfair” … pathetic.

Sanders was next up. And after the moderator pointed out that he calls himself a democratic socialist and “How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?” was followed up with "You – the – the Republican attack ad against you in a general election – it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you’re not a capitalist.

Doesn’t – doesn’t that ad write itself?"

Unfair? Rude?

Nope. What Sanders needed to be asked. And he responded well,.

To Chaffee:

"Why should Democratic voters trust you won’t change again?

CHAFEE: Anderson, you’re looking at a block of granite when it comes to the issues. Whether it’s…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: It seems like pretty soft granite. "

Again, Dayum, harsh.

Chaffee handled it fair at best … blaming it on “The party left me. There’s no doubt about that. There was no room for a liberal moderate Republican in that party.”

Saying “Fuck you!” or calling someone a “robotic bitch” would indeed be beyond the pale. The soft pitch “Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?” and the harsher lines of attacks thrown at the Democrats are however fair game and whining about them is at best very very sad.

59

It’s not, actually. That’s simply your opinion, and a poorly thought out one at that. The question about political expediency keeps us in the realm of “this is a serious candidate, and we’re questioning her reason for her positions”, the comic book question basically is the moderator editorializing that Trump is not really a serious candidate. Whatever my personal feelings on that, it isn’t the role of the moderator to a) personally antagonize a candidate in a way that all but guarantees the moderator becomes part of the debate or to b) question the validity of the person’s campaign. If the candidate was legitimately not a serious candidate then why were they invited to the debate? It’s just not an appropriate question to ask the current highest polling candidate.

60

I recall the ado about the liberal mainstream media being biased after Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin to name some of the magazines/papers she reads after Palin told her in their interview that she reads everything.