Republican’s feel the debates favor Democrats….
And?
Donald Trump has been crying about them since he didn’t clearly ‘win them’….
This is probably a negotiating opening by Republicans since any other forum would have to agreed to by Democrats who would not accept anything Trump and company would want to tip things in their way which IS how they like to operate….
The Commission on Presidential Debates IS non-partisan…..
The Republican National Committee is preparing to change its rules to require presidential candidates seeking the party’s nomination to sign a pledge to not participate in any debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Republican committee officials alerted the debate commission to their plans in a letter sent on Thursday, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. If the change goes forward, it would be one of the most substantial shifts in how presidential and vice-presidential debates have been conducted since the commission began organizing debates more than 30 years ago.
The nonprofit commission, founded by the two parties in 1987 to codify the debates as a permanent part of presidential elections, describes itself as nonpartisan. But Republicans have complained for nearly a decade that its processes favor the Democrats, mirroring increasing rancor from conservatives toward Washington-based institutions.
The move by the R.N.C. was an outgrowth of those long-held complaints and came after months of discussions between the commission and party officials. According to the R.N.C.’s letter, the chairman of the party’s temporary presidential debate committee, David Bossie, began discussions last year with the debate commission’s co-chairman, Frank Fahrenkopf, a former Republican official….
…
Republicans have long complained about how the commission handles debates, going back to the 2012 campaign, when Senator Mitt Romney of Utah was the Republican nominee against the incumbent Democrat, President Barack Obama. The moderator of the town hall-style debate, Candy Crowley, then with CNN, fact checked Mr. Romney in real time about a claim he made about Mr. Obama, prompting an outcry from conservatives.
But the intensity of frustration with the commission has increased since Mr. Trump first became the Republican nominee in 2016.
Mr. Trump’s adviser, Rudolph W. Giuliani, argued with the commission at the second debate with Mrs. Clinton, when he tried to seat women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct near the stage. Mr. Trump has also complained about moderators repeatedly, insisting that both the former Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and the NBC News reporter Kristen Welker were biased against him.
The commission changed the second presidential debate in 2020 to a virtual format, prompting Mr. Trump to withdraw from it after a contentious debate with the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, for which Mr. Trump was heavily criticized…..
Those of us with grey beards and long memories will recall that these debates were started and sponsored by the League of Women Voters of the U.S. — until one or both parties objected to the League and instead got together to start this Commission on Debates.
The League still holds local sit-down’s with opposing candidates ….
Every election year they are held at local venues…..
Of course local media print and TV hold them also…..
The candidates have little choice but attend and get free media ……
Romney Says RNC Would Be ‘Nuts’ to Block Debates
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) “blasted the Republican National Committee’s plans to prohibit future GOP presidential candidates from participating in debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates,” Insider reports.
Said Romney: “Well, that would be nuts. The American people want to see candidates for president debating issues of consequence to them, and it provides a service to the country and to the people, to hear the prospective candidates of the two major parties duke it out.”
We’ll see what DeSantis says, if anything on this…..
When I was arranging debates for legislative and municipal candidates in Providence, the local LWV of RI was very helpful (e.g. in providing timekeepers and ushers).
However, I managed the discussions myself, since the League’s rules for its own debates (e.g. written audience questions submitted to the chair) were a little too confining.
Alright!
Dave, I’m impressed by your initiative and skills! Providence is lucky to have you!
As I’ve said before, these so called “debates”, in their present form, are useless.There are no real “issues” being intelligently discussed.Rather they have become a “spectacle,” a giant “gotcha moment “whereby the questioners ( who are almost as important as the candidates in the spectacle) try to frame questions to elicit a certain response to entertain the audience.Indeed not only are the candidates “ranked so to speak but the questioners are subjected to critical scrutiny.How silly!
Then there’s the audience.Why even have an audience which essentially turns the whole thing into two competing mini campaign rallies.measuring to intensity of the applause becomes part of the “show.”
You want to see a real debate?View the Kennedy / Nixon trio back in 1960.If the interest was really in trying to elucidate a real discussion of what matters,then a format similar to that would be used.
So as for me?I couldn’t care less about these “events” and whether they happen or not concerns me not at all.
There will be some sort of debate schedule…..
But GOPer’s will be angling for a Trump ‘hallelujah’ audience
Just to make everything ‘fair and balanced’…..
This is further proof that Trump controls the Party, he doesn’t want to debate so no debates.
I for one have always learned something from each debate. Could they be better organized? Absolutely. Bring back the League.
I also enjoy debates=- even though Jack is correct that they tell us very little.
In real life, Presidents have consultants, and presumably the consultants speak freely about the costs and benefits of each decision. This cannot really be effectively done on the debate stage, where the presidential candidates are unduly tempted to answer questions in a way that benefits them politically, even if the answers are less than fully honest or complete.
Presumably for example, GWB knew from his economic advisers his tax cut was a deficit exploder with a minimal impact on jobs but it would help redistribute wealth to the upper class, his most ttustworthy contributors. But Republicans believed the lie that it would somehow cause the wealthy to invest in the rural communities. It would be almost laughable, but incredibly there are Republican ideologues who would still believe those promises today.