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.
Let Chaos Reign!
Why have “controlled” debates at all? Curt Anderson, in today’s WSJ, suggests that we just let the candidates debate each other whenever and wherever they like.
The Republican Party should be looking forward instead of backward—and seeking every opportunity to feature its roster of excellent candidates, rather than trying to find ways to constrict the field. The voters will do that, as is their prerogative. The simple truth is that competitive primaries usually make a party stronger, not weaker.
He continues:
It’s also true that whenever the smart guys in Washington get together and try to shortcut the democratic process by imposing a candidate from the top down, it generally goes poorly. Whatever happened to the idea of freedom? Or democracy? Or robust argument? As a Republican, I wonder: When did we start fearing debates? And if we do fear debates, what business do we have trying to win elections?
[…]
Here’s a wild and controversial idea: Trust the voters. Let candidates debate whenever and wherever they want. Don’t try to control the process from Washington. Let freedom ring.
I think this is just right. All the candidates want air time now, and mini-debates under terms acceptable to the participants are a great way to get media coverage. Those debates could be in any format that people agree, from reality TV, to cage fighting.
You don’t need to have official membership in a terror group to be a terrorist. Why do you need the RNC or a news network to approve before you have a live argument with another candidate for President?
Image Credit: By Rosser1954 at en.wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Published in Politics
We ought to be doing that anyway. I’ll bet each candidate has at least one staff person who is either a Ricochet member or trolls the main feed and the podcasts. Encourage a short weekly post on the issues, moderated by our Gang of Three to keep the post on point and not devolve into a campaign commercial, and let the membership respond. I’d suggest, however, making it a Trump-free zone.
Metalheaddoc
There are 16 candidates now. How about a debate tournament like March Madness? Just a bunch of one on one debates advancing to the Final Four? RNC could make seedings. People could have office betting pools. Winners chosen by 900 number to raise money for the candidates.
I’m thinking more of World Cup format where there are regional pools of four participants that play three rounds in a points system. The top two from each meet for the week of one-on-one match-ups in a eight player bracket.
It’s not the point of what Peter starts with, it’s that he never ends.
You guys from Chicago!
Peter’s Perpetual Podcast?
If we’re going to have scoring we can run it as a Swiss tournament. That way every candidate participates in every round, but future pairings are determined by past performance.
I don’t think we need to have a “format” or “scoring”. Make it more like a green room discussion where anything goes. Those candidates who are looking for traction will probably get it in an atmosphere where they can come across as more natural than would be the case in the cattle auction format of a debate stage.
This is precisely the point. Why, indeed?
Will this be a gun free zone?
Peter Peppers
There is only one way to settle this.
A joust.
To the lists!
If that’s how we’re going to do it I may just have a chance.
CASEY 2016!
I love this idea, and I love the idea of Ricochet being a forum for this kind of exchange (cage fighting might be kinda hard to pull off though).
Seriously, I think it’s safe to say there’s pretty widespread dissatisfaction with the debate process in the Ricochet community, it would be great to be part of changing that landscape. It might also be an effective way of attracting new members, for anybody interested in doing that (*cough* Rob Long *cough*).
Cage match. 16 candidates go into the Octagon, one comes out.
Ordinarily candidates do not stage private debates because they would have to pay for television time, and U-Tube won’t get many viewers (unless there is a clip of a screw up).
This time, though, it is possible that Trump will offer to pay for a one-on-one debate against Jeb. That would put Jeb in a tough position. If he refuses, he would seem cowardly. If he accepts, he could only do worse than expectations.
And when it is up on youtube, be sure that the Ricochet logo is prominent so that Rob can hit the 10,000 number.
Everyone in the Ricochet debate gets one of these for their lap.
So is it?:
1) Any candidate who can string more than ten words together into a coherent sentence and pronounce a word of four or more syllables, while holding that ball of fluff, has demonstrated sufficient focusing ability to be the “Leader of the Free World?”
or
2) Any candidate who can string more than ten words together into a coherent sentence and pronounce a word of four or more syllables, while holding that ball of fluff, has demonstrated that he or she is a big meany and must be summarily boo’d off the “stage?”
This is the beauty of the idea. NONE of us have to propose anything! We just encourage the candidates to work out some debates between them. We get to watch the debates.
When you’re sitting at 1%-2%, any exposure is good exposure. And who knows, if it happens that one of the participants takes off thereafter, Ricochet will get a lot of props for having made that happen. If Ricochet wants to move up in weight class, it’s going to have to take a few risks.
I’m not saying this isn’t a bold idea, but isn’t this election supposed to be about the bold opportunities of the future instead of the stale bromides of the past? I’d really like to hear from one of the Powers That Be for their take on the matter. They’re always saying that the membership is what drives this site, the least they can do is give us 10 reasons why they think we’re crazy. I daresay that if they’d lend their credibility to the effort, we’d get 2 or 3 candidates to take us up on the offer. There’s certainly enough talent within the membership to make the thing actually happen.
Since olden times we’ve had Skype conference calls and MMP World of WarCraft. So would it be the end of the world. of. warcraft., to have this thing already? We can include Donald Trump. Nothing says troll like Trump. I think he like trademarked the word. What is the hangup? I don’t understand. I want my civic spectacle. Now.
Emphatic “like”.
It’s a great idea whether debating groups or simply single sit down conversations with the same set of questions.
Perhaps a special side bar on the site page for easy access to individuals answers to the questions. It would be so nice to be able to compare their answers on different topics through the campaign period.
The thing about Trump is he knows how to work a room. He knows how to network and make deals. He has an authentic voice and moves the narrative. I see some of these same qualities in Carly. I am not promoting either but seeing their skills.
Do you ever sleep?
I read your posts. Does that count? ;-)
Ted Cruz today took our advice!!! He debated a random Code Pink lady, and did a masterful job.
I strongly agree. If Lincoln and Douglas could work it out between themselves in 1858, the Republican candidates should be able to do so in 2015/2016.
The 2012 GOP televised debates got between 3 and 6 million views (on Fox, CNN etc.). During that same period the two-hour live coverage of some Swiss guy jumping out of an aeroplane got 8 million views on YouTube.
Genferei,
That was no airplane.