Let's start with this observation: CNBC debate moderators asked several snarky questions in last week's third Republican presidential debate.
There is no good explanation for some of the choices the moderators made or for the tone of their interaction with still-too-many contenders for the party's nomination for president. And their credibility is taking a deserved hit.
This was supposed to be an economy-centered debate and, as such, was expected to explore more deeply some issues that have gotten less-than-thorough examination in the earlier outings.
There was some of that but not enough to satisfy folks truly trying to understand what and how some of these candidates, especially those with no government record, might handle the job they're seeking.
Understand, too, there was a drop in viewership of this most recent debate, which may impact future debates as much or more than the debate over debates.
The numbers were still up in comparison to 2011, when a CNBC debate pulled 3.3 million viewers, according to Nielsen numbers. But this year's third debate drew just 14 million, compared to 24 million for the first round on Fox News and 23 million for the second round on CNN.
Significantly, this third debate was up against the second game of the World Series; but it's hard to say that alone diverted so many viewers.
More likely, some of the early speculation is correct, that Donald Trump's candidacy has attracted a different audience than have traditional candidates. They're not necessarily political junkies and their interest in Trump may have waned or possibly given way to baseball on that night, Nevertheless, Trump's influence can't be ignored.
Truth be known, the billionaire showman probably helped position Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, to become the Republican front-runner in the most recent polling.
Carson's appeal is quite similar to Trump's, given that their support seems to be more about their being government outsiders than about any of the identifiable positions they've taken on issues.
The idea that Carson's success is tied to Trump also assumes that the people Trump pulled into the debate audience are also answering calls from the pollsters.
Still unknown -- and unlikely to be known until actual votes are cast in next year's caucuses and primaries -- is whether these people will be voters.
That's why so many pundits keep looking at candidates with much lower percentages in the polls as "winning" the debates.
The prime beneficiaries of that thinking last week were U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, although the best either has done in any of the most recent post-debate polling is 11 percent compared to more than twice as much for either Carson and Trump.
It's a nutty year politically, one that doesn't fit historical perspectives.
But it is getting harder and harder to believe that the polls are so terribly wrong and that neither Trump nor Carson could really win this nomination.
Their leads are commanding. Are the polls so flawed and unreflective of actual voters? Or might one or the other of these two actually win, at least in the early states.
And there is this: The overriding impression left from last week's debates wasn't really about the candidates. It was about the candidates' views of the media.
Post-debate news focused on that private gathering of the campaigns to plot strategy against the debate-hosting networks and specifically against NBC News and its properties.
Seriously, reports after the meeting indicated the campaigns agreed on a series of demands, trying to take control of the debates.
The demands range from reasonable to absurd and most likely won't do anything more than advance the underlying idea that debate moderators are somehow out to get Republicans.
Here's the thing about debates. They're about the only way voters get to see candidates side by side and to size them up. Much of the rest of the campaigns are about canned speeches, the campaigns' own advertising, opposition-oriented advertising -- all targeted messages the campaigns and/or their supporters or their foes want voters to hear.
Whatever you think of debate moderators, at least they're trying to get candidates out of that planned rhythm. Even bad questions, if unexpected, show something about the candidates' ability to think on their feet.
Anyone who gets the job of president will face a lot worse in office and ought to be able to handle anything a journalist might ask.
Necessarily, there must be some coordination among campaigns, party officials and the debate hosts. They all have interests at play.
But the overriding concern ought to be about giving the American public a fair opportunity to observe candidates in a less-than-controlled environment.
For the record, that goes for debates among Democrats and for the general election, too.
Commentary on 11/04/2015