They have explicitly indicated they think the 2012 primary debates did huge damage to the GOP candidates and do not want questions on poverty, evolution or a host of other non-GOP friendly questions that would make the candidates look bad.
Is it going to matter if the Republican Primary debates are seen as a joke by non-Republicans? If they are talking to the hard core base via the primaries I can understand them not caring what the public at large thinks, but isn’t lobbing softballs from friendly conservative moderators going to make the debates kind of pointless?
Debates don’t really help you, but they can hurt you. Debates really are giant abilities to screw up. So I can understand the Republican strategy here. As for it making debates pointless, the debates are kind of pointless anyway, especially when you have so many, like what happened in 2012.
It’ll work if they’re successful in spinning the story their way. Obviously the base will buy whatever they’re told. But they have to convince swing voters that the issue was “the regular media is biased against Republicans” and not “Republicans can’t handle a real debate”.
The Democrats should cheer this and insist that it happen. For the Republicans only. Imagine their glee when the survivor of a series of softball partisan debates has to face a real moderator when it counts.
Are they still going to have them every three days for year before the primaries and throw a fit anytime the President wants to do anything during their *really important *debate?
My view on such things is this: if someone who wants to be President (of any party) can’t handle the relatively unchallenging debate formats the US media offer, Vladimir Putin or Li Keqiang is going to eat them for lunch in any negotiation (as Obama has been learning lately). I shudder to think how a President Romney would have managed in the same situations; he couldn’t even talk to David Cameron without a major diplomatic disaster.
One related question that came to me but I can not figure where to start looking for is:
If media outlets are prevented from being part of the debates would not this lead the snubbed media to just report the minimum of the coming and goings of those debates? Forcing the Republican party to pay then more in advertisements in those outlets to compensate for the lack of the free publicity the candidates got before?
The simple fact is that the Republican primary debates were TERRIBLE for the party. The nominating process - and the voters therein - force the candidate to take positions that are very damaging in the general election. Learning from that, the party should do whatever it can to minimize those soundbite-generating events as much as possible.
This is one more sign that the establishment part of the Republican party is aware of the long-term weakness the tea party has imparted to their prospects. What it ISN’T a sign of is any indication of an ability to control that part of the party. Good luck to them.
I hate the idea that primaries are only for “the base.” The results are of considerable importance for the whole country; everyone should pay attention
Since coming of age, I have always voted, but have never registered an affiliation with any party. I have lived in states with open primary voting, where in any given election cycle I have the choice of voting in any primary I like (but only one party’s at a time). So that’s what I do; I vote in whichever primary has the action (basically, the side without the incumbent or anointed successor), for the available candidate I sincerely think would be the best general-election candidate–even if I am already inclined to the other side. I think it is in the best interests of the country to have the best possible candidates from both parties in every contest.
If the Republican debates are moderated by conservative talk radio hosts they will be seen as jokes by moderates and swing voters because they will be a contest to see who can sound the most radically right.
Having said that, I really have no idea who the RNC could find to impartially moderate a debate with people like Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and Rand Paul on the stage.
The Republicans aren’t thinking clearly here. As bad as liberal moderators can be for Republicans, Republican moderators would be even worse. Can you imagine the kinds of things Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh would make them say?
And please, get off your high horses. Democrats always have liberal moderators and might throw a weak Fox journalist in there like Carl Cameron.
The RNC’s post-election 100 page post-mortem described the current long primary debate program as a ‘long, winding, random road’ that ‘inured the party’ and ‘needs a complete overhaul’.
I agree with them on that- they had far too many unqualified candidates who bounced all over the right-wing map trying to outdo each other. It seemed like a circus to me.
They want to reduce the number of pre-presidential debates from about 20 to about 12, settle on a candidate much earlier so that person can better focus both time and money, and to select Republican-friendly moderators. I guess this is OK for the primaries, but I don’t think they really can or should control the presidential debates. Inside-the-bubble primaries will be poor practice for the big leagues.
But, they also want to control the venues and even the ‘tone’ and ‘themes’ of the presidential debates. They are going to throw a lot of money into this because they recognize that they are falling badly behind the times and think the only way to get ahead is by using friendly fire. And, of course, they still think their real problem is messaging and not the actual message.
I will be resentful if they get to stack the presidential debates in their favor. I think the Presidential debates are hosted a special commission. Do the R’s think they can influence this as well? I hope not.
Their report, called “The Growth and Opportunity Report” (http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx), actually has a lot of good advice for the Republicans if they want to be a successful future party, but it is unlikely they will take their own advice at this time. It’s gonna take a while for them to tamp down the extremists, nutty evangelicals and Tea party types they have courted for so long to build their numbers. All these groups are out of control, at each others’ throats, and causing even more divisions in the ranks. I don’t think they will serve themselves well by just using more manipulations of the process.
I thought those debates shed way more light on the base than the candidates. The crowd cheered for executions and uninsured people dying. And then they booed a gay soldier. Maybe they should hand out duct tape.
They already do. The special commission you mention is firmly in the pocket of the Republicans and the Democrats - that’s the whole reason why the Greens candidate was arrested for trying to enter last year.
There’s absolutely NO WAY it will result in candidates that can carry the base, but are singularly incapable of swaying the majority of American voters or handling the regular election process.