Changes To GOP Primary Debate Process, Will They Help or Hurt?

Republicans vote to rein in 2016 presidential primary debate process - CBS News

The Republican National Committee voted Friday to exert stronger control over the 2016 presidential primary debate process, acting on concerns that the lengthy and fractious 2012 debate process damaged eventual presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
On Thursday, the RNC rules panel approved the creation of a committee, comprised of 13 people, that would limit the total number of debates and determine who would serve as debate moderators. And on Friday, during a spring meeting in Memphis, Tenn., the full committee endorsed that proposal by a vote of 152 to 7.
"Spending too much time fighting with each other distracts the party from its ultimate goal, which is winning the presidency," said rules committee chairman Bruce Ash, according to the Associated Press.
In addition to limiting the number of debates, the new rules would also penalize candidates who agree to participate in forums that aren't sanctioned by the RNC by denying them the opportunity to participate in later committee-endorsed events.
Though the new rules do not specifically pick debate moderators, they do propose to give conservative journalists a bigger role in the process.

Click to expand...

So, will the limiting of debates and so on help the GOP in 2016, or will limited exposure as some republicans are complaining hurt?

I hope they dont change a thing, that was real entertainment last time.

I'd imagine they'd help considering it really hurt them last time to have the crazies have so much air time.

It was kinda fun though.

Your Star said:

I'd imagine they'd help considering it really hurt them last time to have the crazies have so much air time.

Click to expand...

While the new rules may help the party by simply limiting the amount of exposure the wing nuts get, it will not help the public. Of course, educating and informing the voters is NOT the purpose the GOP seems to advocate.

The GOP problem is not who is selling their brand but what that brand is. We now seem to have two major parties that wish to foist half baked huge federal nanny state solutions to any given problem. The federal gov't is essentially on auto pilot, continuously growing in size, scope and cost with each new "solution" adding ever more to it. Budgets are now nearly non existent and not based on the revenue available but the "need" to keep everything (and of course everyone) in the federal gov't intact regardless of whether it actually accomplishes anything at all.

The recent rash of "scandals" (Fast & fuzzy, Solyndra, IRS and Benghazi) are not the result of Obama but of a federal gov't totally beyond any control of congress, which seems content to let show "investigations" coupled with business as usual serve as oversight. The federal gov't has been deemed too big to fail so that every program, agency and department gets to basically run itself with congress simply funding them as always and hoping that they decide to fix themselves.

The last GOP debates seemed to be an exercise in finding a nice guy that would spew general nonsense (compassionate conservative?) about changing the general direction but without any specific plan of action. We have heard, for decades, that smaller gov't and lower taxes are the GOP's "big picture" plan yet revenue, borrowing and spending are all up. It is time for the GOP to get a real platform if only to cut one federal program, agency or department. Selecting a puppet to keep things pretty much as they are requires no debate at all.

Your Star said:

I'd imagine they'd help considering it really hurt them last time to have the crazies have so much air time.

Click to expand...

Those crazies represent what is considered mainstream thought for many factions. They aren't going away under any debate rules.

mak2 said:

It was kinda fun though.

Click to expand...

I particularly liked Rick Perry's brain fart, if I didn't know better, I'd say he blew some weed right before getting on the stage.

tacomancer said:

Those crazies represent what is considered mainstream thought for many factions. They aren't going away under any debate rules.

Click to expand...

I like how you put that... crazies in factions who consider what they believe to be mainstream. Its a whole new definition of dissociative disorder.

Redress said:

So, will the limiting of debates and so on help the GOP in 2016, or will limited exposure as some republicans are complaining hurt?

Click to expand...

Well, couple things here:

1. I have no issue with the GOP doing this from a general procedural level. Their candidate, their rules as to how they select them.

2. I do think it'll ultimately help them. I don't think the extra "exposure" being talked about is going to matter all that much since this is simply limited to the primary. Trying to create an environment where Republicans can pick their candidate without it being one where they're likely to give extra fodder to the Democrats is helpful.

3. Personally, I'm annoyed by it...specifically the penalizing people for participating in "un-sanctioned" events. I'm fine with the RNC saying they get to pick everything about their officially sponsored debates, but I have a bit of an issue with them limiting what and how a candidate can essentially campaign.

Zyphlin said:

Well, couple things here:

1. I have no issue with the GOP doing this from a general procedural level. Their candidate, their rules as to how they select them.

2. I do think it'll ultimately help them. I don't think the extra "exposure" being talked about is going to matter all that much since this is simply limited to the primary. Trying to create an environment where Republicans can pick their candidate without it being one where they're likely to give extra fodder to the Democrats is helpful.

3. Personally, I'm annoyed by it...specifically the penalizing people for participating in "un-sanctioned" events. I'm fine with the RNC saying they get to pick everything about their officially sponsored debates, but I have a bit of an issue with them limiting what and how a candidate can essentially campaign.

Click to expand...

I question whether it will create resentment among the base. If they sense that a variety of opinions that they see as legitimate being suppressed, controlled, PCized, or otherwise controlled by an "establishment" that many of the more grass roots oriented folks dislike, then those people are more likely to look to other solutions and feel alienated.

I was hoping you would answer this.

Zyphlin said:

Well, couple things here:

1. I have no issue with the GOP doing this from a general procedural level. Their candidate, their rules as to how they select them.

Click to expand...

I would not suggest otherwise. Nothing wrong with this from that standpoint.

2. I do think it'll ultimately help them. I don't think the extra "exposure" being talked about is going to matter all that much since this is simply limited to the primary. Trying to create an environment where Republicans can pick their candidate without it being one where they're likely to give extra fodder to the Democrats is helpful.

Click to expand...

To me, this action misses the point. The primary process is not what cost Romney the election. Letting Obama define him and never managing to define himself in terms that enough people liked is what cost him the election. That did not happen until Romney was the clear choice(even if he had not technically won the nomination yet).

3. Personally, I'm annoyed by it...specifically the penalizing people for participating in "un-sanctioned" events. I'm fine with the RNC saying they get to pick everything about their officially sponsored debates, but I have a bit of an issue with them limiting what and how a candidate can essentially campaign.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would piss me off if democrats did it(and give it time, they probably will). I was wondering if any one would catch that.

Redress said:

I would not suggest otherwise. Nothing wrong with this from that standpoint.

Click to expand...

Didn't mean to imply you were suggesting that. Was just one angle to take the question.

To me, this action misses the point. The primary process is not what cost Romney the election. Letting Obama define him and never managing to define himself in terms that enough people liked is what cost him the election. That did not happen until Romney was the clear choice(even if he had not technically won the nomination yet).

Click to expand...

I don't think the primary process cost Romney the election. I do think though it likely hurt, more than helped, his general election bid. Most of the common "benefits" of a Primary didn't apply to him imho. I don't think he got any greater "exposure" then he already had with regards to the electorate. I don't think he needed "seasoning" for a full campaign after the previous primary and his run for governor. I don't think he particular endeared himself to any portions of the base that were possibly apprehensive about him being the candidate.

I think there are positives and negatives that candidates tend to pull from a primary. I think, on the whole, Romney had more negative than postive from the primary process last cycle. That doesn't mean it "cost" him the election; it simply means it wasn't particularly helpful to him trying to win it.

Yeah, that would piss me off if democrats did it(and give it time, they probably will). I was wondering if any one would catch that.

Click to expand...

That's the one part that really irks me, because I can understand wanting to tightly control your own debates but the notion of telling the candidates how and where they're allowed to campaign, in essense, just bugs me.

Zyphlin said:

I don't think the primary process cost Romney the election. I do think though it likely hurt, more than helped, his general election bid. Most of the common "benefits" of a Primary didn't apply to him imho. I don't think he got any greater "exposure" then he already had with regards to the electorate. I don't think he needed "seasoning" for a full campaign after the previous primary and his run for governor. I don't think he particular endeared himself to any portions of the base that were possibly apprehensive about him being the candidate.

I think there are positives and negatives that candidates tend to pull from a primary. I think, on the whole, Romney had more negative than postive from the primary process last cycle. That doesn't mean it "cost" him the election; it simply means it wasn't particularly helpful to him trying to win it.

Click to expand...

I should expand a bit on what I said for clarity I think. To my mind, the problem with Romney and the primary(from a strategic standpoint) was that he did not use the primary as he should have. Contrast it to Obama in 2008, where he used the primary to define himself, to introduce himself to us voters. Romney did not, or very poorly, and that was not a fault of the primary system. That is what I meant by this action missing the point. The problem with the debates is not in how they operated, but instead in how they where used.

Basically they want mods that will give softball questions or not challenge their lies. It will be a joke. The worst thing for the GOP is their own candidates.

Redress said:

I should expand a bit on what I said for clarity I think. To my mind, the problem with Romney and the primary(from a strategic standpoint) was that he did not use the primary as he should have. Contrast it to Obama in 2008, where he used the primary to define himself, to introduce himself to us voters. Romney did not, or very poorly, and that was not a fault of the primary system. That is what I meant by this action missing the point. The problem with the debates is not in how they operated, but instead in how they where used.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The folks who voted for Santorum knew who they were voting against. The 2012 primary shower the fractured GOP at a national level. I see no reason it will be any different .

I do agree on your assessment on Obama in 2008.