Did any one here actually watch the CNBC Republican debate?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Could you shed some light on what they are complaining about and if the complaints have any merit?

[marym625]

1. Yes.

They felt the questions were hard. No shit. They said the dems got "softball questions" and it's obvious everyone on moderator panel would be voting for the liberals.

No, not a justified complaint

[cilla4progress]

2. I missed the 1st 15 minutes,

where apparently some of the most appalling questions were asked.

Were there dumb questions along the way? Yes. Moderators could stand to be a little more serious overall in their questioning. But I think they lowered themselves to the level of the candidates. Their questions weren't so bad. The candidates themselves over-acted.

If the Republicans are going to make a reality show out of it, apparently the media is primed to go along.

I have my own complaints about the lack of integrity and follow-through in a lot of so-called journalists' questioning. I thought Cooper did a better job with the Dems. I'm wondering how much say the RNC had in selecting the forum - sponsor, format, questioners, etc.

It's so obvious that the Republicans have a game plan to go after the "liberal media." It's the only tactic now available to them - to distract and delude. It has worked before.

[underpants]

9. First question to Trump was "is yours a comic book candidacy"

I cringed a bit myself at that one.

The first two debates were mostly in fighting anyway so I took it as CNBC (not a fan) just giving them a start.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. I watched it. Many of the questions only purpose was to get the candidates to fight each other.

Some of the questions embarrassed certain candidates named Carson and Trump with facts.
A few times, they had the temerity of pointing out that a candidate did not bother to answer the question.
The panel asking the questions were unable to control the debate.

I gave the panel a C-.

[yallerdawg]

4. I watched it.

It didn't seem any different than the Fox or CNN debates as far as provocative questions from 'moderators.'

There were some rawness issues, I don't think those CNBC talking heads specialize in political coverage.

The Republicans may have been caught off guard. Most CNBC folks lean hard Right. One of them originated "The Tea Party" analogy regarding Obama's economic interventions particularly in foreclosures.

Trump even mentioned how CNBC icon Larry Kudlow loves his tax plan!

I think this is just Republicans trying to reinforce the myth of "liberal media."

They firmly would like us to believe the media lies unless they are talking about a Clinton!

[LettuceSea]

11. good points

It wasn't like it was Andrew Ross Sorkin and Kelly Evans as mods. In fact, I thought Carl and Becky were Kasich-type conservatives? Did the GOP expect Larry Kudlow, Michele Carruso Cabrera and Joe Kernan?

A small cynical part of me thinks CNBC was trying to give Kasich a jolt in this one (he did get the first question--why?), but did a HORRIBLY miserable job of executing the plan. Someone as politically savvy as Ted Cruz was able to see (maybe anticipated) that they would try to push the "our party has gone crazy" pitch to help Kasich/Bush, and he pounced once the mods got too greedy.

That smarmy grandstanding not only fired up his base, but stopped Kasich and Bush dead in their tracks for the rest of the night. The tone and conversation shifted to avenues they couldn't compete in. Just an epic fail by CNBC that fueled anti-establishment unity.

That Ted Cruz is an evil, but brilliant, psychopath.

[B Calm]

5. I believe Rush Limbaugh cried that day about the liberal media

asking tough questions designed to embarrass the republican candidates. So when the debate started they were all on cue.

[LettuceSea]

6. CNBC fell into the MSM stereotype and screwed up

To me the questions seemed pretty fair. Where they screwed up was not knowing their audience, and too many interruptions while the GOP clowns were answering the questions. For some voters the tone and attitude is more important than content.

The biggest example for me was when Becky Quick asked Ben Carson about his Tithe Tax (wat?) Instead of letting him answer the question and embarrass himself, she smelled blood and got 'stupid smart' by trying to jump down his throat. Constant interruptions, answer molding, when all they had to do was smile, stay quiet, and let him spout off a totally clueless answer.

It was interesting watching that real time on social media. It went from "OMG Ben Carson is clueless on the economy" to: "Hey rude (lady), will you let the man finish his sentence?" The focus did a 180 from the content of the answer to the tone and image of the 'liberal moderators.' They made Ben and the rest of the clowns martyrs.

CNBC really did not do us any favors by firing up their base. Unless I'm being really biased, I must say CNBC got what they deserved.

[OldHippieChick]

7. Thanks for telling us what you observed.

I asked a similar question to the OP in a different thread, so it's good to know what the answer probably is. Guess NBC should send real reporters next time (if there is a next time! LOL)

[underpants]

8. That's a good assessment

I thought the candidates were clearly pushing the time limits on purpose. The CNBC moderators didn't/couldn't control them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. I watched it

I thought that the CNBC panel was by far the worst of any moderator panel for any of the debates, including the Democratic debate, thus far.

My view was that they weren't interested so much in tough questions about policies, strategies, etc., but rather wanted to see the candidates snark at each other. They also interrupted when they shouldn't have (when a candidate was trying to answer) and not when they should have (when candidates were going over their time).

Pretty bad performance by CNBC, IMO.