Winners: Cruz, Rubio Losers: Carson, Kasich, Bush Cruz had good moments and gave a great performance overall. Rubio fended off Bush's (frankly stupid) attacks on his voting record and remained composed and positive throughout. Carson continues to show he has no knowledge of economic policy or anything else really. Kasich got abused by Trump, but Trump didn't do anything else. Bush continues to not have any good moments, and his attacks on Rubio backfired.
Here's a summary of the CNBC Debate: a mess. Mediocre moderators tasked with severe time restrictions trying to run the show. Candidates shouting over each other, pleading for more time and even attacking the moderators, themselves, on numerous occasions. A very embarrassing night for the network. In general, just a bunch of whining about the "liberal media" and desperate attempts to portray themselves as the best candidate to take on Hillary Clinton in a general election. Seriously, if you played a debate drinking game and had to drink anytime the words "media" or "Hillary" were mentioned, you're at a hospital right now unconscious getting your stomach pumped. Big winner: Rubio Performed well: Cruz, Fiorina, Christie, Huckabee Performed poorly: Carson, Trump Disaster: Bush - Attacks totally backfired; dead last in airtime. He's toast. Unclear: Kasich - Was very aggressive; perhaps could boost his numbers. Speaks a language too complex for the average voter (and thus irrelevant): Paul
Winners: Cruz and Rubio (both should see bumps in the polls) Loser: Bush (he should be done after this) Biggest loser: CNBC. That was the most ridiculously moderated debate I have ever seen. The hatred was flowing from the moderators. It looked like some of the resident liberals here in the D&D were moderating.
You do know CNBC is a conservative business channel right? Summery of last night's debate in one word: WAAH! What a bunch of whiners! Not Presidential
Candy Crowley level embarassing <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Rubio to @<a href="https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood">JohnJHarwood</a>: You had to correct your report. Harwood: No I didn't. Oops. <a href="https://t.co/BlTISQauAT" title="https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/654282664506036225">twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/s…</a></p>— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) <a href="https://twitter.com/EdMorrissey/status/659548032233439232" data-datetime="2015-10-29T01:51:19+00:00">October 29, 2015</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">CORRECTING earlier tweet: Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more (55.9) than top 1% (27.9%). Avg for all: 17.8%.</p>— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/654282664506036225">October 14, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I like Rubio's campaign style. I think he can be a fair and good president but I don't see his party let him win the primaries.
Not sure if that was a debate between the candidates or between the candidates/moderators. Either way, pretty sure candidates won.
Do you understand what you quote? 1) The figures assume spectacular economic growth which may or may not happen. If it stays the same, the figures are bottom 10% (44.2), top 1% (11.5%), avg (3.9%). 2) Even if your quoted figures are correct, it means the top 1% benefits much much more than the middle 89%, much much more than the bottom 10%. Can you multiply 27.9 % to $100 million dollars? That's the same old song Republicans have sung since forever. Throw some bones to the bottom 10%, the higher percentage increase of their dismal income means little compared to the 27.9% increase in income of the rich, at the same time they sock it to the middle class. Then turn around and complain that the middle class of this country has been destroyed .... blah blah.
Slate Magazine on the CNBC debate and the GOP candidates war on the media: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/republican_presidential_candidates_attack_the_truth_in_cnbc_debate_ted_cruz.html
Maybe so, but the subhead to the article is certainly true as well. Leading GOP candidates aren’t at war with the press. They just have a problem with the truth.
being exposed as a charlatan is embarrassing and no one appears madder than when they are embarrassed
Facts aren't liberal or conservative. This old Limbaugh saw about media bias is pretty stale. The facts are pretty easy to find, and outside their echo chambers, we have a rash of politicians who cannot engage the facts. Sad times. Scary times.
President Obama's healthcare legislation push was more scrutinized by the mainstream media than President Bush's march to war in Iraq.
It is funny but if Hillary were on there it would be a picture of Pinocchio. I really like the pic for Christie...
I will not accept that one of the two major parties cannot come up with better candidates that these.... Rubio is a legitimate candidate on policy issues, but he has baggage with the Tea Party, he also comes across as an effeminate homosexual. Bush just looks like he doesn't want to be there. He just doesn't care. Carson wouldn't even be on the panel if he wasn't black. Republicans need a black candidate so they can counteract the racist label. It was Herman Cain before, now Carson. You listen to Carson and he is ignorant to basic policy issues. It is insulting. Christie is a fat, disgusting North Eastern pig that is really just a corrupt monarch of his state. Huckabee is a nut, that apparently thinks he is an extra on the Andy Griffith Show. Ted Cruz is quite possibly the biggest ******* in the history of politics. The only party that hates him more than the Dems? The elected officials on his side of the aisle. Rand Paul is just too out there. Most people don't trust him. There has to be someone out there better to represent the Republicans......
