• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RNC Votes to Block CNN, NBC from Hosting Debates.....

Especially when her question(s) wasn't/weren't) answered the first, second and third times it/they) was/were) asked. With that, do you expect Limbaugh-type moderators to try and hurt C. Christie for being normal and not a loon?

Well not accusing the debater of being wrong when he was right and you are wrong would be a good start at moderation; as would not making most of the debate about yourself. I guess I am old fashioned for thinking that a moderator needs to stay in the background in a debate.
 
Since you are good old fashioned, you support honesty. Since the first debates in 1960, for the first time a certain Repup can-di-date insisted on dishonesty. Can we expect Rinse P. to insist on Repup loon moderators for the general election?
Well not accusing the debater of being wrong when he was right and you are wrong would be a good start at moderation; as would not making most of the debate about yourself. I guess I am old fashioned for thinking that a moderator needs to stay in the background in a debate.
 
That's kind of stupid. I think the primaries helped Clinton a lot, even of Obama won, she connected with a lot of people and we learned a lot about her as her own political force. I would say that it also helped Romney in the year McCain won.

But the Democrats in 2007 weren't taking jet packs, moving their joysticks to the far left and then dumping all their fuel at once into the combustion chamber. The Democrats clearly played center left, but the Republicans in 2011 were way off in the far right field that Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO by their criteria. The Democrats tended to stay away from the same kind of arguments that were later used against Obama. The Republicans basically wrote Obama's playbook against Romney during the primaries. In many ways, the problem wasn't anything about how the broadcasting and exposure was done, it was the people the GOP got to run. They tore each other down but never built themselves back up and thus when the general election came about, they were weak.

The RNC appears to be trying to limit the amount of exposure where the same thing can happen, but doesn't seem like it's doing that good of a job at preventing the same kind of politicians from running in the first place. Makes sense. If you can't fix your candidates from ripping each other's throats out, at least limit the amount of times the public sees it on TV.

Hillary benefited from a relatively civil Democrat primary. No one benefited from that no-holds-barred Republican primary.
 
artificially limiting candidate exposure =

View attachment 67152188

But at what point does that outweigh having your candidates proverbially eviscerate each other over and over and over on TV?

I think the GOP actually values artificially limiting candidate exposure given the last primary and seeing how it helped Obama win, they're not wrong if they get another batch of 2012 candidates.
 
No debates on those channels? What were those channels again? Wait, never mind. For a second there I thought I cared, but I was wrong.
 
This would be your opinion, but the fact is we are talking about primary debates not general election debates. What good would one of these debates be on a leftist network anyway - few people would watch - then they'd say look no one is watching. They can reach all they need without NBC/CNN. Hold a debate on CBS, ABC and FOX. Plenty of diverse populations will enjoy and besides - haven't you seen? MSNBC cuts and clips most of the debates for their airing anways.

Republicans need to swing public opinion again after 8 years of a Democratic-lead country. You don't do that by having a policy of pandering to the same people again and again. Democrats had to learn that lesson the hard way. They had to engage with the massive number of people watching Fox News or on talk radio. It had to be done. There is no need to cut yourself off so soon.

You don't go repeating crap about the "lame stream media" and expect to impress anyone that isn't already interested.
 
Hillary benefited from a relatively civil Democrat primary. No one benefited from that no-holds-barred Republican primary.

That was a very heated primary, actually. It wasn't a Kennedy-Carter moment (or for that matter, a Goldwater-Rockefeller moment), but people were worried about it turning into one.
 
That was a very heated primary, actually. It wasn't a Kennedy-Carter moment (or for that matter, a Goldwater-Rockefeller moment), but people were worried about it turning into one.

Compared to what we saw in 2011-2012, the 2007-2008 Democrat Primary was exceedingly civil.
 
I think this is the right move. If NBC wants to be a democratic propaganda machine, then why expose yourself to their bias?
 
Compared to what we saw in 2011-2012, the 2007-2008 Democrat Primary was exceedingly civil.

I don't think so, but I could just be looking at it differently. For one thing, the Republicans in 11-12 were divided into numerous candidates, whereas the Democratic Party's outcome in '08 was very much like the Republican Party's primary contest that same year (Guiliani, McCain were early favorites). I think this spread out the passion. Eventually it became a matter of Romney or Perry going at it to beat hell, but I just didn't see the bout between two strong-willed, widely supported candidates that I saw on the Democratic end.
 
I think this is the right move. If NBC wants to be a democratic propaganda machine, then why expose yourself to their bias?

Because to largely do otherwise seems to contradict with the GOP was planning on doing earlier this year? You know, don't give up on our principles, but go out on a huge messaging campaign to broaden our tent. That report.
 
I don't think so, but I could just be looking at it differently. For one thing, the Republicans in 11-12 were divided into numerous candidates, whereas the Democratic Party's outcome in '08 was very much like the Republican Party's primary contest that same year (Guiliani, McCain were early favorites). I think this spread out the passion. Eventually it became a matter of Romney or Perry going at it to beat hell, but I just didn't see the bout between two strong-willed, widely supported candidates that I saw on the Democratic end.

What I don't remember seeing in the Democrat primary is every candidate working together to bring down the perceived front runner. 11-12 was essentially every Republican ganging up on whoever they thought was winning to drag them back down. When Newt took the perceived lead, they all ganged up on him. When Perry did, they all brought him down. 07-08 turned into a two strong willed slug fest, but that's very different then a concerted temporary set of alliances that ultimately lead to constant backstabbing.
 
What I don't remember seeing in the Democrat primary is every candidate working together to bring down the perceived front runner. 11-12 was essentially every Republican ganging up on whoever they thought was winning to drag them back down. When Newt took the perceived lead, they all ganged up on him. When Perry did, they all brought him down. 07-08 turned into a two strong willed slug fest, but that's very different then a concerted temporary set of alliances that ultimately lead to constant backstabbing.

I guess to me, I see more danger in large coalitions supporting one candidate versus another large coalition supporting the second candidate threatening to break free or stay home if the other were to be nominated. I don't think anything will come close to say, 1912, 1964, and 1968 for either party, but I saw more potential in '08.
 
Because to largely do otherwise seems to contradict with the GOP was planning on doing earlier this year? You know, don't give up on our principles, but go out on a huge messaging campaign to broaden our tent. That report.

What?

No. You can broaden your tent while protesting unfair election practices in the form of biased campaign coverage masquerading as news.
 
That's kind of stupid. I think the primaries helped Clinton a lot, even of Obama won, she connected with a lot of people and we learned a lot about her as her own political force. I would say that it also helped Romney in the year McCain won.

There are pros & cons to the strategy. If they plan to get out on the stump more, they may be able to still make the connection with the people.

And yeah.....we learned a couple of things about Hillary. Now as far as being a political force.....only when the Media portrays her as so. Maybe in the Minds of the Feminists out there. Same deal with independent women that just want to see a woman in the Presidency. Of course seen that way thru mostly those that lean left.
 
thank goodness! the drinking games during the last set of Repub primary debates just about did in my liver... now I have other things to watch! my doctor will be happy!

Really? :shock: Ya should have tuned into some of those Elections Primaries that the Democrats were having. Wherein you could actually choose which candidate had the least amount of convictions on their record. By the time you got done watching that. It would have looked like you just got down playing the Drinking game Passout. Hell your doctor would have told you to start drinking. May even told ya about a glass of Red Wine each day is good for your health.....Just sayin!
smoker.gif
 
RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates - News Local Massachusetts - Boston.com

RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

The Republican National Committee, responding to plans by two television networks for programs about Hillary Rodham Clinton, approved a resolution Friday to block CNN and NBC from hosting GOP presidential primary debates.

The unanimous vote affirmed RNC Chairman Reince Priebus’s threat against the networks if they went ahead with programs about Clinton, a possible Democratic presidential contender.

[ . . . ]

‘‘Our party should not be involved in setting up a system that encourages the slicing and dicing of candidates over a long period of time with moderators that are not in the business of being at all concerned about the future of our party,’’ Priebus told reporters.

He said he only wants networks invested in the GOP. In other words, Fox. He's pretty much stating openly that he only wants soft-ball questions for the primary debates.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

The Debates are such a fraud and farce since LWM is no longer a player. Who cares if they are even conducted?
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

The Debates are such a fraud and farce since LWM is no longer a player. Who cares if they are even conducted?

agreed
any objectivity was lost with the league of women voter's exclusion
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

...
He said he only wants networks invested in the GOP. In other words, Fox. He's pretty much stating openly that he only wants soft-ball questions for the primary debates.

Where exactly did he say that?

What if Fox (not the cable news but the local channels), CBS, ABC or CNN had done the same for McCain before the 2008 election? Not that it would have ever happened.

Look. I like the lady. She's an amazing person that has reached great heights, and may in fact be the next President. But, there's a Federal law that states that each party has to get equal time for their candidates (doesn't apply to CNN since it's cable). It's bad timing is all. If they would have done it after the '14 election, fine.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

A preemptive strike against a network for planning to run a documentary two years before the election takes place projects a certain level of insecurity and weakness. A poor PR decision in my opinion.
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
...
He said he only wants networks invested in the GOP. In other words, Fox. He's pretty much stating openly that he only wants soft-ball questions for the primary debates.

Where exactly did he say that?

‘‘Our party should not be involved in setting up a system that encourages the slicing and dicing of candidates over a long period of time with moderators that are not in the business of being at all concerned about the future of our party,’’ Priebus told reporters.

Look. I like the lady. She's an amazing person that has reached great heights, and may in fact be the next President.

I can't stand her and I won't be voting for her.

But, there's a Federal law that states that each party has to get equal time for their candidates (doesn't apply to CNN since it's cable). It's bad timing is all. If they would have done it after the '14 election, fine.

Eh? You mean the equal time law? Wasn't that repealed in the 80's? Wasn't it also one of the things the GOP bitched about the most while it was in effect?
 
Re: RNC votes to block CNN, NBC from hosting debates

The Debates are such a fraud and farce since LWM is no longer a player. Who cares if they are even conducted?

Because they are hilarious. An example is Rick Perry. Re-watching some of his debates is like re-watching the Jet's ass fumble. You know you shouldn't because it is so bad, but at the time it is so funny.
 
Back
Top Bottom