On last night’s debate
No, I didn’t watch it. I don’t like political debates even when they’re handled fairly well, and I knew this one wouldn’t be handled well. It was destined to be a shouting match with stupid gotcha questions, and from the descriptions I’ve read, that’s pretty much what it turned out to be.
That sort of thing makes everyone look bad – the candidates, the station, the moderators, and the party leaders who agreed to the format. Why oh why do something that self-destructive?
Stephen Kruiser has a theory, and it’s not a bad one:
The big question then is: Why is the GOP still letting this crap happen?
Let’s look at that. This is all GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel’s doing. The woman with perhaps the worst track record of any GOP chair in history. The party has hemorrhaged governorships and seats in Congress since she’s been in charge.
Who was her most prominent supporter when she was running for a fourth term after presiding over three elections that were unmitigated disasters for the GOP?
Oh yeah, Donald Trump.
At this point, I’m beginning to think that this is all by design. Trump and McDaniel struck a deal: he’d help her reelection bid; she’d set up some of the worst debates in GOP primary history and he’d avoid them. Yes, I believe that he would be opting out even if he didn’t have a big lead in the polls.
This way, the other candidates can endure the pontificating and inane questions from the moderators, none of which will make them look good, and Trump can hit the tanning bed, unscathed.
It surprised me when Trump endorsed McDaniel. It surprised me when she was re-elected. I think her chairmanship has been a disaster.
No one can look good in these debates; they are debasing experiences.
Well she is of the Romney clan?
}}} No one can look good in these debates; they are debasing experiences.
Seriously… has ANYONE ever looked GOOD in debates? Maybe Reagan, for obvious reasons, part of which was half-wit Dem opposition, the other straight up long-earned oratory skill.
Can’t think of anyone who came out of a debate looking particularly “presidential” in any way that mattered.
Ross Perot’s Veep candidate may have scored well, IIRC. But that was Veep and thus mainly irrelevant.
Few and far between at best, though.
I thought the leftist (Mexican) Univision Latina was hostile, aggressively “questioning” [sic] the candidates about their solutions re DACA and the multi-million migrant illegals now here.
Why did Fox have her as a “questioner”?
Trump and McDaniel struck a deal:
All guesswork, but you have to wonder. That was my first thought about this weird event of installing AZ Treasurer Yee-R as governor for a day, bypassing the succession chain. What deals have the AZ GOP struck??
The biggest loser in all this is most likely Fox News, which personally I’m totally fine with. National Television News continues it’s slow death spiral apace, and good riddance honestly. It has long outlived its usefulness and has been mostly reduced to a comical propaganda organ for the progressive powers-that-be in our government and out. Thankfully poll after poll shows trust in media is at historic lows, so it’s not like a huge number of people are necessarily buying what they’re selling any longer anyway.
“It surprised me when Trump endorsed McDaniel” – why should it surprise you? She must have “said nice things about me in the past”, that is all DJT cares about. Trump has always been a poor judge of people (Michael Cohen, Anthonhy Scaramucci, Omarosa, et al) and that is why they all eventually turn on him or turn out to be mediocrities while in office.
@Cicero:Why did Fox have her as a “questioner”?
Because Fox wanted her to push what she was pushing. Fox is not our friend.
@Nonapod:The biggest loser in all this is most likely Fox News, which personally I’m totally fine with.
They’re not losing anything, if anything they are gaining by pleasing the pro-government part of society.
Remember that cable is supported by subscribers, and everyone paying for cable is paying for Fox News whether or not they watch it.
Given that their revenue has little to do with who watches, pleasing the powerful is the best way to ensure that they can continue to collect that revenue.
Cable makes money by a) having enough variety to have something to offer most people and b) not pissing off regulators. Fox News doesn’t need to be watched to make money any more than the History Channel (with its endless aliens shows) does, or MTV (with its endless shows that recycle internet videos) does.
Given that their revenue has little to do with who watches, pleasing the powerful is the best way to ensure that they can continue to collect that revenue.
==
You mean they put the ads on just to amuse themselves?
@Art Deco:You mean they put the ads on just to amuse themselves?
In your rush for “well akshually” did you forget that magazines and newspapers are supported by subscribers too? And are they are running ads just to amuse themselves? Or is it impossible to do both?
Fox News put ads on because they are paid to, of course. Whether anyone watches the ads is the advertisers’ problem, and may not necessarily even be the intention of whoever paid for the advertising (a la the Obamas’ speaking fees).
It’s one stream of revenue, but cable subscribers are the main revenue stream.
In your rush for “well akshually” did you forget that magazines and newspapers are supported by subscribers too? And are they are running ads just to amuse themselves? Or is it impossible to do both?
==
You told me that they’re insensitive to their subscribers preferences. Make up your mind.
@Art Deco:You told me that they’re insensitive to their subscribers preferences. Make up your mind.
It might be a little hard to understand at first, so here’s some other examples to help you:
Gas stations run ads at the pump. They make money primarily from people buying gas, but also a little from running ads.
Windows 10 and 11 run ads when you use them. They make money primarily from the software but also a little from running ads.
Paid streaming services run ads. They make money primarily from the subscription but also a little from running ads.
Fox News runs ads. They make money primarily from the subscriptions but also a little from running ads.
Hope that clears it up!
No one can look good in these debates; they are debasing experiences.
Agreed, which is why Trump was right to avoid them (I don’t buy into the conspiracy theory.)
Trump does not need to participate in these debates. He served four years as president. We know his positions, personality, and what he would do as president. I will not be voting for him in the primary, but it is no mystery why he is leading in the polls. Republicans saw what he did as president, and for the most part, liked it.
The “inquisitor” from Telemundo was a huge gaffe by Fox. I suppose they thought it would lend an air of diversity. My question was, “Why is someone, whose second language is Eneglish, selected to be a moderator at an American political debate?” Very bad form.
As usual, there were some good moments, but most of it was not helpful in separating the policy ideas of the candidates. Nikki Haley did distinguish herself as quite an argumentative shrew who really hates Vivek Ramaswamy.
But to give Nikki her due, she had a good moment on our healthcare system when she pointed out that lack of transparency on price and treatments is a major problem that needs to be solved. However, none of the candidates had a solution to that problem that I could discern.
I thought DeSantis did a credible job and landed some blows on DJT’s record.
Vivek was a bit humbler, but he still rambles on when the time bell rings. He’s just very verbose.
I like many of his ideas but wonder if he can deliver on even a fraction of them.
IMO, mostly a waste of time.
Mike Plaiss:
Trump has no problem debasing himself, and he doesn’t need a debate to help him in that endeavor. When he did things like accuse Ted Cruz’s father of somehow being implicated in the JFK assassination, he debased himself.
But I realized early on that this cycle there would be no reason for him to participate in debates. He is way ahead, so why open himself up to all the risks that they entail?
Oops! The ‘inquisitor” from Univision, not Telemundo. Reaching out to Latinos? Not the best way to do it.
@ Mike Plaiss
“No one can look good in these debates; they are debasing experiences.”
“[1] Agreed, which is why Trump was right to avoid them [2] (I don’t buy into the conspiracy theory.) [3] Trump does not need to participate in these debates. He served four years as president. We know his positions, personality, and what he would do as president. …, [4] but it is no mystery why he is leading in the polls. Republicans saw what he did as president, and for the most part, liked it.”
• 100% agree with all 4 points.
• I’ll add that sometimes ‘A cigar is just a cigar’ (see “At this point, I’m beginning to think that this is all by design. Trump and McDaniel struck a deal: he’d help her reelection bid; she’d set up some of the worst debates in GOP primary history and he’d avoid them.” )
• Can not find a single example in the history of Republican Presidential primary debates were the RNC chair was blamed for the quality of the candidates ^^ that were running for President; which is the pool from which debaters are selected – and which is the key reason why these are seen as “some of the worst debates in GOP primary history”.
^^ = that is not to say they have not been blamed for qualifying rules, formats, moderators, etc. – but other primary debates have had better candidates (see 2016 competitiveness).
• Lastly, while the less competitive/ weaker candidates (see 40+ behind Trump) were (fill in the blank) – Trump was working on expanding the Republican voting base among non-traditional Republican voters – something Trump has continually done since he first ran in 2016 (see most legitimate votes in USA history).
• Last lastly, even if they tried, not sure how many of the other primary candidates in the debate last night could expand the Republican voting base among non-traditional Republican voters (and “not sure” is me being polite).
I’m hearing a lot of sincere complaints from pundits and others on the right. It’s never been a good format, but with the current plethora of alternative media options and the GOP leader already refusing to participate I wonder if we’ll finally see some change. It wouldn’t surprise me to see one or more of the major players to bow out of the next scheduled debate.
Not participating only seems to help Trump’s polling numbers.
Desantis already has a separate event scheduled with Newsom.
Ramaswamy has done a thousand podcasts and will certainly continue that strategy.
Going on Rogan gets candidates multiples of viewers compared to these events, and Rogan lets them talk for more than 1 minute.