• 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!

Should democrats be doing Fox Townhalls?

I read this article that makes a sound argument on behalf of doing Fox Town Halls. when you read it, it seems like the best way to go. What do you think?
Rethinking Fox Townhall | HubPages

Sent from my SM-J610F using Tapatalk

My take? Anything that decreases the width and depth of the partisan divide even an inch should be done and anything that makes it worse should be stopped.
This all got out of hand long ago and those who work at making it worse, no matter how highly-placed (ahem!) should be heaped with scorn and abuse.
 
I read this article that makes a sound argument on behalf of doing Fox Town Halls. when you read it, it seems like the best way to go. What do you think?
Rethinking Fox Townhall | HubPages

Sent from my SM-J610F using Tapatalk

Why hide from the other side of the aisle? What do you gain that way? It’s a good chance to be asked important questions you will be expected to answer later.

You can’t hide behind friendly media if you aren’t their darling.
 
If they want everyone to vote for them ya but no
 
Its a good chance to get your name out to an audience that refuses to consider other sources yeah.
 
How about we do the general election debate split screen with the Democrat talking to a MSNBC camera and moderator and the Republican talking to a Fox News camera moderator? As an added bonus, they can talk at the same time.
 
When
Elizabeth Warren, explained in a series of tweets that she is not going to help a "hate for profit" network
, she means stop freedom of speech, doesn't she?
Ok, back to the topic.
What is America? Cnn, Msnbc, FN? If candidates like Elisabeth want to be potus of this U.S. of A., they mustn't be selective. They must represent us all. Right?
 
Why hide from the other side of the aisle? What do you gain that way? It’s a good chance to be asked important questions you will be expected to answer later.

You can’t hide behind friendly media if you aren’t their darling.

Good practice for debates?

They can't expect to garner many votes. Go to a dozen Town Halls, maybe convert a handful of the hundreds that turn up at best - not very efficient. But in terms of just being 'out there' the exposure isn't the worst they can do and again, prep for debates?
 
Something that can be lost in having an opposing audience is an exploration of nuance that can be important for primaries. Discussions are more likely to occur in grand rhetoric and counter talking points than details of policy or plans.
 
When, she means stop freedom of speech, doesn't she?
Ok, back to the topic.
What is America? Cnn, Msnbc, FN? If candidates like Elisabeth want to be potus of this U.S. of A., they mustn't be selective. They must represent us all. Right?

It was never set up to be that way.

When the nation came into being, there were restrictions on who could vote. We overhauled our form of government to even start to change that. Over time, we have amended the Constitution to try to rectify that; women and minorities and the poor.

Still, the way we have things set up, there have been five presidents who did not win the popular vote and had to win by the Electoral College (one even had to be voted in by Congress when THAT failed).

Politics, dirty politics, has always been a part of America. And there has NEVER been a real strategy to win America; the strategy was just to win enough of America. For example...you don't see Trump making any real attempts to win over even the moderate left. He just needs to grow his base in the right states and hopefully win by the Electoral College again.

There have been the rare president who, once elected, was able to unify a nation for a period of time...but in terms of getting elected...no, it has never been about representing America, but the side you happen to be on.
 
I read this article that makes a sound argument on behalf of doing Fox Town Halls. when you read it, it seems like the best way to go. What do you think?
Rethinking Fox Townhall | HubPages

Sent from my SM-J610F using Tapatalk

Democrats should absolutely not be doing FOX Townhalls. They shouldn't go on CNN either - it has conservatives on there.

Democrats should only go on MSNBC, and only on the Rachel Maddow show. The last thing Democrats should ever try to do is appeal to people beyond Left Wing Twitter, as that could accidentally result in them achieving electoral success.
 
Of course they should be! Fox news viewers are American citizens too aren't they? But we all know most Democratic candidates look down on Republicans and anyone who doesn't see things the same way they do and share their ideology. Them refusing to do a Fox news debate simply shows they could careless about the wants and needs of all fox news viewers which is much more then simply Republican voters. Fox news has the highest ratings of any news channel by far and its definitely a mixture of Republicans, independents and Democrats. A person doesn't have to share and agree with fox news opinions to watch. Plus dont they want to try to change voters minds to vote for them? Obviously they just look at Republican voters as the enemy and a lost cause as far as changing their minds. Really sad! Not somebody that deserves to be President. They need to prove to ALL AMERICANS that they are the best choice to be president. Imagine if Trump refused to do a CNN debate forget it!
 
Back
Top Bottom