RNC unanimously votes to withdraw from Commission on Presidential Debates

[jpevans]

Clinton was left of center, but definitely more moderate. Big thing was that he was willing to work with the right when he had to. The left has shifted way left now. FDR, JFK, LBJ, MLK even Carter, wouldn't be welcome with today's progressives.

FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights (unpassed)

• Employment (right to work[notes 1])
• An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
• Farmers' rights to a fair income
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
• Decent housing
• Adequate medical care
• Social security
• Education

 

[Perotista]

I truly wonder if the real reason isn't the RNC scared poopless that they'll be faced with another Trump the on stage embarrassing the hell out of many Republican voters - again.

MSN

www.msn.com

The Republican National Committee voted unanimously on Thursday to withdraw from its participation in the Commission on Presidential Debates, the organization that has long governed general-election presidential debates.

In a statement, RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the commission is "biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates including hosting debates before voting begins and selecting moderators who have never worked for candidates on the debate stage."



The RNC claims it has not pulled its future nominees out of debates entirely.

You do have states who begin early voting prior to the first debate, that is a valid complaint. I also think the debates need to be given back to the League of Women’s Voters who originated them. The reasons the debates were taken from the League was they allowed Ross Perot in the debates. Something both major vowed never to allow a third party or independent candidate to take part in the debates again. Therefore, the major parties set up their own debate commission.

Most who tune into the debates do so to root on the candidate of their party, not to make up their mind who they will vote for. Their minds are mostly already made up. I think the importance of the debates are way overrated, that’s just my opinion. Very few ever change their mind who they’ll vote for because of them. Perhaps less than a few. Most of those who are undecided, swing voters, independents, the non-affiliated, non-partisans usually don’t watch them.

Be that as it may, if the Republicans don’t want to debate, then open the debate to all parties who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes. That would include the Libertarian and Green Party in 2020 along with the Democrat. Any party that has a path to win should be included. This has always been the major problem I had with the debates. Here’s my proposal.

1 Give the debates back to the League of women’s voters

2 1st debate open to all parties who are on enough states to achieve 270 electoral votes

3 up the electoral votes to 400 to qualify for the 2nd. In 2020 only three would be included, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian. The Green Party wasn’t on enough state ballots to achieve 400.

4 Final debate, all 50 states plus D.C.

5 The first debate must be scheduled prior to any state beginning early voting. Another major pet peeve of mine.

 

[jpevans]

You do have states who begin early voting prior to the first debate, that is a valid complaint. I also think the debates need to be given back to the League of Women’s Voters who originated them. The reasons the debates were taken from the League was they allowed Ross Perot in the debates. Something both major vowed never to allow a third party or independent candidate to take part in the debates again. Therefore, the major parties set up their own debate commission.

Most who tune into the debates do so to root on the candidate of their party, not to make up their mind who they will vote for. Their minds are mostly already made up. I think the importance of the debates are way overrated, that’s just my opinion. Very few ever change their mind who they’ll vote for because of them. Perhaps less than a few. Most of those who are undecided, swing voters, independents, the non-affiliated, non-partisans usually don’t watch them.

Be that as it may, if the Republicans don’t want to debate, then open the debate to all parties who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes. That would include the Libertarian and Green Party in 2020 along with the Democrat. Any party that has a path to win should be included. This has always been the major problem I had with the debates. Here’s my proposal.

1 Give the debates back to the League of women’s voters

2 1st debate open to all parties who are on enough states to achieve 270 electoral votes

3 up the electoral votes to 400 to qualify for the 2nd. In 2020 only three would be included, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian. The Green Party wasn’t on enough state ballots to achieve 400.

4 Final debate, all 50 states plus D.C.

5 The first debate must be scheduled prior to any state beginning early voting. Another major pet peeve of mine.

It looks good, except for eliminating contestants, 270 will do the job. A total long shot, but...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What a critic.

The comment "Then again, I dont watch the debates." puts the person who made it clearly into the category of the "I never read _[fill in the blank]_ but I know exactly what it contains and I condemn it for containing it." people.

 

[dcsports]

You do have states who begin early voting prior to the first debate, that is a valid complaint. I also think the debates need to be given back to the League of Women’s Voters who originated them. The reasons the debates were taken from the League was they allowed Ross Perot in the debates. Something both major vowed never to allow a third party or independent candidate to take part in the debates again. Therefore, the major parties set up their own debate commission.

Most who tune into the debates do so to root on the candidate of their party, not to make up their mind who they will vote for. Their minds are mostly already made up. I think the importance of the debates are way overrated, that’s just my opinion. Very few ever change their mind who they’ll vote for because of them. Perhaps less than a few. Most of those who are undecided, swing voters, independents, the non-affiliated, non-partisans usually don’t watch them.

Be that as it may, if the Republicans don’t want to debate, then open the debate to all parties who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes. That would include the Libertarian and Green Party in 2020 along with the Democrat. Any party that has a path to win should be included. This has always been the major problem I had with the debates. Here’s my proposal.

1 Give the debates back to the League of women’s voters

2 1st debate open to all parties who are on enough states to achieve 270 electoral votes

3 up the electoral votes to 400 to qualify for the 2nd. In 2020 only three would be included, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian. The Green Party wasn’t on enough state ballots to achieve 400.

4 Final debate, all 50 states plus D.C.

5 The first debate must be scheduled prior to any state beginning early voting. Another major pet peeve of mine.

One of the big concerns the RNC had - which the commission wouldn't address - is having all debates before even REGULAR voting. Several states that use mail in balloting started before the debates would have been completed. I believe that would mean 45 days out from the election.

 

[ouch]

Oh come ON now!

Surely the Republicans can find 10 or 20 intelligent, rational, educated, informed, articulate, and ethical people amongst the ranks of the supporters of the Republican Party AND those who are supporters of neither of the two parties that they would trust to moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner.

That they might - but at the expense with being called RHINOs after the debate.

My suggestion to the Republican Party is that they publish a list (including fairly complete biographies and character assessments done by contemporaries) of 20 people all of whom they agree would moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner and then tell the PDC that they will participate in the debates provided that a majority of the moderators for each debate came from that list.

If the Republican Party did come up with such a list then the people on the list would be vetted by the Democratic Party and either

(a) found unsuitable (with reasons published)​

​

or​

​

(b) found suitable.​

As long as there were enough people left on the list to supply three moderators for each debate, then the Democrats would look like fools if they refused to participate.

Of course, that would make the Republican Party look pretty foolish if it, then, refused to participate - so don't count on the Republican Party coming up with any public list of potential moderators.

Your solution is quite adequate up to the part that you pointed out. That's why when it comes to this current T-GOP, anything that reflects on them working towards a compromised solution just isn't in their Trumpenstein DNA. They truly want only a controlled Republican debate that bolsters DJT's canned brilliance before a millionaire audience. frankenstien

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

One of the big concerns the RNC had - which the commission wouldn't address - is having all debates before even REGULAR voting. Several states that use mail in balloting started before the debates would have been completed. I believe that would mean 45 days out from the election.

Some how the Canadians managed to squeeze two "Leaders' Debates" (one in English and one in French) into the 40 day long 2019 Canadian general election campaign.

Those debates involved the leaders of FIVE political parties (the sixth was invited but declined) and are held in venues like

[Photo shows the 2019 Canadian Leaders' Debate]​

(as you can see, the venue was just swarming with heavily armed police and secret service officers and the podiums are all made from bullet-proof steel with bullet-proof transparent upper sections [just like they would be in the US, eh]).

PS - During the 2021 Canadian general election ALL provinces had their advance polls open at 0900 FRI 11 OCT 21 and the two "Leaders' Debates" were held on 08 and 09 SEP 21. The election campaign started on 15 AUG 21. Surely the US could organize a debate between TWO people in less than 24 days - well, couldn't it?

 

[dcsports]

Some how the Canadians managed to squeeze two "Leaders' Debates" (one in English and one in French) into the 40 day long 2019 Canadian general election campaign.

Those debates involved the leaders of FIVE political parties (the sixth was invited but declined) and are held in venues like

Photo shows the 2019 Canadian Leaders' Debate]​

(as you can see, the venue was just swarming with heavily armed police and secret service officers and the podiums are all made from bullet-proof steel with bullet-proof transparent upper sections [just like they would be in the US, eh]).

PS - During the 2021 Canadian general election ALL provinces had their advance polls open at 0900 FRI 11 OCT 21 and the two "Leaders' Debates" were held on 08 and 09 SEP 21. The election campaign started on 15 AUG 21. Surely the US could organize a debate between TWO people in less than 24 days - well, couldn't it?

Not sure what you are getting at. The specific item you referred to was that US debates were scheduled after voting had begun.

The US debates aren't like you described.

There's also a big difference between an election held in 2021 (or 2024 as we are discussing) and 2020. That year was an aberration. Covid loomed over everything.

 

[Nickyjo]

All roads lead back to Trump Typical.

Well to paraphrase the Bard, “why man, he (Trump) doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about…”

I believe Trump is toxic, re-electing him would be disastrous, but from what I read today, his lieutenants are still chasing “the conspirators” who did him him.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not sure what you are getting at. The specific item you referred to was that US debates were scheduled after voting had begun.

And there is some reason why that should have to be the case? After all, in reality, the US Presidential Election Campaign is 1,460 days long.

The US debates aren't like you described.

Indeed, and why shouldn't they be?

There's also a big difference between an election held in 2021 (or 2024 as we are discussing) and 2020. That year was an aberration. Covid loomed over everything.

Really? You mean that there was no "COVID-19" issue during the late summer and early fall of 2021?

Gwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn - pull the other one.

 

[dcsports]

And there is some reason why that should have to be the case? After all, in reality, the US Presidential Election Campaign is 1,460 days long.

If they are REALLY that important to helping people decide who to vote for, it makes sense to hold them before people start voting.

Indeed, and why shouldn't they be?

You said -- "swarming with heavily armed police and secret service officers and the podiums are all made from bullet-proof steel with bullet-proof transparent upper sections"

Sounds pretty extreme and unnecessary. Assuming that's not a serious question. (Of course, the building is secured, but you were trying to make comparisons to the debate state)

Really? You mean that there was no "COVID-19" issue during the late summer and early fall of 2021?

Gwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn - pull the other one.

Not like in the fall of 2020, with cases surging, hospitals packed, and no vaccine.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If they are REALLY that important to helping people decide who to vote for, it makes sense to hold them before people start voting.

Considering that the vast majority of the voters have already made up their mind BEFORE the election is officially underway, it really doesn't matter when they are held.

You said -- "swarming with heavily armed police and secret service officers and the podiums are all made from bullet-proof steel with bullet-proof transparent upper sections"

Sounds pretty extreme and unnecessary. Assuming that's not a serious question. (Of course, the building is secured, but you were trying to make comparisons to the debate state)


Not like in the fall of 2020, with cases surging, hospitals packed, and no vaccine.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Considering that the vast majority of the voters have already made up their mind BEFORE the election is officially underway, it really doesn't matter when they are held.

Possibly you might want to take a look at the "New Cases per Day" graph and get back to me on that one.

​