Friday, June 12, 2015

Republican Debate Format

Fox news announced this week that they would broadcast the debates, but only for the top 10 candidates, as determined by the polls. The problem with this is that the polls are notoriously inaccurate. So, today they announced that they would broadcast two separate debates, one for the top ten and a second for the rest, sort of varsity and junior varsity debates. Others have suggested that one big debate be held with all candidates but each would be limited to the number of words they can speak. Doesn't the RNC have any say in this? Are they going to let Fox News determine which candidates shall advance and which shall fall by the wayside? Seems like a poor way to run a campaign for election to the highest post in the land, maybe the world. What do you think?

21 comments:

  1. Mick why don't you declare. They could add you to their Freshman debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was a freshman back in 1966. Never again.

      Delete
  2. "Are they going to let Fox News determine which candidates shall advance and which shall fall by the wayside? "

    Maybe they let Taylor Swift decide. You good with that William?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Anything's better than sitting in a PBS or a lame stream media kangaroo court with Candy or George Snufalufagous as judge, jury, and executioner.

      Why don't you run Max and join Lincoln, giggle, Bernie red panties, and Martin (running for VP ) O'.

      NBC can dredge up Brian Williams or Dan Rather to run a fair and honest debate. Of course Hillary wouldn't be required to actually answer questions as her positions remain secret or still in a formative stage.

      Do you deny that Taylor Swifts endorsement would not sway an important voting segment? Shake it up Max, Shake it up.

      Delete
    2. IN one of the debates, Howard Dean once said he had the endorsement of the congressional black caucus. Al Sharpton replied, "You only need a co-signer when your credit is bad." I don't think many people are truly swayed by an endorsement. I think she could get some people to out to vote

      Delete
    3. Why not let Fox News decide who to run. They do the rest of the real thinking for the conservatives don't they. Hell how many did they get convinced that Obama was a Muslim? They are very good at understanding the psychology of the conservative mind. They would get it right I'm sure.

      Delete
    4. I am still confused why the RNC doesn't step in and set rules for the debates. It doesn't make any sense to let the news media control this phase of the election process. Seems like a lack of leadership to me. Why have debates at all? Just let the news folks declare the winning candidate.

      Delete
    5. The news folks have already declared the winner, HRC. She's inevitable isn't she?

      Just like in 2008

      The reason the GOP wants it on FOX is because they want people to actually watch.

      Delete
    6. Hey Rick,
      No more than MSNBC thinks for you and the left. Guess a rerun of the Clinton agenda wouldn't be a shocker to the American people. Maybe Hilly can abuse the boys that work in the WH instead of Bill and the little girls.

      What a load of crap for all the people here that truly believe Fox News decides anything anymore than Ed Schultz on the left decides the agenda for the left. On second hand maybe Salon and Ed decided it's Hillary's turn after a poll by Huff Po.

      It's time to have a debate on CSPAN or on another public service channel without an agenda. The Debate should not let the media ask questions but a panel of citizens that do not have an agenda as the media does. Maybe the leftonistas will get their panties untwisted.

      Why the anger as Swift? Because she appears to be a real person not a plastic person that endorses anyone from the left? Are you pissed she may have cared enough about 1 person and donated money for their healthcare costs.

      Delete
    7. When I lived in Chicago, one of the papers, might have been the sun times, gave candidates a page to write an essay and lay out their agenda. I would prefer any format that gets close to that type of arrangement. Fox and MSNBC, IMO, are not going to determine anything. The people that watch Fox or MSNBC are likely people who already belong to one side of center or the other, and they will each vote for whoever wins the nomination. I think that for both parties, the recent winners of the pageant have all looked kinda the same to me.

      everybody has an agenda, whether network or tall hall citizen. That said, I kind of prefer the town hall set up. I would like to see TV ads restricted to the point that only a candidate can be in the commercial. I understand the logic behind the concept that unlimited spending is protection of free speech, the reality, however, is that money is spent to silence debate rather than enhance it.

      No anger at Taylor from me, she carries herself very well. It's a shame we have to create fund me sites for medical bills. Actually, I think it's pretty ridiculous.

      Delete
    8. Ha Ha lou. I can't remember the last time I watched MSNBC. Know why? They are Biased just like FOX News. I like my news as close to the center as I can find., not a lot of sniping and half truths like you get from those two news channels.

      Delete
  3. Perhaps the idea may be a bit Orwellian for Americans but we have a National Broadcaster here( The Australian Broadcasting Commission) This is government funded free of commercials and works under a charter ensuring free and fair coverage without political bias.

    In times such as General elections, the political parties decide how many debates they will have and almost invariably, the ABC run the debates and appoint a moderator suitable to both parties. Often the commercial stations take a feed and sometimes they add live viewer reaction tracking at the bottom of the screen.

    Of course, some folks always accuse the ABC of bias but as both left and right are the accusers, the broadcaster is probably impartial!~.
    Do you think these ideas would solve your problems?.

    We had a snip coverage from HRC campaign speech yesterday, the lady sure has the charisma and with the level of support she apparently enjoys, how can the Repubs hope to get a viable candidate up?. I posed the question after the first Obama election, if HRC runs in 16 can she be beaten? I am determined to be apolitical and unbiased throughout this campaign but I must ask again the same question today. The Gowdy enq1uiry is not even a blip on the radar here. We in fact are more focused on the possibility of Jeb Bush nominating and this provides a conundrum in and of itself. Will the American people support the continuation of the Bush dynasty?. To me it could be self defeating and Jab may weaken the party to the extent that a Repub is unelectable.

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hey King we'll give you Rupert and clan back. Take them PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE!

      Delete
    2. Hello King,

      Well, the first problem there is you are talking about a government funded network. We all know that when the government funds something, it goes horribly wrong, costs way too much money, and then Tinkerbell dies and her light goes out. The only next logical step would be that the government comes and takes everyone's guns.

      Snarky as that is, I don't think there is a shortage of people here who think just that darkly. I like your idea, but most people here, as I think you can tell from reading just this thread, probably have a belief that unless a moderator openly declares themselves Democrat of Republican, they are obviously in the tank for one candidate and by default against the other.

      Delete
    3. King as were the others the Gowdy inquiry is just a blip everywhere more political hype for the William's kind to masturbate over. No real substance to the stuff. In answer to your question about the presidential election, Jeb Bush would have the best chance of dethroning HRC for the position of #1 favorite to win. Of course our conservative friends will see it quite differently. King America is a centrist country when the right figures that out they will have a shot at winning the presidency. Yes I know our House and Senate has become more conservative but off year elections in America bring out the staunchest of supporters and Democrats are notoriously lazy voters conservatives always, always have a cause. One year they actually put a DOM amendment on the ballot to increase the conservative turnout in an off year election. That's why we get out during presidential elections and haul their asses to the polls.

      Delete
    4. Kingston, we have the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which is a non profit organization and carries no commercials. They do have periodic fund drives, soliciting donations through local stations. PBS itself is not a network in the traditional sense as they are a distributor to the local affiliates which actually broadcast the programs which PBS provides. Here is a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS.

      PBS has been accused of having a left wing bias, however, program content is mostly at the discretion of local affiliates, who also broadcast locally originated programs as well as those provided by PBS.

      Delete
    5. Of course PBS has a left wing bias. They have Sesame Street

      Delete
    6. The government should not be involved in funding a business that provides any sort of content. Period.

      Delete
    7. Big bird can stand on his own two claws.

      Delete
  4. Thank you everyone for the responses. rick 0427 makes interesting points. Mick of course brings facts as always and I am aware of the coverage from PBS.We get the PBS News Hour here daily on an Australian government network affiliate. Some time back the anchor was a man called Jim Lehrer (or similar) He has moderated Presidential debates since leaving CNN and I have watched his performance on two occasions. I believe him to be fair and unbiased. CNN in general? by our standards,fair and even handed guess and a most helpful source for people such as I with our noses pressed hard to the window.

    Now the latest nomination. I suppose Jeb Bush will automatically rise to the top of the Republican pile simply because of his name. I speculate that rusted on Republicans would support the dynastical advantage as they perceive it to be.

    My question for you now is to ask what will the independents think? As I understand the position Jeb carries as much baggage as Clinton; he for the vote rigging scandal which elected GW and Clinton for the Benghazi problems. Louman always stresses the importance of the independent vote; will this go for or against Jeb Bush?. I further make the point that as far as I am aware, neither candidate has been proven transgressors, it is the mud from accusations which is sticking.
    Cheers from Aussie

    NB Max has made points I need to consider further before commenting.

    ReplyDelete