Republicans threaten to skip traditional general election debates

[pilight]

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072765939/republicans-threaten-to-no-longer-participate-in-traditional-general-election-de

 

Quote

The Republican National Committee has informed the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has hosted presidential and vice presidential debates for general elections for over three decades, that it will change its rules to prohibit the party's nominees from participating in CPD debates.

 

[Fbarbarossa]

Well then the Dems should attend the debates and debate an empty podium like Jon Ossoff did, let the Republicans take the hit. I believe that all candidates should attend at least one debate.

[pilight]

I agree there should be debates.  OTOH the Republicans have some legitimate grievances that need to be addressed by the commission.

Edited January 14, 2022 by pilight

[Fbarbarossa]

59 minutes ago, Patine said:

But the statistical great majority of candidates in any election don't attend any debates, nor are invited to. That is part of the problem with the way these debates work (or don't work, rather) in any case.

I understand your grievance and I believe debates should be open to any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to win the election and meets certain polling, funding and/or signature gathering requirements. I'm sure you do agree though, that debates are necessary for comparisons of views and to properly gauge candidates, thus making them very necessary in democracy

[Timur]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

But the statistical great majority of candidates in any election don't attend any debates, nor are invited to. That is part of the problem with the way these debates work (or don't work, rather) in any case.

It seems that the 15% rule was made to keep Ross Perot out...

[jvikings1]

Just now, Timur said:

It seems that the 15% rule was made to keep Ross Perot out...

Perot made it to the debates I believe

[Timur]

5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Perot made it to the debates I believe

Not in 1996.

[Zenobiyl]

14 hours ago, pilight said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072765939/republicans-threaten-to-no-longer-participate-in-traditional-general-election-de

 

 

I’d prefer that to a repeat of the Trump / Biden debates

[jvikings1]

12 hours ago, Timur said:

Not in 1996.

The rule was established in 2000. So Perot might have influenced the thinking for it, but it wasn’t to keep him out in ‘96

[DakotaHale]

32 minutes ago, Patine said:

To all American forumers, a question asked by a very Welsh poet (not in this context, though) - "when will you rage against the Dying of the Light, or will you go peacefully into that Goodnight?" (Disclaimer, this question is NOT meant to incite revolution or violent revolt, but as a rhetoric and philosophical vehicle).

Once again comrade Patine endorses taking up arms and winning our freedom in a bloody Rebellion. Vive la revelucion!!!

Edited January 15, 2022 by DakotaHale
Added more exclamation points

[MrPotatoTed]

This one of those situations in which I agree the problem exists -- the debates as they currently exist accomplish little other than boosting TV ratings.  They are not true debates, and I don't believe they ever will be, for as long as we live in our current culture.  

That said, I am not remotely interested in whatever solution the Republican Party as it currently exists proposes -- as it will assuredly be worse.

[MrPotatoTed]

Actually, to be clear, my only problem is with the uselessness of the general election debates -- there is no time to actually answer questions, most of the questions are useless anyway, and it's mostly just a lot of arguing with the moderators.

But the primary election debates I find very useful, as a way to become introduced to candidates I didn't know previously and make a reasonable first impression on whether they have what it takes or not.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Patine said:

I think the General Election debates might have more value if they included everyone who made ballot access in enough States to actually, theoretically win.

But that might lead to the public, televised revelation that JUST MAYBE one or more non-Duopoly candidates might actually have better and more attractive ideas than the two main party ones, and THAT, naturally, couldn't be allowed. 😛

The general election debates already include everyone who has any chance of actually, theoretically winning.  

We don't need the Naked Cowboy in a Presidential debate.

Many of these people are clowns -- either running as a joke, or as a symptom of a mental illness.  

And others may be more legit in their intentions, but that doesn't bring them any closer to actually, theoretically winning anything.  Not being included in the debate is the least of their election problems.

At the end of the day, anyone can be President -- but they have to do it by winning the primaries of a major party, because those are the ones who have the resources to win a general election.  

And anyone can win a primary of any party, regardless of how little you have in common with the party's stated beliefs or whether you have the support of the party leadership.  Donald Trump proved that. 

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I'm not talking about the Naked Cowboy, and by, "who has any chance of actually, theoretically winning," I mean ballot access in enough States that together have 270 or more EV's. Most Third Party and Independent candidates are not actually, "clowns -- either running as a joke, or as a symptom of a mental illness," only a few fringe ones are. Most Third Parties and Independents do indeed, bring a lot to the table, usually focusing on very serious issues and problems downplayed, ignored, or deemphasized by the two main parties - but problems that DO continue to get worse, regardless. And this statement, "at the end of the day, anyone can be President -- but they have to do it by winning the primaries of a major party, because those are the ones who have the resources to win a general election," is not actually stated in the U.S. Constitution (which does not mention political parties or analogous organizations, at all), nor in any electoral law or law governing high office. It is, in fact, the result of a consolidation of power in a highly undemocratic and unaccountable way. No real, NEEDED change, reform, and/or advancement is ever going to be accomplished when the two political parties most responsible for causing and nurturing the root problems have a perpetual stranglehold on all electoral success. This is also why the U.S. has an electoral system and partisan culture and real choice in the bottom five of the First World in ranking, alongside Japan, Singapore, and Hungary.

Most 3rd parties are clowns though. Neither left nor right has a suitable 3rd party alternative, which leaves the 2 main parties as the only options. If a 3rd party got some competent leadership and started organizing at the local/state level, maybe things would start to change. But the current 3rd parties are neither competent nor focusing at the local level.

[MrPotatoTed]

13 hours ago, Patine said:

I beg to differ. The Alliance Party of the United States is the one I would get behind if I could vote in the U.S. Most Americans have never heard of it, though, despite it being just barely above or barely below Kanye West in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Of course, that lack of recognition and familiarity is exactly what the Duopoly electoral machines, as well as broad, sweeping generalizations of Third Parties as a phenomenon, like you just made. A great, "soft Orwellian," tactic that even you have fallen for, hook, line, and sinker.

Rocky De La Fuente?  

He's a thief who used a bank he owned as "his own personal piggy bank" (per the FDIC).  He also ran for US Senator in NINE STATES at the same time, in 2018.

He absolutely is a clown.

[pilight]

16 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Most 3rd parties are clowns though. Neither left nor right has a suitable 3rd party alternative, which leaves the 2 main parties as the only options. If a 3rd party got some competent leadership and started organizing at the local/state level, maybe things would start to change. But the current 3rd parties are neither competent nor focusing at the local level.

Neither of the two larger parties started as local/state parties.  They both started as national parties then filtered downward.

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, pilight said:

Neither of the two larger parties started as local/state parties.  They both started as national parties then filtered downward.

Neither of the two major parties were created in an environment like we have today. Mass media makes it easier for major political players to control the message while smaller parties are left out. And the political environment/infrastructure is vastly different than the 1800s.

But I never said a 3rd party had to start as a state/local party, rather a focus on the state/local level. Taking the message directly to the voters in concentrated areas (such as state legislative districts) would be much more effective than trying to establish a revolutionary 3rd party which will come onto the national political scene with followers flocking to it.

[Timur]

6 hours ago, Patine said:

More effective than Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia's energetic, vigorous, and national-scope campaign against the corruption, failure, and utter out-of-touch unaccountability of most of the major incumbent parties that dominated Italian politics since the end of of WW2 back in 1994. That sounds like suspiciously like what you just said is LESS effective.

I think Italy has a better electoral system.

(BTW, what countries are the top 5 in best electoral systems in your view?)

[pilight]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rnc-votes-withdraw-commission-presidential-debates-rcna24443

 

Quote

The Republican National Committee on Thursday announced it unanimously voted to require GOP presidential candidates to abstain from presidential debates sanctioned by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has overseen the process for decades.

 

[vcczar]

I think Democrats should then invite Libertarians to the debate. This might help drain the GOP vote if the Libertarian is actually conservative. 

[Timur]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But still exclude everyone else, as usual. 😞

The problem would thus persist, and the, "Party of Democracy," (harr, harr) would continue to prove how they don't deserve the label any more than their GOP main rivals.

Yeah, some Democrat state legislator in California wants to ban ranked-choice voting...

[Rezi]

14 minutes ago, Timur said:

Yeah, some Democrat state legislator in California wants to ban ranked-choice voting...

🤮

[Cenzonico]

On 4/14/2022 at 6:30 PM, vcczar said:

I think Democrats should then invite Libertarians to the debate. This might help drain the GOP vote if the Libertarian is actually conservative. 

I would love to see that. It would be a golden opportunity for them to spread the message, which can be classified as a win in of itself (as I would). 

[Cenzonico]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I would love to see every party and independent on the ballot at a debate. But it's unfortunate such a truly representative and democratic event and opportunity is never allowed to happen. 😞

We would have to tear down the American political system and rebuild it from the ground up. Unfortunately, it's a herculean task that likely will never be able to be attempted. 

[Rezi]

19 minutes ago, Patine said:

We're talking about making debates being made more representative of all of the views of everyone running. Where did you get the notion such extreme measures would be needed? Your post seems downright hyperbolic and nonsensical, frankly.

This is how I feel every time we're talking about the faults of politicians and you chime in talking about how every post ww2 western leader needs to be tried for war crimes