Discussion for article #233028
Or they could have no debates at all and refuse to give interviews except to Fox. Oh, and make sure they all have bendy strawsācanāt forget those!
2 Likes
Governor Bobby ought to rethink that one. The less he says, the better his (non-existent) chance of success will be!
It certainly doesnāt help the democrats, who are provided with mountains of material used to hammer republicans every time the clowns ādebate.ā
I say bring them on!
1 Like
Jindal said thereās a view among operatives and DC insiders that āthat
if we could just have fewer debates, if we could have a gentler, kinder
nominating process that would be good for the party and good for the
nominee,ā
For me, it comes down to the age-old [well, maybe just since I made it up] right-wing conundrum: Which is more important? Frequency of assholery or efficiency of assholery?
1 Like
Itās not gonna help candidates like Santorum in 2012 who got a lotta free airtime from the debates. The ones without a good chunk of change are gonna get knocked out early no matter how well they may do in early primaries. The big money candidatesā negative ad barrage is gonna be even more effective.
āAnd by the way a longer nominating process, a tougher nominating process didnāt seem to hurt then-Sen. Obama when he was running against then-Sen. Clinton.ā
Itās funny how he canāt be bothered to understand why this analogy is completely false. Republicans are not Democrats. Democrats discuss and debate policy and have the capacity to understand nuance and the issues a modern society may face in the modern era. Republican debates are a litmus test as to who can praise Jesus the most, deny the most amount of science, and hate on gays the hardest and somehow manage to cram their feet in their own mouths the fewest amount of times. Marketing yourself to the lowest common denominator may reap a few red state redneck āMah guns NObama!ā votes, but it makes yourself thoroughly unelectable to everybody else. Additional air time for GOP candidates only increases the chances for being exposed for what they are.
Iāll let Jindal explain the difference in his own words:
āWeāve got to stop being the stupid party. Itās time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,ā --Bobby Jindal
5 Likes
āDemocracy is messy and the donors, the political leaders, the establishment pundits, they donāt get to pick our nominee.ā
Itās sort of cute to think that he might actually believe this.
[quote=āTHX1138, post:7, topic:16537ā] Iāll let Jindal explain the difference in his own words: āWeāve got to stop being the stupid party. Itās time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,ā --Bobby Jindal
[/quote]
The problem is that Republican obstinancy is like herpes ā¦ you canāt eliminate it entirely, only minimize the outbreaks. The GOTP is right to require all to āglove upā before engaging in relations with her.
2 Likes
For once, Iām gonna say, hey Republicans, please listen to what Jindal is saying! More circuses for the freak show to perform!
I know itās a popular belief that fewer debates will allow for fewer embarrassing moments, but I disagree. Fewer debates means underfunded candidates will have to make as much use as possible of the free airtime during the debates. It means a guy like Santorum or Huckabee needs to make a huge splash early on and it means fighting like hell for the early look from voters and donors. I would expect far more contentious debates from the outset, candidates hurriedly angling for position, and desperately trying to land the money quote and catch the momentum before the better funded candidates run away with it. I also suspect the sort of, āKeep em honest, true conservativeā candidates will come out of the gate forcing the entire field as far right as they can get them. I think it will be such a shitstorm that the RNC will be forced to add debates in order to try to save their more establishment candidates from being stuck with untenable positions And to try to run out the clock on the crazy caucus.