RNC Debates: A Sham and a Scam

"The Republican Party should be looking forward instead of backward," Anderson writes, "and seeking every opportunity to feature its roster of excellent candidates, rather than trying to find ways to constrict the field."

Click to expand...

Criticism of GOP debate scheme intensifies | Washington Examiner

If there are 16 candidates than a forum and system needs to be devised to allow all candidates an opportunity to participate.

Cut the BS

The problem with the debates is they're all scripted. I don't mind "a" scripted debate, so the candidates can get their messages out - but - I would also like to see an unscripted debate, if only to see whether any of the candidates can think on their feet.

ChezC3 said:

Criticism of GOP debate scheme intensifies | Washington Examiner

If there are 16 candidates than a forum and system needs to be devised to allow all candidates an opportunity to participate.

Cut the BS

Click to expand...

It is their debate. They can do what they like.

fmw said:

It is their debate. They can do what they like.

Click to expand...

Great insight, thanks for sharing!

:roll:

ballantine said:

The problem with the debates is they're all scripted. I don't mind "a" scripted debate, so the candidates can get their messages out - but - I would also like to see an unscripted debate, if only to see whether any of the candidates can think on their feet.

Click to expand...

That honestly would simply be asking too much from our political class. I'd like to see it, it is part of Trump's appeal right now, the people are craving a genuine issue, but that is one demand that that particular market won't be able to supply.

First of all, the article/headline is misleading.

The RNC isn't narrowing the field that will be allowed to participate in the 1st debate, FOX News is.

As a private venue playing host FOX, love them or hate them (and I tend toward the latter) owns the playground so they get to make the rules.

The RNC doesn't have to allow them to televise their debates.

They would be ill advised not to get in to bed with FOX, given the sway FOX and FOX viewers hold over the Republican primaries, but they don't have to.

Second, I don't think that the rules FOX has settled on are that restrictive or draconian.

If you rank in the top 10 of the five most recent national polls, then you're in.

10 isn't a bad number.

And let's be fair, by settling on that number it isn't as though FOX is eliminating a bunch of little known darkhorse candidates who NEED the exposure.

We ALL know who Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham are.

For the most part we all know, or could easily find out, what they stand for and what position they take on any given policy.

These guys have been also rans for years now.

If they aren't viable enough to find their way in to the top ten spot on a national poll (and all of them have consistently been polling at or near the bottom of the barrel all year) then are they really worth our time?

Last, debate viewers don't have unlimited time that they can dedicate to watching a debate. In order for 16 or more candidates all to be given equal and sufficient time on the debate stage the debate would have to be six hours long.

I'm a bad guy to be commenting on this because I don't really base my votes on debate performance.

In fact, I'll probably only watch parts of one or two debates toward the end of the season just to get a feel for the "presence" of the one or two primary candidates I'm seriously considering voting for (and I may or may not even vote in the Republican primary as I change my party affiliation frequently).

But debate views only have so much time to spend watching debates, and the hosts only have so much time they can dedicate to airing debates before folks lose interest, tune out, and someone else gets the ratings and advertising dollars.

COULD the RNC, DNC, and CPD alllow any old Joe to hop on to the debate stage and throw down with the big boys?

Sure, in theory they could.

Would doing so be a good idea?

I don't think so.

I think you limit the debates to a number of viable candidates and you let them go at it.

As has been said, and I agree, the problem with the debates is that they're basically scripted softball stages.

Not that we aren't giving Harvey Analgobbler from Podunk, MS and equal shot at the presidency.

soot said:

I think you limit the debates to a number of viable candidates and you let them go at it.

Click to expand...

You make some valid points and I'm with you that debates don't sway me one way or the other. However, when you limit exposure and you decide who will and will not participate based on, lets face it, completely arbitrary standards than what you are doing is deciding who is an acceptable candidate for us. That's not really what this process is suppose to be about, is it? Someone, or group of someone's predetermining whom we shall have the privilege to vote for?

Polls can and are manipulated every day. So to simply say "oh, well this that and the other poll based on a SAMPLE says this or that guy or gal isn't viable enough to give them airtime" I think that is succinctly put, BS.


There are 16 candidates all are viable, all have been elected to office or are tops in the business community. So to make the comparison that it is some poor schlub who decided to leave the couch and Debate Politics forum and throw his hat in the ring and should get airtime is quite the disingenuous argument to make,