I've become very amused at imagining exactly how the Republican Party is going to handle primary debates with 15-20 candidates. How can they NOT look like the fucking clown car just dropped them off?
This recent piece from the Times presents a few of the conundrums.
But by trying to impose order through party-sanctioned debates and limiting the number of forums, the party may have begotten an equally messy problem: who to include on stage for a 90-minute debate from a field of nearly 20 potential candidates.
Right. Who are they are going to say isn't a "serious" candidate? What are the metrics? Polls?
It is not entirely clear who will be in charge of devising or enforcing the debate criteria — that is, if there are criteria. One member of the national committee panel charged with overseeing the debates said its members had discussed ceding the decision entirely to Fox News.
Wow. At least they are admitted something the rest of the country already knew.
The party has little appetite for a forum so thick with candidates that it allows for not much more than an extended “lightning round” of questions. One Republican involved in the process said a 90-minute forum with 10 candidates would offer each candidate only four to five minutes, after subtracting commercials and moderator time.
How on earth will they handle 20?
Of course, this piece doesn't even get into the issue of how it's going to look to the rest of the country gets to see a mob of conservatives who all want to be president falling all over themselves to show much they hate science, the gays, immigrants, and women. What a chorus that will be!
The ad pretty much writes itself:)
4 comments:
Right. Who are they are going to say isn't a "serious" candidate? What are the metrics? Polls?
No, no, no.
The size of the bankroll of the billionaires who own each candidate should determine who is at each debate.
Clearly, since money equals speech, the more money you have the more you should speak. The four or five guys with the most money should speak the most: they should be the ones at the debates.
Isn't that how democracy works in this Brave New World created by the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate all controls on campaign spending?
As was pointed out elsewhere the real question is who is going to be onstage for the debates. Trump's useless carcass won't be there. But the insanity wing of the GOP will be well represented. That is where the problem lies for Republicans.
Barring a horrible accident that involves a lot of suspicious coincidences or the unveiling of a lair and technology described as "comic book level" in the press, neither Ted Cruz nor Ben Carson will ever be President. Maybe I'm wrong and there truly is a "silent majority" of conservatives who are waiting to rise up and reclaim a country that is rightfully theirs. But I doubt it. The good news is that Sen Cruz and Dr Carson will be onstage during the debates, with the opportunity to say all sorts of things that will have most of the country switching between laughing out loud, and shaking their heads at the thought of that person being President.
You can already see the effect of this. Marco Rubio should be proud of the immigration legislation he helped craft. Which received 68 votes in the Senate and would have passed with bipartisan majorities in the House if it was brought to a vote. Legislation that just about every poll shows a majority of Americans support. Today he runs from it because he remembers how this issued burned past candidates, when others tried to pander to the "self deportation" rump of the Republican Party. As someone who tends to support Democrats my biggest fear is some sort of "Sista Souljah" moment when a Republican candidate denounces some of the wackier spokespeople and positions of modern conservatives. But such a candidate would be denounced by these same people and media outlets, who have all done too good of a job convincing Republican primary voters that only by turning to them can the "truth" be known. You certainly have to dance with the ones who brung you. But when they start playing music that annoys the neighbors, a sign of a leader would be getting them to at least turn down the volume.
Thanks to lack campaign finance laws one or more of these gadflies will be able to remain viable longer then they should giving them more of an opportunity to push whoever the eventual nominee is further to the right. If you think the problem Republicans have had recently in Presidential elections is not being conservative enough I guess you should applaud this. But when you look at recent history it tends to be the party that can quickly coalesce around a candidate, at least gives lip services to moderating their views, and nominates someone who has already experienced the crucible of a Presidential campaign that does well in Presidential elections. Perhaps the number of candidates wouldn't matter if they were all pretty much on the same page. But in a field that goes from "Libertarians with a different name" represented by Rand Paul; to "Cut the government!..except the stuff I and other white people like and use" represented by Mike Hukabee; to "Maybe if we all pray hard enough you can forget the damage I've done to Louisiana" represented by Bobby Jindal; to "We're conservatives, but we'll be happy with getting 75% of what we want" represented by Bush, Rubio, and Christie; to "It works for Limbaugh so it's got to get me enough votes to be President" represented by Cruz and Carson this is definitely not the case.
What's new about any of the GOP candidates? They are all parroting the same tired old lines over and over again. The media is making Rubio out to be this fresh face but he still supports the crusty old policies of every other conservative.
Given how they performed in 2012, I'd say sell popcorn and candy apples and hold them inside big circus tents.
Post a Comment