Posted on 09/19/2015 6:56:06 AM PDT by statestreet
Although the panel of neutral observers I spoke to Thursday after the Republican presidential debate offered varied views of which candidate gained and lost ground, it was debate sponsor CNN and the three-hour forum itself that drew the worst reviews.
Almost to a person, the observers — pundits, political consultants, and a pollster and a historian, who are not aligned with any candidate — panned the questions, format, and time management of the debate.
“The debate was too long, too uneven in terms of time between candidate’s being questioned, and there was too much emphasis placed on Trump,” concluded G. Terry Madonna, political science professor at Franklin and Marshall University (Penn.) and widely regarded as his state’s premier pollster.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Trump could have done better. He needs to prepare more and take these things seriously. It wouldn’t be that hard for him, he just has to adjust his mind-set a bit going in to these things. I know he doesn’t like canned responses, but he should use them at least 50% of the time during debates.
The moderators lost the debate
Walker and Bush, but Bush needed a resounding performance more than anyone. All he managed was to look constipated. Good.
I thought CNN was miles better than the Fox reality show last month. Jake Tapper is a much better journalist Megyn or Chris (I like Brett Baier but he was clearly the 3rd wheel on debate night). The 3 hour length was way too long, I’ll agree there...but I thought it was a much more informative debate and more focused on candidates and issues. The Fox debate was the ‘destroy Trump’ show. They said it beforehand and showed it during.
Actually, I am not for him as my first choice (Cruz), but since he is apparently the beneficiary of a wide spread sense of outrage against the status quo political system, he should stay outside the fray of historical campaign practice as much as possible IMO.
In truth, the status quo political system is corrupt all the way from the MSM and the establishment candidates working within the context of an election campaign process that is so twisted, contorted and false it isn’t funny. They represent nothing about which many out here in drive by are concerned with.
DIRECTLY to the people - screw the media, screw the RNC, screw the other RINO candidates. If he must show up at a debate, then so be it. But he should brush off the nip-dog attacks like a Great Dane being bothered - with indifference and mild disdain.
Yes. CNN lost the debate.
One reason Trump got a lot of time is that every time one of them mentioned another, that gave the person mentioned 30 seconds response time. They finally caught on, and in the last portions started talking about what they'd do instead of dissing Trump, so he got shut out of getting to respond almost every time someone else answered a question.
JMHO....Trump isn't yet fully invested in figuring out a strong, defined, specific view toward all the issues he faces. He's doing the very important job of waking US citizens up, but he needs more details. And now we have an idea why it's so important to him....Trump loves his family so much he'll move mountains for them.
That's my take anyway.
The GOP is making a terrible mistake letting the current MSM control the debate format and moderators. There are too many people on stage to allow enough time for anything except sound bites and personal attacks. This all works to the favor of the RATS who have had no debates and have sheltered Hillary from public questions. Really good debates would have no more than four candidates on stage and would focus on particular issues for a prolonged period of time.
They could have a debate on immigration with the four candidates who really want to focus on that..etc.
My take is that both CNN and Fox lost.
If even one modern venue sponsors a true debate (where each of the candidates fields the exact same questions so their views can be compared) then it will become clear how nauseating these events have been.
Ben Carson
His honest responses on not willing to have gone into even Afghanistan was surprising.
His support for minimum wage is anti-Capitalist.
I don’t know how he did with others, but he dropped some in my view of what a good president would be. He is still a good man, but not presidential. imho
It wasn’t right that CNN put him in the center stage when his poll numbers had him at 4th or 5th.
Who gets the next debate?
If you are going to take that approach, then I disagree. I agree they were awful, but they made a ton of money. That is what they wanted. They don’t really care about their image.
The GOP is the big loser for letting this circus happen. They need to force reasonable debates.
These first couple of debates should have been broken down to 3 sessions of 5 or 6 debaters that were randomly selected from the top 15 or 18 candidates.
Agreed. I hate these media driven debate formats. C-SPAN has better debates covering congress as they debate bills in the Senate and House.
IIRC, CNBC hosts the next Debate.
So true, (#9)...I found him to be pathetic, phony and petty. Such a gphige disappointment given how firmly we stood with his brother (given no other choice.)
Are you kidding me?
This moron is running for President and in a heavily watched debate he sings the praises of the one person who could be the foremost opponent and who is under a criminal investigation and if the world was right would be charged with Treason among other things.
Frikkin idiot.
. . . leading to my contention that the biggest loser is, or should be, the “debate” format itself, and the very idea of a moderator. Here is a proposal:
- Raise money to operate the event by charging $5 to each person who wants to sponsor time for a particular candidate in the event. Thus, candidates with few supporters get time only on merit, not arbitrarily at the kiddie’s table. Marginal candidates get marginal time.
- Control the time each candidate’s microphone is on with a chess timer. You want to talk, the clock is running.
- When nobody’s microphone is turned on, all candidates’ time diminishes in proportion to their time remaining. So the candidate who is hoarding the most time has the most incentive to use it if nobody else is doing so.
- NO MODERATOR AT ALL. Candidates themselves either cover the issues - or don’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.