I just watched this and WOW what a train wreck CNBC is.  This wasn't a "debate" between candidates, it was a "grilling and gotcha" session by the liberal network.

 

Quite a few of the questions were not unique and were not about a certain candidate's policy issues.  The questions were pretty much bait for a "gotcha" by the moderators.  Rather than letting the candidates follow up or offer their input, the moderators forced their own biased input.  Much of the basis for the moderator's followups were not based on fact, they were based on opinion.  If this is supposed to be a "debate", then why not ask a question of subsistence and if a competing candidate has a response or another point of view, allow that candidate to express that?

 

Consider this.

 

How many times has Carly Fiorina been asked about her record at HP?

 

How many times has Marco Rubio been asked about the failed immigration reform bill that he supported?

 

How many times has Donald Trump been asked about bankruptcy?

 

The list goes on and on.  These questions have already been asked and addressed long ago.  Why continue to push these kinds of questions?  The answer is to drill into the low-information voter's minds some of the "controversies" to paint a bad picture.

 

Why not ask a simple question regarding a single topic, and let the candidates each give their viewpoint?  Why not allow them to show why their particular plan/policy would be better than the other candidate's?

 

If I had to pick a "winner" in this "debate" I would say the the winner is the candidates vs. the moderators.

---