Don’t you think the viewership of the debates with Trump will be significantly higher? And this could bode well for anyone who might “shine” at the debates. I know there are many irrational haters on this board. But, you have to admit Trump would add a lot of interest and viewership to the debates. How that translates is anyone’s guess, but it has to be better than a lower viewership.
No Pubbie can possibly “shine” in the debates. And there’s nothing irrational about hating them.
Announcing that the candidates would be forced to play Russian roulette would bring in even more viewers, right? Even if Trump brought in more viewers, the quality of the debate is going to go down over all.
That’s probably true. But I think the viewership could double or triple. Who they would be, reality show fans, red necks, white trash? Maybe not likely voters. But, they could become voters. . .
But if those are the voters that will be attracted to stunts like a Trump candidacy, than perhaps “shining” isn’t something the candidates should be striving for. At that point they should just dump the debate format completely and go for hog-calling contests and beer pong.
I’m sure I read it somewhere else on this very board but someone pointed out; a) his hair will suck all the air out of the room, b) he’s gonna slag on them all ruthlessly, c) the following day only his sound bites will make news, (‘because they are ridiculous’ being implied!)
I thought it a pretty astute assessment, when I read it. Were I a republican candidate, he’s the last guy I want to see in the damn debate!
If the Republican debates play out anything like last cycle’s, then having people watch them is the worst thing that could happen to the Republication Party.
And if Trump is in the debates, then we can be sure that they will play out like last cycle’s.
I don’t understand why the Republican Party won’t reign in these imbeciles. In 2012, I justified it by saying the party was having a rough year and that this was an exception, but it doesn’t look like that’s true. I’m not sure what’s worse: they either take him seriously, or they’re not disciplined enough to kick him out. Either way, this life-long Republican is about to jump ship in utter disgust.
But with expectations so low, Trump is bound to impress!
Also, if Obama brings in a lot of new “ghetto” voters he’s a hero, but if Trump brings in a lot of new “Trailer Park” voters he’s a clown?
Plus, what are the Democrats going to do for a debate? Whatever the Republicans do with Donald Trump or anybody is going to be a lot more interesting than just Hillary in a room by herself.
Anyway, I’m just enjoying all the room for speculation.
It’s not very organized yet, as far as I can tell. The DNC plans to sponsor six debates with the first in August or September, probably in Iowa. No TV plans that I can find out. Maybe it’ll be on FOX News.
It won’t be just Hillary though. (Speaking of irrational haters, eh?) There are five candidates right now, all of whom are more serious than a number of the Republicans.
Hillary is not an irrational hater. Plus, she’s like 60 points ahead of her nearest competitor. Do you think she’ll actually show up? Don’t pretend that the a democratic field is as wide open as the Republican field. It’s a real problem for Democrats.
No, I was referring to your comment in the OP about so many irrational haters on this board. Not all irrational haters are Democrats.
Yes, I think she’ll show up, and no, the field isn’t nearly as wide open. So? What’s that got to do with having debates?
Force 'em to play fifteen rounds. I would be SO there.
Seriously?
Knock it off.
If you just want to rant against a group, go open a thread in The BBQ Pit.
This is too much like threadshitting and does nothing to promote discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
Trump would grab a semiautomatic off the table and say, “I’m the richest, I go first.” as he racks the slide.
Yes, that was totally an Obama election theme. Don’t you remember? All of the low-dollar contributions and the vans running though all of the urban areas promoting “voter participation.” Totally, Obama got out the poor black “ghetto” vote out like no other. You can’t possibly deny that. They crowed about that. And it’s not a bad thing. So, don’t bash the potential for Trump to bring out his “constituency” to the debates. Or, do you only want more voter participation if you can gauge how they’re gonna vote?
Thread Summation: Trump’s participation brings more people to the table and makes more people interested in the election. Period.
I don’t actually believe that you don’t understand just how racist and offensive it is to call it that, to be honest.
You’re being so dishonest and disingenuous to be saying that. You know it’s true. How convenient for you to be selectively racist.
I know WHAT is true? That Obama mobilized a segment of the population that has always had horrible voting numbers before? Yes, that’s true. I’m taking issue with the word you used to describe those people. I have no idea how that can be honest or dishonest. Or ingenuous or disingenuous. I’m kind of thinking that latter word, especially, might not mean what you think it means.
And you know the word I used is not disrespectful to the people that Obama “mobilized.” You’re just using that word to label me as a “racist” when there is nothing racist about the term “ghetto” and you know it. Quit using racism as a tool in your argument when it has no bearing.