Support NeoGAF

[kamspy]

The weird thing about Anderson Cooper debates is him having more political influence than most of the people on stage. Dude is a Vanderbilt.

 

[dabig2]

eh, George W. Bush avoided tough questions and became prez. It's possible.

Few different things. Social media, the internet in general, and a more diverse demographic. George W charmed his way to white baby boomers, and that's all you really needed at the time. He also received a large share of the Hispanic vote, but a decade of shitting on them constantly will make them less receptive of your "compassionate conservatism" that was all the rage back then.

 

[teruterubozu]

Few different things. Social media, the internet in general, and a more diverse demographic. George W charmed his way to white baby boomers, and that's all you really needed at the time. He also received a large share of the Hispanic vote, but a decade of shitting on them constantly will make them less receptive of your "compassionate conservatism" that was all the rage back then.

That's all you needed back then? So how did Bill Clinton attract Gen X prior to Bush?

 

[Strike]

What a shit show.

 

[timetokill]

Yeah, the moderation at that debate was a joke. No control, terrible questions and a clear attempt at trying for drama and ratings instead of substance. Expected better of CNBC.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

CNBC questions were legitimately awful. They weren't "difficult", they were all gotchas made for soundbite TV. Even before Repubs started complaining about it, I couldn't help but think "man, these are really pointless questions". The first question was "What is your greatest weakness?"... Like, what substantial answers do you expect out of that? Anyone watching already knows each candidate's weaknesses, or will see it happen throughout the debate, the candidates are not going to torpedo themselves ffs.



But really, the only reason the Democratic debate was so good was because the candidates had a lot of intelligent things to say. The Republicans themselves are in it for the soundbites, so naturally none of their debates are going to come close to the Democratic ones.

 

[jchap]

Idiocracy questions deserve no less

 

[ponpo]

Partisan politics in the US is crazy. You would think it would be easy to objectively determine if the questions were awful or not but the responses in this thread couldn't be more divided.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The moderators had a few good moments near the beginning, like when that one lady really put pressure on Carson to explain how his tax plan would actually function, but once Cruz called them out and got applause for it, they got totally sheepish and let everything get totally out of control. And most of the questions were too tailored toward trying to goad soundbites and infighting out of the candidates, rather than actually getting them to say anything of substance (or, alternatively, showing their positions to be insubstantial).

As a debate, it was absolutely terrible, but it was kind of wonderful to watch in a reality television kind of way. They were absolutely laying in on each other at times. It really made one appreciate just what Trump has done to the race, as they were ALL trying to out-Trump each other.

 

[Kusagari]

Most of the questions sucked but the tax plan questions were the most substantive thing asked in any of the three debates.

And of course they avoided answering those.

 

[Aaron]

Does it matter? Republicans never answer questions of substance because they have no substance, and none of them have chance of being president. Missing one debate won't make them any less of a clown show.

 

[Kyzer]

Eh. It was pretty bad. There were a lot of dumb questions and they didn't handle the candidates in a professional manner it was a big standoff.

I say this as someone who thinks most of the candidates are insane, but to the ones just saying "they actually got hit with hard questions" or otherwise trivializing it, you're being kinda biased I think. Watch the debate. Whether or not the actual Republican candidates make fools of themselves is their own problem but CNBC didn't handle it well

Also be careful not to be too "rofl Republicans" because that's just as quick a way to be ignored forever by their camp as it is to us when someone is like "lmao liberals".


Try to keep the discussion open or we will literally never have common ground to stand on!

John Kasich seems like a pretty decent guy, well grounded. I don't know much about him beyond the debates , I'm sure there's some crazy shit I haven't heard. For me the ideal scenario would be Kasich v. Sanders. But we will get Trump v. Clinton...

 

[OuterLimits]

Eh. It was pretty bad. There were a lot of dumb questions and they didn't handle the candidates in a professional manner it was a big standoff.

I say this as someone who thinks most of the candidates are insane, but to the ones just saying "they actually got hit with hard questions" or otherwise trivializing it, you're being kinda biased I think. Watch the debate. Whether or not the actual Republican candidates make fools of themselves is their own problem but CNBC didn't handle it well

Also be careful not to be too "rofl Republicans" because that's just as quick a way to be ignored forever by their camp as it is to us when someone is like "lmao liberals".


Try to keep the discussion open or we will literally never have common ground to stand on!

John Kasich seems like a pretty decent guy, well grounded. I don't know much about him beyond the debates , I'm sure there's some crazy shit I haven't heard. For me the ideal scenario would be Kasich v. Sanders. But we will get Trump v. Clinton...

John Kasich is more centrist on some issues. In the past he was trying to use his nice guy routine. He made a mistake going after Trump. Trump was rather calm most of the debate, but he destroyed Kasich early on.