GOP tells NBC next debate suspended over 'gotcha' questions

[jonny5]

I dont think this will change anything. However, if I were RNC chair I would have a few rules:

1. all debates must be moderated in a unbiased manner, treating every candidate and issue equally
2. all debate video must be freely accessible to any media outlet that wants to broadcast it
3. qualifications for the debate will be reliant on media polling. they must be more factual

 

[Moderate Right]

All moderators for both Democrats and Republicans should be established moderates/independents with no known bias one way or the other and if the network doesn't possess any of those kind of individuals themselves then they should hire moderators with those qualifications from outside the network for the debate. Having biased moderators with an agenda one way or the other does not make for a good or a fair debate. Their agenda should not be trying to take down a candidate or a party and their agenda also shouldn't be to lob softballs over the middle of the plate for their own kind. Their agenda should only be about allowing the candidate to articulate on their views and policies, tough questions allowed but only if they are fair and respectful.

 

[MTAtech]

as I said in another thread.. it's a good call by the RNC.

it's sad that such a call has to be made, but whatever.

in addition, it's a good call for Democrats not to have any debates on FOX.... few trust that debate to be held in good faith( i know i don't).. and now we know it's a bad idea to trust NBC to hold debates in good faith.

A good call? They are locking out Tellimundo, the only Hispanic TV network, from the next debate. That will go over well with a crucial voting block. Nice move -- for Democrats.

 

[Thrilla]

A good call? They are locking out Tellimundo, the only Hispanic TV network, from the next debate. That will go over well with a crucial voting block. Nice move -- for Democrats.

yes.. a good call.... there's no good reason to deal with an outlet that has proven it is not acting in good faith.

it's also a good call for Democrats not to deal with FOX... but i don't see you whining about that.

in any event, you are irrelevant to these debates.... they are not intended for you ( or me).. they are intended for Republican primary voters.
what Democrats think about them doesn't matter even a tiny bit.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think it would be fun if someone pulled just the questions from each debate to see if people could identify from which debate each question came.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm betting that NBC will come to their senses, admit that CNBC made a mistake, apologize, and promise to have better moderators, and that the debate actually will take place. These last moderators should be banished to just doing cat up the tree stories or be fired and hired by MSNBC, where they will be welcome with open arms.

 

[Camlon]

is grown men (and one grown woman) seeking the highest office in the United States and basically complaining, "Ma, the moderator talked mean to me." If these folks are supposed to be as tough as they need to be to hold that high position, one would think that they can be tough enough to absorb questions they don't like from a journalist.

This has nothing to do with hard questions, because the questions weren't hard. The only thing the republicans needed to do, was to change the topic or even lie. The moderators couldn't catch them, because they had lost credibility among most of the audience.

The problem was that
1. The questions had no theme, and hence they jumped from topic to topic.
2. The questions was mostly about them as people, and not the issues.
3. The questions was asked in a biased way, which made the moderators look biased
4. When the moderators didn't get the answer they wanted, they started to debate.
5. The moderators didn't let the other republicans speak. Hence, it ended up becoming a debate between the republicans and the moderators.

I love tough questions, for instance Fox News first question was amazing. But the CNBC questions weren't tough, they were biased, stupid, irrelevant and boring. I watched the whole CNN debate, but I couldn't last more than 1 hour of the CNBC debate, because I got bored.

 

[gdgyva]

Makes sense.





MTAtech is absolutely correct. Let's rear the refutations of his list of lies and nonsense.

I fear we may be witnessing the destruction of a once-great national political party. The party of men like Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Ford, Dole, and McCain. I have to say I'm almost shocked at the ability of the RWNJs to drag the GOP down into the gutter of mindless extremism. Almost. I would have been shocked five years ago. But this is just another step along the way. The far Right now has so much influence that it will work, perhaps successfully, to shield the party's presidential candidates from the mainstream media. Whadaya think "mainstream" means? Will the GOP candidate participate in the one-on-one debate for the presidency against the Democratic candidate?

As a strong supporter of a two-party system, I am saddened and even shaken by today's events.

Ford?

Dole?

McCain?

great republicans?

:lamo

 

[mmi]

This is a very dangerous precedent

I dunno about that. I don't expect it will be repeated. The danger is to the GOP if it lets crybaby "tough guys" like Frumpy, Scruz, and Christie have a lot of influence.

all debates must be moderated in a unbiased manner, treating every candidate and issue equally

How could that be enforced? Maybe certain candidates should stop whining and start exhibiting leadership skills.

what Democrats think about them doesn't matter even a tiny bit.

What about moderates and Independents? And in a general election, some voters cross party lines. Scruz is somewhat popular among Republican primary voters. Nominate him and see what happens.

His favourable/unfavourable among moderates is terrible, and he currently loses heavily to Clinton. That gap would likely widen, imo.





The explanation is very simple — he's WAY out on the right.



Frumpy's down 49-38 against Clinton among moderates. He can't win the general either.

source: publicpolicypolling.com Oct 6, 2015

I'm betting that NBC will come to their senses, admit that CNBC made a mistake, apologize, and promise to have better moderators, and that the debate actually will take place.

Oh it'll take place alright. If you think the GOP has a lot of leverage, I disagree. Complaining about CNBC is one thing, ducking a debate hosted by NBC is another. I don't think they could get away with it.

>>These last moderators should be banished to just doing cat up the tree stories or be fired

Harwood's not going anywhere. He's well-respected. Frumpy, Christie, and Scruz are SNL material.

Ford? Dole? McCain? great republicans?

I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I'd say they were/are great men, great leaders, great Americans. If they're not good enough for today's GOP, that tells ya how much yer party SUCKS!! Enjoy yer laugh.

 

[Sabanist]

Makes sense.





MTAtech is absolutely correct. Let's rear the refutations of his list of lies and nonsense.

I fear we may be witnessing the destruction of a once-great national political party. The party of men like Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Ford, Dole, and McCain. I have to say I'm almost shocked at the ability of the RWNJs to drag the GOP down into the gutter of mindless extremism. Almost. I would have been shocked five years ago. But this is just another step along the way. The far Right now has so much influence that it will work, perhaps successfully, to shield the party's presidential candidates from the mainstream media. Whadaya think "mainstream" means? Will the GOP candidate participate in the one-on-one debate for the presidency against the Democratic candidate?

As a strong supporter of a two-party system, I am saddened and even shaken by today's events.

Then you should be upset at the dnc for refusing to debate on fox news since ohhh idk forever.

 

[mmi]

Then you should be upset at the dnc for refusing to debate on fox news since ohhh idk forever.

I'm not upset. I wouldn't mind seeing it. How do you know they "refuse"? Ya think Fox questioners would be tougher than the creeps on Gowdy's committee?

Baier, Wallace, Krauthammer, Hume. Fine with me. Scruz wants Limpblow and Handjob.

The Democrats will have a debate in Feb hosted by PBS. Are the GOP candidates afraid of Ifill and Woodruff?

Republicans debated in Baltimore in Sept 2007, with a focus on racial issues. The top four candidates in the polls — Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson — didn't show up. I wonder why.

 

[Sabanist]

Megan kelly has stated as much that the dnc has refused. And i actually think fox's debate coverage would be fair and bAlanced with at least one liberal moderator. More than i could say for what the other networks offer the republican field.

So my argument stands. Call me when the dnc agrees to show up on fox. Stop criticizing the gop unless you will equally criticize the dnc. Otherwise you are. Partisan hack

 

[jonny5]

A good call? They are locking out Tellimundo, the only Hispanic TV network, from the next debate. That will go over well with a crucial voting block. Nice move -- for Democrats.

Hispanics dont watch NBC or CBS or FOX? What next, we have to have a debate on the womens channel just for women?

 

[gavinfielder]

Megan kelly has stated as much that the dnc has refused. And i actually think fox's debate coverage would be fair and bAlanced with at least one liberal moderator. More than i could say for what the other networks offer the republican field.

So my argument stands. Call me when the dnc agrees to show up on fox. Stop criticizing the gop unless you will equally criticize the dnc. Otherwise you are. Partisan hack

I agree, but as I see it the problem is that we have consolidated corporate media in the first place. Of course a gigantic, overconsolidated media industry with lots of money and lots more to make is going to try to have a hand in public policy any way they can--it's not as if they're going to lose viewers for bad behavior.

This wouldn't be a problem if debates were moderated by an independent commission with sufficient public oversight rather than fortune 500 companies.

 

[mmi]

Megan kelly has stated as much that the dnc has refused.

Miss Megyn? I'd ask when she said that, but what difference would it make if she has?

>>Call me when the dnc agrees to show up on fox.

For all you know, they would.

>>Stop criticizing the gop unless you will equally criticize the dnc. Otherwise you are. Partisan hack

Of course there is the possibility that the DNC isn't legitimately subject to the same criticism the RNC is.

 

[jonny5]

I agree, but as I see it the problem is that we have consolidated corporate media in the first place. Of course a gigantic, overconsolidated media industry with lots of money and lots more to make is going to try to have a hand in public policy any way they can--it's not as if they're going to lose viewers for bad behavior.

This wouldn't be a problem if debates were moderated by an independent commission with sufficient public oversight rather than fortune 500 companies.

So long as it was independent of the partys as well. Most people dont know this but we have a commission on presidential debates. Its run by the two parties, to the determent of independents.

 

[Sabanist]

She said it the day after the debate to a panel of voters on her show. They discussed the debate and it was one of the topics.

 

[mmi]

She said it the day after the debate

People on Faux say a lot of things. Some of them are valid.

 

[Sabanist]

People on Faux say a lot of things. Some of them are valid.

If you are implying that she or fox has lied please enlighten the board.

 

[mmi]

If you are implying that she or fox has lied please enlighten the board.

Well, I'll try. At this point, we have you saying she said it the day after the debate. What exactly did she say, and how can any of this be confirmed?

 

[Sabanist]

The exact words i dont recall but she said the democrats have declined the invitation by fox. You can likely find her show from the night after the debates to see for yourself

 

[mmi]

she said the democrats have declined the invitation by fox.

I'm sure Fox would like to host a Democratic debate. You said the party "refuses" to debate on Fox. All we know is that the two sides failed to reach an agreement.

It should be obvious why it would be difficult to stage such an event. Have you seen the coverage of the Obama administration delivered by those hacks? In my view, it helps the Democrats because it drives moderates and Independents to turn away from the GOP, but it's had a very destructive influence on the country. It's the cesspool that spawned Teabuggerism.

 

[Moderate Right]

Both Obama and Hillary avoid Fox news like the Plague. As the left would put it, I guess they're afraid to answer tough questions. I don't favor Fox News doing a Democratic debate just as I don't favor leftist agendas doing a Republican debate. I also don't favor partisan moderators doing debates with their own partisan parties. All of these scenarios are just a big waste of time.