Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans Opting Out of Debates?
Headline: R.N.C. Signals a Pullout From Presidential Debates. Is the RNC really about to do something that isn’t stupid? All I know is my gut says, “Maybe.”
The Republican National Committee is preparing to change its rules to require presidential candidates seeking the party’s nomination to sign a pledge to not participate in any debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
The nonprofit commission, founded by the two parties in 1987 to codify the debates as a permanent part of presidential elections, describes itself as nonpartisan. But Republicans have complained for nearly a decade that its processes favor the Democrats, mirroring increasing rancor from conservatives toward Washington-based institutions.
They aren’t even debates. They’re just Media Operatives asking banal questions followed by the politicians giving canned answers their handlers wrote for them. The only politician to respond spontaneously in any of them was Trump. They are never informative, since the candidates are only repeating the talking points from their stump speeches. The media is just looking for its “Gotcha” moment, like Gerald Ford denying the existence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe, or Mitt Romney talking about the binders full of women he had strapped to the top of his car or something.
And these things are almost always moderated by Democratic Party Activists with bylines … Candy Crowley, John Harwood, Chris Wallace, Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper. That the Republicans on the supposedly bipartisan CPD agreed to this shows their utter incompetence and uselessness.
Now, if we can just get rid of those scripted “Townhall Meetings,” where Democrat activists pose as “Undecided Voters” to ask Republican candidate questions like, “As an independent voter, my biggest issue is Climate Change. If elected, will you pledge to shut down all coal mining and oil production in the world, and if not, why do you hate the children, who are our future, so much?” It would actually be fantastic to see real voters ask real questions of the candidates; rather than media operatives repeating questions fed to them by their colleagues in the Washington DC Bubble.
While the eventual nominee could decide to debate, there’s far more energy in the G.O.P. base behind abandoning institutions than there used to be.
It never occurs to them to blame failing institutions (journalism, media, government) for this.
Published in Journalism
Remember Annie Savoy’s comment in Bull Durham: The world is made for those not cursed with self-awareness.
If they can prop him up, he probably will. Who’s in the bullpen, Harris, Mayor Pete… ?
The 1960 debate was decisive. Nixon’s heavy beard made him look like a hobo, and Kennedy looked like a movie star.
I read once that people who read the transcripts of the debates said Nixon was the clear winner. Those who watched the debates differed.
That was pretty much the consensus at the time, as I recall.
I was 22 that November and old enough to vote but I was living in DC, no voting for anyone there at that time.
That’s like asking how we should replace the plague. Replace it with its absence.
Gil Fulbright for Kentucky:
The incorrect assumption here is that the Republican candidate will be “debating” Joe Biden or whoever is the Democrat candidate. I don’t think that’s been the case for many decades. The Republican candidate debates the Democrat candidate plus the (Democrat) moderator. Candy Crowley wasn’t the first opponent on stage for the Democrats, nor will she be the last.
I liken this possibility to Rob Portman and Kevin McCarthy (who I consider to be a weak leader for the Republicans — a Californian?! Really??) refusing to play along with the J6 committee. If they were held in “contempt of Congress” for it, my response would be, “Amen!” We should all have contempt for Congress and the Commission for Presidential Debates. It’s richly deserved and conservatives and patriots have to stop playing by the Left’s rules.
I actually enjoy watching the debates. I guess I’m in the minority.
Biden was allowed to campaign from his basement. Why should anyone else not get the same treatment?
Televised debates – presidential or primary – would be a fine way of choosing a game-show host. As exercises in democracy they are a cruel joke. That the main beneficiaries of debates are the consultant class and the media tells you all you need to know.
I do as well. There have been one or two contests where I’ve tuned in to take the measure of the man. Not that it would have caused me to vote for his opponent, but the performances made me more comfortable voting for my candidate. Bush-Gore comes to mind. I wanted to see how Bush handled himself and I thought he did well enough. It helped that Al Gore was insufferable. I thought it was dereliction of duty that we didn’t have a debate in 2020 on foreign policy. On the other hand, the debates can be cruel. Who can forget the disastrous performance of James Stockdale in the VP debate when Ross Perot was mounting a 3rd party candidacy. I understand that he was a brave, smart, serious man and yet he was reduced to a laughing stock by his poor performance. The problem with VP debates is that you only get one chance.
But I respect the RNC for finally saying enough, as I agree with the comments above that the Republican is debating both the moderator and the Democrat. Chris Wallace was a disgrace with the questions he asked and I never watched him again after he inserted himself into the debate with his “racial sensitivity training” remark. I would not have TV “journalists” as the moderators and I would definitely eliminate the ridiculous Town Hall format.
I watched a three-hour Rogan interview for the first time. He’s nearly as good as Tim Russert. I didn’t expect that after watching his martial arts commentating.
In fairness, it was a new thing back then and everybody watched with rapt attention. The debates we have nowadays only get a comparatively modest-sized audience, and that audience has already had their fill of coverage of the guys onstage.
Are you saying that D.C. residents were not allowed to vote for President back then? I’ve never heard that before.
Not everything revolves around Trump
Unless the Disney Animatronics Engineers improve their game, Biden will not be the democrat nominee.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xxiii
Newt rejected the premise of the question. All of the questions. Newt stepped around the rather obvious “trap” being set. He wasn’t nice about it. And the audience applauded, which made the
Democrat operativesjournalists look bad.When the moderator plays an integral part in the debate, like cutting off the Republicans response and incorrectly correcting him, it’s no longer a debate, it’s a controlled discussion with a bias.
I feel you Mark, but as far as I can see, it was tempered belligerence and judging by the numbers of likes Drew’s comment fetched, I dare say it was also cathartic!
Yes. And there was no mayor or House Representative. Instead of elected mayor there were Commissioners with a Chairman as executive appointed by the Speaker, as I recall.
This should explain a bit of why we are where we are today. There is much of the world that most people are not aware. It’s not always important but it is there nonetheless.
Which the Republicans on the commission agreed to.
I’ve been calling for this for decades, if debates favored Republicans the Democrats and the press would have ended them ages ago. It is my firm contention that had Kennedy lost in 1960 due to the debate the whole idea would have ended right then. Only the Stupid Party walks it’s candidates into the media kill zone every cycle.
I remember my mom telling me she voted for Kennedy because he had a nice head of hair. Not everybody votes issues.
Seems to me that Fox gets pretty good viewership ratings, maybe those ratings should dictate the makeup of the moderators. I would definitely trade a Madow moderated debate for a Levin moderated debate. Let it all hang out with moderators who are openly partisan. Each party can name its own moderators for primary debates.
I don’t think debates are totally useless. I remember pretty distinctly in a Dem primary debate, the moderator asked for a show of hands on free medical for illegal aliens and watched the whole dias raise their hands. That’s actually a pretty good indicator of where a candidate and party stand.
And yeah, love the chess clock. If you don’t use your allotted time on a question, the time carries over to that candidate later in the debate. I note that some candidates seem to have way less speaking time than others, which is also a function of the moderator’s preference. Might cut down on the folksy stories and obfuscation that do not inform the voters.
During one of our local forums a candidate for judge couldn’t finish his prepared spiel during the allotted 5 minutes. During the following ten minute question session, no matter what was asked he pick up his prepared speech where he left off (to the word). The audience found it funny after the third time, but he was slaughtered in the primary.
I gotta say, of the insulting, irrational, puerile and belligerent things I see here, this comment of Drew’s doesn’t rate (piker!). I confess that a similar thought crossed my mind. I would have expected Gary to address Romney in 2012 instead. My guess is that he would agree with the broad thrust from that perspective — I think we’re all in agreement what happened there within the “debates”.
Tex, that’s exactly the value of debates that might not come across in a newspaper article. Maybe a viewer sees the candidate as committed to finishing whatever he starts, but most will write him off for being unable to comfortably adjust to events as they unfold.