REPUBLICANS CHICKEN OUT of 2022 DEBATES

Author: oromagi

Posts

Total: 41
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
DEBATE-DODGING TAKES off in MIDETERM CAMPAIGNS
The traditional candidate debate might be on its last legs.

A time-honored staple of political campaigns, the traditional candidate debate, appears to be on life support.

Republican candidates this year are increasingly ducking out of primary debates or demanding greater control over the terms than ever before, raising questions about the future of an institution that has long been a central part of American campaigns.

It isn’t just the traditional reluctance of front-runners to share a stage with their challengers that’s to blame. Instead, a confluence of factors is jeopardizing the once universally agreed notion that candidate debates are a valuable practice in elections.

The media — a traditional arbiter of many debates — is so reviled by Republican primary voters that campaigns now recognize there may be more to gain from criticizing the process than participating. There’s also been a surge in self-funding and celebrity candidates in 2022, whose inexperience at debating and fears of campaign-ending missteps may be leading them to dodge debates altogether. Then there’s the shadow of Donald Trump, whose complaints that debates are rigged is now the party line, with the Republican National Committee throwing the prospect of presidential debates in two years into question.

“The media will fight like cats and dogs, because it’s the last thing in a campaign environment they have any control over,” said Dave Carney, the Republican strategist who advises Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, whose campaign is suggesting he may not debate his Democratic opponent, Beto O’Rourke, in the fall. “But in 10 years, when debates don’t happen anymore, no one will notice, voters won’t notice or care.”

Debates, Carney said, are “crazy … It’s like having your candidates do pet tricks for the media, and I’m against them.”

So far this year, in more than a half-dozen Senate, House and governor’s races across the electoral map, Republican candidates have skipped primary debates, seemingly with few repercussions.

Former football star Herschel Walker, the front-runner in Georgia’s Republican Senate primary, has refused to debate his primary opponents. So has Jim Pillen, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Nebraska, and Mike DeWine, the incumbent governor of Ohio. In North Carolina, Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) ducked a Senate primary debate last month. Mehmet Oz, the TV personality-turned Pennsylvania Senate candidate, says he wants to debate Anthony Fauci — who isn’t running against him — but has skipped debating the Republicans who are. And in Nevada’s race for governor, Joe Lombardo, the Clark County sheriff, was a no-show at a debate among Republicans last month.

In Pennsylvania, four GOP campaigns for governor sent a joint letter to the media recently laying out the conditions under which they would participate. One of them was a no-brainer: No one who has endorsed or donated to one of the candidates on stage can serve as a moderator.

The other criteria, however, were more constraining on the media or any other entity that sought to host a debate. There could be no questions with answers shorter than 30 seconds. Moderators must be registered Republicans who live in the state, and must not have spoken negatively about any of the candidates on stage. Nor can the moderator work “for an organization that has maligned one of the candidates.”

Republicans like Walker have suggested they will debate in their general elections, if they advance. But in a midterm year in which Republicans are favored across the electoral map, many candidates may have little imperative to agree to a debate in the fall. Already, it’s clear they no longer consider it a requirement of a campaign.

“In general, most candidates do not feel they get a fair shake from the mainstream media,” said Saul Anuzis, a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party. “So, I think you put yourself at risk going up … against a Democrat in debates, depending on who the moderators are going to be.”

He said, “Just from a strategic perspective, there’s not a whole lot of reason to give your opponents an opportunity to attack you or make a mistake or set yourself up on an issue that may backfire against you … Why put yourself at risk for anything?”

In Nebraska, Pillen’s campaign said the only thing he was missing by declining a primary debate was “political theater.”

In the past, debate avoidance has come at the cost of bad publicity, and some debate skippers are getting a taste of that this year. Earlier this month, Dan Moulthrop, president of the board of the Ohio Debate Commission, penned an op-ed in The Columbus Dispatch blistering DeWine for his refusal to participate, under the headline, “It’s bad for democracy.”

A spokesperson for one of Walker’s opponents in Georgia, Gary Black, was quoted in the local news saying Walker “isn’t smart enough to debate anybody.” The Philadelphia Inquirer headlined its piece on a recent debate, “What we learned from a Pa. Republican Senate debate that Oz and [David] McCormick skipped,” while in Nebraska, Ryan Horn, a Republican media strategist, said Pillen was only hurting himself.

“He’s not sharing the stage with Edmund Burke. Winston Churchill’s not going to be up there,” Horn said. “We’re talking about [gubernatorial candidates] Charles Herbster and Theresa Thibodeau.”

In Minnesota, where five GOP candidates did debate, in December, Gregg Peppin, a Republican strategist in the state, said, “I would hope that we don’t get to a position where we can’t have spirited robust debates among candidates on the challenges that face our country. If we get to that point, we’ll have really lost something in our democracy.”

But even Republicans who lament the decline of debates as a tentpole of political campaigns can see the logic in some candidates passing on them — and the prospect that they will increasingly elect not to.

“If you’ve got $50 million in the pipeline to bomb your opponent back to the Stone Age, then why even put yourself out there, other than to have a very crafted message that is essentially manufactured in a PR factory,” said Carl Fogliani, a Republican strategist based in Pittsburgh, who added that voters should question the qualifications of any candidate who lacks “the courage to answer questions.”

Money and courage are only two of the factors working against debates as a lasting institution. There is also the kind of candidate that the GOP is increasingly fielding in the post-Trump era. Following the former president’s outsider example, other politically inexperienced millionaires or high-name-recognition individuals have crowded into races.

“There’s no upside to debate,” said Jason Shepherd, the chair of the Republican Party in Cobb County, Ga., “if you’re someone like Herschel Walker who is already the frontrunner … and has no experience debating.”

With the electorate as polarized as it is, the number of viewers a candidate could hope to persuade in a debate is vanishingly small. Meanwhile, for Republican base voters, skewering the media’s role in the process is a slam dunk, especially after Trump’s effective use of the media as his “fake news” foil. Today, just about 1 in 5 Republicans now say they trust the news media — a lower level of support than government, the scientific community, Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

Trump’s 2020 attacks on the Commission on Presidential Debates as a partisan outfit bent on undermining him also continue to color discussions surrounding debates. The Republican National Committee is moving forward with its threat to prohibit future presidential nominees from participating in commission-sponsored debates, pleasing Republicans who have long argued moderators are biased against them.

“Campaigns have come to the realization that no one watches debates, so the risk outweighs the reward,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country.

In the past, he said, “part of the reason you would debate is you were afraid of being shamed by the voters that public discourse, campaigning and governing requires public debate.” Now, Thomas said, “Voters are totally cool with you going on Facebook Live for 20 minutes and having a conversation with them about your policies and your agenda.”

Thomas added, “I’m just waiting for campaigns to finally come to the realization that lawn signs don’t work.”
Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@oromagi

Like I have said before, the USA is separating into Worm Man and Intelligent Man.
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
The RNC has made it clear that they are open for debating still, but that the debates must be neutral and held at an appropriate time.
They didn't like that half the country had early voting before the first debate even occurred, they didn't like how many people in the CPD had openly expressed negative feelings for the Republican nominee, etc.

It has gotten to the point where the RNC feels as if the debates are no longer neutral and when they requested for changes to be made in an effort to make them more neutral they were denied, so they said "fuck it, we're out". It isn't 'chickening out of debates', that is a very uncharitable interpretation. You don't even need to like the Republican party to see just how uncharitable you have to be to reach that conclusion. The debates have become much less neutral over the years, and this is undeniable by anyone paying attention.

Seriously, stop just reading left-wing news and actually fact check things for yourself.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You could just as easily make a thread saying Democrats chicken out of a neutral proposition for debate.

It's all silliness. Kinda like Cenk Uyger calling Joe Rogan a chicken.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Upon further reflection, what the RNC has chosen to do is a direct result of the political weakness of the DNC in 2022. There is no doubt the DNC has a monopoly on mass media especially televised media. Before 2020, the RNC had no choice but to play on their court in order to reach people.

What this decision signals is that the RNC is 100% confident it does not need television exposure to beat the everliving shit out of the Democrats at the polls or the voting booth in 2022. It's definitely a wake up call to the Democrats that all the eggs in the basket doesn't matter if they are all rotten eggs.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I love this. The time for "debate" with these people has long been over
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
REPUBLICANS CHICKEN OUT of 2022 DEBATES
Really? Gee… how do they expect to win any seats?



oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The RNC has made it clear that they are open for debating still, but that the debates must be neutral and held at an appropriate time.  Seriously, stop just reading left-wing news and actually fact check things for yourself.

If you had read the article, you would have learned that Republicans are refusing to debate Republicans in the primaries so your argument that these Republicans are simply holding out for neutral debates before voting starts stands as disproved.   All Republicans, no early voting and yet the Trumpists are running scared from any venue where they might get asked a public policy question.
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@oromagi
are refusing to debate Republicans in the primaries
That isn't happening. The RNC is seeking alternatives and requiring candidates to sign a pledge to participate in the RNC approved debates. To jump from that to "they don't even want Republicans to debate in the primaries" is a giant leap. As I said, stop just reading left-wing news and actually fact check things for yourself.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Same old shit.

Every four years or so, one half of the population thinks that the other half inhabit a different planet, and vice versa.

Nonetheless:
Get up, bathroom, breakfast, work or some other activity to fill the time, lunch, work or some other activity to fill the time, home and relax or some other activity to fill the time, dinner, bed and so on until death.

Red hat, blue hat, spotty underpants.

Humans are brilliant.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
 That isn't happening.  To jump from that to "they don't even want Republicans to debate in the primaries" is a giant leap.
Here's nine Republican frontrunners in Governor and Senate primaries, mostly in swing states, who have dropped out of primary debates in recent weeks:

  • Joe Lombardo, front-running Republican for Nevada Gov.
  • Jim Pillen, front-running Republican for Nebraska Gov.
  • Dr Mehmet Oz, front-running Republican for Pennsylvania Senator
  • Herschel Walker,  front-running Republican for Georgia Senator
  • Tedd Budd, front-running Republican for North Carolina Senator
    • Pat McCrory, former NC Gov in 2nd place won't debate if Budd won't
  • MIke DeWine, Ohio Governor
    • Rep. Jim Renacci won't debate if DeWine won't
  • Brad Little, Idaho Governor
As I said, stop just reading left-wing news and actually fact check things for yourself.
My facts are checked.  You are the one parroting the RNC without research.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Really? Gee… how do they expect to win any seats?
Bidenmanbad of course.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Bidenmantooold of course

Orangeclownwasanorangeclown of course.



Put up a Republican with a modicum of common sense and you might stand half a chance.

Same applies to Democrats.


Last time it was a toss up between the really old reasonably sensible guy, and the not quite so old corrupt orange fool.

And you quite rightly ended up with the lesser of the two evils as it were.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And you quite rightly ended up with the lesser of the two evils as it were.
Lol, Biden's completely decimated the country's economy in one year in a way nobody though possible. That's not the lesser of anything, that's an all time low.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
So you think...But I would wager, a thought based on an inherent bias, rather than actually being related to a real understanding of fiscal policy.


And also irrelevant in respect of  the point I was making.....Orange Clown lost the previous election simply because people realised that he was actually an Orange Clown.


American President.....We're talking World Statesman who represents the U.S. globally, and the Orange guy was a World laughing stock.....Ok, so we have a laugh every time the old guy trips up the steps of Airforce 1......But at least he's taken more seriously as a politician.


Are there no decent straightforward honest candidates available any more?.....Well there probably are.....But they are far too boring for all the pre-election circus and razzamataz.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
But I would wager, a thought based on an inherent bias
I am biased. Biased toward 2.16 gasoline. Inherently.

Orange Clown lost the previous election simply because people realised that he was actually an Orange Clown.
He lost for the same reason Twitter doesn't want to be taken over by a free speech enthusiast. 

We're talking World Statesman who represents the U.S. globally
I don't know how far in the sand you are atm, but Saudi Arabia is televising Biden memes and satire on state TV. They won't  take his calls either.

Biden himself said he doesn't represent American Policy, and anything he says is just his personal opinion.
At least he was told to say that to avert a possible nuclear war.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
One far leftist and one far rightist as moderators. Only leftist can ask questions to rightist and only rightist can ask questions to leftist.

Easy solution

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@ILikePie5
Debaters should be engaging with each other, not "moderators"; you would hope this was known on a debate site.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Moderators also shouldn't be a 3rd debater with "fact checking"
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
You either have a Bidenesque President, or a Putinesque President.

And Orangeman fancied himself in the latter role.....And the American electorate and the majority of politicians both Dem and Rep were having none of it.

Long live the moderate voice of the United States of America.



And cheap gasoline....GO get yourself a bike....It will do you the world of good.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
GO get yourself a bike....It will do you the world of good.
If I wanted a bike, I would live in France.

Long live the moderate voice of the United States of America.
2022 can't come soon enough for these clowns lol.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Moderators also shouldn't be a 3rd debater with "fact checking"
I think the big mask off moment for presidential debates was in 2012 when a moderator wrongly “fact checked” Romney. What they were arguing about was a stupid point (whether Obama called something an “act of terror” quickly enough iirc) but Romney was objectively right on the timing and Obama was objectively wrong. And before the entire country, Obama appealed to the moderator to affirm that he was right, and she did. A lot of establishment republicans never forgave the media for how they treated Romney, which made them more willing to make nice with Trump and his scorched earth war against the media
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a clown wouldn't realise that it's already 2022.

It takes effort and joie de vivre to ride a bike.

And I would suggest that you underestimate the integrity of the American people.



Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And I would suggest that you underestimate the integrity of the American people.
Lol, there's no way Americans are going to put up with the current bullshit. 

"Let them eat Cake" didn't go so well for the French either, so I have read in history.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
I think the big mask off moment for presidential debates was in 2012 when a moderator wrongly “fact checked” Romney. What they were arguing about was a stupid point (whether Obama called something an “act of terror” quickly enough iirc) but Romney was objectively right on the timing and Obama was objectively wrong. And before the entire country, Obama appealed to the moderator to affirm that he was right, and she did. A lot of establishment republicans never forgave the media for how they treated Romney, which made them more willing to make nice with Trump and his scorched earth war against the media
Well, if that's the Republican justification for being terrified of open, honest debate then let's repeat the inevitable conclusion of historians when the transcripts are read:  Romney was telling the lie.

MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.
So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) --
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror.
But here is Obama identifying Benghazi as a terrorist attack 12 hours after the event:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done."
The terrible act Obama condemns is unequivocally placed in the context of the "acts of terror" in the topic sentence.  Obama described Benghazi as an "act of terror" during speeches in Las Vegas and Golden on the same day.  Obama says "get the transcript" because the transcript proves him right and proves Romney is just repeating a FOX News lie that had been debunked by every serious political journalist over the previous year.

Let's agree that real time fact checking is not the moderator's job but there's no room for honestly claiming that Romney was "objectively right on timing" or even that Romney was mistaken in good faith.  The truth of the transcript had been revisited a hundred times in the year before this debate. Romney can't claim ignorance or misunderstanding here.  Romney is knowingly misinforming the public only because that disinformation was popular on FOX News.  Obama's and Crowley's over-reaction is in response to the baldness of Romney's lie.

FOX's original complaint was that the Obama admin wisely refused to state whether the event was spontaneous or planned for the first two weeks of the investigation but FOX/Romney are entirely dishonest to pretend that the Obama admin did not treat either motive as a terrorist act justifying a swift response.

Leave it to Republicans to hold a ten year grudge because they weren't allowed to misinform the public on the subject of terrorism during a National Presidential campaign.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
"Let them eat Cake" didn't go so well for the French either, so I have read in history.
No you didn't.  Historians report that the phrase "let them eat cake" was coined by Rousseau a full quarter century before 1789.  No member of the French aristocracy is ever reported to have used the phrase before or during the French Revolution.  Rousseau's phrase isn't mis-attributed to Marie Antoinette until fifty years after her public execution, 75 years after Rousseau wrote the words.

I would no more accept that the French Revolution "didn't go so well for the French" than I would accept that the American Revolution didn't go so well for the Americans or that the Glorious Revolution didn't go so well for the Brits.  These were terrible, bloody events but as Jefferson remarked:  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
I really don’t want to get into this because it’s a very stupid and irrelevant argument but I think Romney was acting in good faith. Here’s some commentary from the time: 

Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I didn’t realize Obama said “act of terror” in his initial speech, so you’re right that it wasn’t cut and dry like I thought it was—the narrative that solidified in the ten years after the fact was a bit one sided it seems. But we can agree that the moderator intervening like she did wasn't appropriate at all, I can understand why republicans got mad. The debates are basically just theater anyway 
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@thett3
But we can agree that the moderator intervening like she did wasn't appropriate at all, I can understand why republicans got mad. 
Even if Obama was 100%, undeniably correct it wasn't right for the moderator to do so. That is what commentary on the debates is for, the job of the media.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
You seem to think that you speak for 335 million people.

A tad arrogant I would suggest.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Somebody has to since Biden confirmed his ramblings don't equate to American policy.