CNBC Takes a Beating

[Flopper]

The disconnect between these networks and the electorate really is remarkable.

These people have somehow gotten it into their heads that viewers want gotcha questions, off the wall questions, silly questions, insulting questions, and questions that have never been asked of a candidate in the history of mankind.

Who convinced them of this?
.

I think viewers do want to see candidates embarrassed and floundering but not with such obvious personal attacks by the panel.

Of course, the debate is not really a debate. It's just a forum where the candidates can make statements which sometimes address the questions directly but often are just diversions. This is where the panel needs to grill the candidates.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The disconnect between these networks and the electorate really is remarkable.

These people have somehow gotten it into their heads that viewers want gotcha questions, off the wall questions, silly questions, insulting questions, and questions that have never been asked of a candidate in the history of mankind.

Who convinced them of this?
.

Ratings.

They understand that people are looking for controversy. It's kind of like watching racing. Some are serious spectators and are interested in the moves, the timing and who wins the race. Most are watching NASCAR to see the accidents.

Give CNBC some credit. They did create the controversy, it's just that they didn't expect it to be about them.

I for one would be mightily obliged if our country stopped viewing politics as "entertainment", and it was possible to find out where candidates stand on the substantive issues without having to spend hours researching the question.

I probably still WOULD, but it would be nice if I didn't have to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The disconnect between these networks and the electorate really is remarkable.

These people have somehow gotten it into their heads that viewers want gotcha questions, off the wall questions, silly questions, insulting questions, and questions that have never been asked of a candidate in the history of mankind.

Who convinced them of this?
.

I think viewers do want to see candidates embarrassed and floundering but not with such obvious personal attacks by the panel.

Of course, the debate is not really a debate. It's just a forum where the candidates can make statements which sometimes address the questions directly but often are just diversions. This is where the panel needs to grill the candidates.

I would love to see an actual debate, instead of these nonsensically-biased interrogations.

 

[tinydancer]

Those moderators were so out of line they deserved the shit kicking they got.

 

[Flopper]

The disconnect between these networks and the electorate really is remarkable.

These people have somehow gotten it into their heads that viewers want gotcha questions, off the wall questions, silly questions, insulting questions, and questions that have never been asked of a candidate in the history of mankind.

Who convinced them of this?
.

I think viewers do want to see candidates embarrassed and floundering but not with such obvious personal attacks by the panel.

Of course, the debate is not really a debate. It's just a forum where the candidates can make statements which sometimes address the questions directly but often are just diversions. This is where the panel needs to grill the candidates.

I would love to see an actual debate, instead of these nonsensically-biased interrogations.

Most candidates would be totally lost if they had to participate in a real debate where they had to stay on topic, answer questions and give logically rebuttal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The disconnect between these networks and the electorate really is remarkable.

These people have somehow gotten it into their heads that viewers want gotcha questions, off the wall questions, silly questions, insulting questions, and questions that have never been asked of a candidate in the history of mankind.

Who convinced them of this?
.

I think viewers do want to see candidates embarrassed and floundering but not with such obvious personal attacks by the panel.

Of course, the debate is not really a debate. It's just a forum where the candidates can make statements which sometimes address the questions directly but often are just diversions. This is where the panel needs to grill the candidates.

I would love to see an actual debate, instead of these nonsensically-biased interrogations.

Most candidates would be totally lost if they had to participate in a real debate where they had to stay on topic, answer questions and give logically rebuttal.

True, and I think most voters know that, which is why I think proposing a real debate would be a good move for any candidate who could actually handle that format. Anyone who refused such a challenge would be seen by the voters as admitting they couldn't handle it.

 

[Flopper]

The disconnect between these networks and the electorate really is remarkable.

These people have somehow gotten it into their heads that viewers want gotcha questions, off the wall questions, silly questions, insulting questions, and questions that have never been asked of a candidate in the history of mankind.

Who convinced them of this?
.

I think viewers do want to see candidates embarrassed and floundering but not with such obvious personal attacks by the panel.

Of course, the debate is not really a debate. It's just a forum where the candidates can make statements which sometimes address the questions directly but often are just diversions. This is where the panel needs to grill the candidates.

I would love to see an actual debate, instead of these nonsensically-biased interrogations.

Most candidates would be totally lost if they had to participate in a real debate where they had to stay on topic, answer questions and give logically rebuttal.

True, and I think most voters know that, which is why I think proposing a real debate would be a good move for any candidate who could actually handle that format. Anyone who refused such a challenge would be seen by the voters as admitting they couldn't handle it.

There are only few candidates that could compete in a real debate. Trump and Carson would never see the stage.

Christie with an education in political science and a number real debates under his belt would do well.

Ted Cruz who has debated a number issues in congress, and with an education in political science and law would qualify be qualified to debate the issues

Carla Fiona with an education in law and philosophy and one of the few candidates that has actually participated in real debates would qualify.

Rubio who has debated a number issues in congress, a lawyer and political science major would be able to hold his own.

The rest of the pack would lost.