No, it’s saying that Trump is advocating openly stupid and vapid positions in an attempt to look studly to the softheads that form the GOP base. Mexico isn’t gonna pay for that wall. 11 million people aren’t going to be deported. Those aren’t policy positions, they’re a blank, inelegant hoot to rile up the base.
A comic book leaves out the details. It shows Superman lifting a building by its corner. Forget physics. Forget materials. It just works. Just like Trump’s positions. He’s painting a picture of the impossible, and ignoring the practical aspects. Comic booky.
It’s reasonable to point out that the number one critique of their platform, is that it has no overlap with reality.
They were invited because the GOP base is largely made up of misinformed, angry people. And those people are polling for Trump, or the equally inept Carson. It’s the GOP’s fault that a pair of dunces are in the lead.
There is no exchange between candidates. The only ‘debate’ is between the ‘moderator’ and the candidates. That puts the ‘moderator’ in the position of antagonist.
The antagonists have done a fair job, in the last two debates, of challenging the candidates on issues that are of interest to the public.
Exactly right, as I’ve been saying from the beginning. Now cue kaylasdad99 to tell you that it’s “one of the most bone-headed statements I’ve ever seen about presidential primary debates.”
I mostly agree. I think Harwood was doing great right up to the moment when he asked the question. I think a more diplomatically worded, less flagrantly hostile question about Trump’s various idiotic pronouncements would have been even more effective, and there would have been no legitimate basis for complaints about it.
Exactly. If CNBC is being accused of bias now, imagine the uproar if they had refused to invite the two top-polling candidates! The only way to deal with it is to invite the most popular candidates according to impartial poll results, and if some of the popular candidates happen to be lunatics, it’s the responsibility of the media to expose their irrationality.
The story says the campaigns will not sign a letter to networks that includes a list of questions. Sounds like the Republican campaigns (except maybe Trump) are fine with tough questions and curveballs, they just want equal speaking time.
Not sure where you get that all they want is equal time bit. All I read there is that they declined to sign a letter with a list of demands and, from the article linked in that article,
Some basically said “Oh grow up.” (Kasich and Christie, who would have benefited for equal time.) Some don’t want equal time given to others. All probably realize the networks would tell them to go suck an egg and that then they’d look pretty stupid when they went along anyway.
I didn’t see the letter in any of the links posted, if anyone is curious you can see it here. Of course it’s not signed off by the campaigns, but it’s still informative on how they would like the debates to be. The most interesting part to me being this part:
It’s a kinda interesting behind the scenes peek at how these things are set up. Some of the requests are reasonable, but some less so, like not wanting candidate to candidate questions, or reaction shots of the crowd.
I think the equal time request is preposterous. Nobody wants to see Paul or Kasich or Huckabee. The time should be in proportion to the standings in the polls.
I certainly wouldn’t put it in linear proportion, but I wouldn’t mind a little acknowledgement of reality here. The main objection to an equal time request is that there’s no real way of enforcing it: candidates jump in on questions when they feel like they want to, and moderators let them. You’d have to empower moderators to cut candidates’ microphones to eliminate the unsolicited statements, the going over time, etc. that make equal time basically impossible.
Cut all the mikes except the specific and recognized speaker who “has the floor”. Shouting into a dead mike or over it makes one look such an idiot, they won’t do it twice.
Sure. The question is whether or not it’s desirable. I think we’ve already gone too far down the road away from “debate” and towards “joint press conference.” I’d actually like to see candidates engage more with each other, not less.
