Did you watch the CNBC Debate from start to finish?

[Penelope]

Honestly want to know why anyone would have continued on after the fantasy football question.

[Horsemask]

I'm a junkie and can't help it.

[Higgs]

I'm a junkie and can't help it.

[The Free North]

I enjoy CNBC and politics (normal)

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I'm a junkie and can't help it.

[Blue3]

I'm a junkie and can't help it.

[The Free North]

Sean Hannity is saying CNBC is a shrill for the Democrats.

What a joke, CNBC just wants the market to be volatile so people get scared and listen to Cramer telling them to BTFD. They have no political motivation.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

I'm a junkie and can't help it.

[Vosem]

I'm a junkie and can't help it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I listened to it in a minimized tab on my laptop while doing non-boring things.

[Bigby]

Not this time. I fell asleep from the lack of sleep last night. I was studying for an exam.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I've never missed a debate since 2004 and don't intend to.

[dudeabides]

I did, and here are my comments:

Marco Rubio - Senator Rubio came across as poised, serious, presidential, articulate, and as the candidate the Clinton's would fear the most. He has a good grasp of the issues. He was clearly the winner.

John Kasich - Governor Kasich had a solid performance, his epic attacks on Donald Trump and Ben Carson should help him. However, he has not been very specific on policy and has relied on experience thus far.

Carly Fiorina - Carly Fiorina is very articulate and is clearly the smartest of the three non-politicians running in terms of leadership. However, she didn't do anything to help her in the polls.

Mike Huckabee - Governor Huckabee held his own, but he didn't say anything to stand out. He tried, perhaps too hard, to be the populist in the race.

Chris Christie - Clearly, the Christie strategy is to make Republican primary voters believe he's the best person to win a general election. He is very good at public speaking, but he didn't say anything to stand out.

Jeb Bush - Governor Bush had a very average performance tonight. He successfully made the case as to why on policy, he is a strong candidate. However, he comes across as nervous, he is going too far to try and "lose the primary to win the general," and his attack on Senator Rubio was silly.

Ted Cruz - Senator Cruz is very slick and that has probably hurt his performance in past debates. Tonight, he held his own attacking the media. I wouldn't say he is great at debates, but he did a good job tonight.

Ben Carson - Doctor Carson comes across as thoughtful, and he held his own against the "gotcha" questions. But he has to learn about policy more.

Rand Paul - Like Jeb Bush, Rand Paul was average tonight. He needed to be more aggressive against his opponents and he has to stop trying to win over conservatives and focus on winning over libertarians and independents.

Donald Trump - Mr. Trump continued do do what he does best: entertain. He couldn't answer questions on policy, he came across as obnoxious, and he is unrefined. He was the clear loser of this debate.

[weixiaobao]

I did but not really in the correct order due to watching it via youtube.  I start out midway in the livestream and then double back.

I saw most of the first debate as well.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I listened/watched for about an hour? 1hr 15? Couldn't stand listening to the stupid.

[eric82oslo]

I did watch the entirety, however I watched it many, many hours later on YouTube. I still haven't watched the kids' table though, and still haven't decided whether I should bother at all. I'm so sick of Jindal (& of Santorum to a lesser degree), that I'm not really tempted to it. However, to me personally, Graham is more entertaining than both Trump and Carson combined, so I might watch him to see what jokes he puts out of his pocket this time around.

[eric82oslo]

Donald Trump - Mr. Trump continued do do what he does best: entertain. He couldn't answer questions on policy, he came across as obnoxious, and he is unrefined. He was the clear loser of this debate.

Not really. He was boring and repetitive and only recited old, and by now pretty lame, talking points. However, he didn't make a disgrace of himself like in the past two debates. And the one time he was attacked, by Kasich, he hit back really hard and on point. I believe that he must have prepared that Kasich knock for a few months already. It was effective and he could keep standing, unlike that embarrassing moment he had versus Fiorina in the previous debate. I'd rank Trump as the 5th or 6th best in the debate, while I think I had him dead last in the previous two debates.

[Torie]

The insanity and chaos was great theatre. Interestingly, some pundits think Cruz's meandering mess of an answer on the federal reserve that had almost no nexus with the facts (hamburger meat going up 40%, and without saying it, sort of saying wouldn't it be great if interest rates bounced up) was viewed as one of his best moments.

[eric82oslo]

The insanity and chaos was great theatre. Interestingly, some pundits think Cruz's meandering mess of an answer on the federal reserve that had almost no nexus with the facts (hamburger meat going up 40%, and without saying it, sort of saying wouldn't it be great if interest rates bounced up) was viewed as one of his best moments.

Cruz, and I guess Paul, want high interest rates and no inflation (as in 0.0%). That's exactly the recipe for high unemployment and economic disaster for anyone but the super rich. Do these guys really know absolutely nothing about basic economics at all??! The worst thing is that they actually seem to get away with it too.

[Gog]

I did but tuned out towards the end.

[Torie]

The insanity and chaos was great theatre. Interestingly, some pundits think Cruz's meandering mess of an answer on the federal reserve that had almost no nexus with the facts (hamburger meat going up 40%, and without saying it, sort of saying wouldn't it be great if interest rates bounced up) was viewed as one of his best moments.

Cruz, and I guess Paul, want high interest rates and no inflation (as in 0.0%). That's exactly the recipe for high unemployment and economic disaster for anyone but the super rich. Do these guys really know absolutely nothing about basic economics at all??! The worst thing is that they actually seem to get away with it too.

Using data based reasoning with gold bugs is a fool's errand, and often before you know it, things degrade into claims that it's all Unconstitutional to boot.

[muon2]

I recorded it on my DVR and watched it three+ hours delayed. I scrolled along the Atlas live comment thread as the debate progressed, which provided an interesting parallel read. I wanted to see the whole debate since the first two had surprises at all points that included both body language and words. I thought it useful to see the bits in context before they were isolated for wide distribution and comment.

[Torie]

I recorded it on my DVR and watched it three+ hours delayed. I scrolled along the Atlas live comment thread as the debate progressed, which provided an interesting parallel read. I wanted to see the whole debate since the first two had surprises at all points that included both body language and words. I thought it useful to see the bits in context before they were isolated for wide distribution and comment.

For policy wonks, the debate was a very painful experience I suspect. The moderators of course deserve some of the blame with their stupid questions. The one area of real substance was the idea of raising the retirement age for Social Security, which is precisely the wrong way to go for a host of reasons (including inter alia, that lower income folks have shorter life spans), and the Dems are going to pound on that, but that was about it really. Granted Christie's means testing idea has much more merit. The rest was largely garbage, including all those insane tax plans. Pity Kasich lacked the skill to eviscerate them all. The numbers claimed have no nexus to reality.

[eric82oslo]

I recorded it on my DVR and watched it three+ hours delayed. I scrolled along the Atlas live comment thread as the debate progressed, which provided an interesting parallel read. I wanted to see the whole debate since the first two had surprises at all points that included both body language and words. I thought it useful to see the bits in context before they were isolated for wide distribution and comment.

For policy wonks, the debate was a very painful experience I suspect. The moderators of course deserve some of the blame with their stupid questions. The one area of real substance was the idea of raising the retirement age for Social Security, which is precisely the wrong way to go for a host of reasons (including inter alia, that lower income folks have shorter life spans), and the Dems are going to pound on that, but that was about it really. Granted Christie's means testing idea has much more merit. The rest was largely garbage, including all those insane tax plans. Pity Kasich lacked the skill to eviscerate them all. The numbers claimed have no nexus to reality.

So when most people start to live till they're 100 (and that will happen very soon if current, dramatic trends continue), you think that they should just surf along on their retirement benefits for the last 30-40 years of their lives? Really?!? That's not a very sane position to have, unless you want people between 30 and 65 to pay 80% or more of their income in taxes.

A much better proposal would be to reduce the work day, prolong holidays and work benefits more broadly, and perhaps even give seniors some extra benefits (like 1 or 2 more weeks of holidays, further reducing their work day or cut their work week from 5 to 4 days, things like that which can help them stay longer in their jobs).