preparedness and unprofessionalism with which it was carried out, like you re going to flap your wings and fly away, that was a prepared statement and it wasn t funny and it wasn t sharp and it was just you know, it really did cnbc was the big loser here. they looked ridiculous. and to be fair, not all of the candidates looked that great either. they win over the field much more quickly than what happened without them, i think. as of today, who do you think the top three contenders are for the actual nomination, not just for the voters? yeah. i think i m more and more inclined to think that it s going to be down to rubio and cruz at the end of this whole thing with maybe one outsiders, whether that s trump or carson sticking around to the end. chris christie is underestimated as a potential breakout figure in all of this.
identity politics component of this race. which is big. why isn t her candidacy resonating with more republicans, do you think? i think she has the same problem that ted cruz has. a brilliant mind but not kebl connecting on the personal level with the voters. at the same time, my bigger issue is with the republican national committee. want to know who was the pen head who thought it was a good idea to stage their debates on t place like cnbc? did they really think they d get a fair and balanced debate going on? that s a great question for dou doug. so if john harwood gets to moderate a republican debate, it s politics on his sleeve. why shouldn t i be moderating the next hillary/bernie sanders debate? i would welcome that, tucker. i think it would be terrific for you. i would tell you the problem
believe the rnc has decided not to do another nbc debate. why not? the candidates the candidates won. the gop field won and cnbc lost. you would think they would want to take another round at nbc. i just don t really get it. i hate to concede your point. charlie, if you re cnbc and you have partisan animus, why wouldn t you do a much more why don t you say, in 30 second, explain what the federal reserve bank does. that would be devastating, no? yes. people look at cnbc for business news and market news during the entire trading day. for them to go out there and really tucker, that s the part that i thought was the worst of all, was not just the overbiased of it but the lack of
of the reaction some of the candidates had of the debate in colorado. every question is an insalt, an attack, asking one republican to attack another republican. they don t do that to the democrats. they were very, very nasty to a lot of people last night and i think that they suffered. i ve been reading such terrible reviews about the commentators last night for cnbc. they obviously have an agenda and when i compare them to the kind of questions that were asked of the democrats in their debate, the difference is night and day. not only were the questions snarky and devise tif and nonsubstantive, they were just biased. the questions were biased. they asked about fantasy football? really? we have workforce participation rates in this country the lowest since 1977, declining income for the middle class and we re talking about fantasy football. wow. so charlie, to you first, obviously cnbc did a bad job.
tucker, is that i just can t believe the rnc has decided not to do another nbc debate. why not? the candidates the candidates won. the gop field won and cnbc lost. you would think they would want to take another round at nbc. i just don t really get it. i hate to concede your point. charlie, if you re cnbc and you have partisan animus, why wouldn t you do a much more why don t you say, in 30 second, explain what the federal reserve bank does. that would be devastating, no? yes. people look at cnbc for business news and market news during the entire trading day. for them to go out there and really tucker, that s the part that i thought was the worst of all, was not just the overbiased of it but the lack of