Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debates. Show all posts

Friday, August 18, 2023

Timing


He doesn't want any of his base to watch the debate and risk losing them to a more reasonable candidate. (As if they would WANT a more reasonable candidate.)  Or to hear what Chris Christie has to say about Trump.  (As if they'd be swayed by anything anyone says.)  I heard someone suggest he was going to turn himself in to the Fulton County sheriff on that day to draw off viewers.  But now he can have another day to suck all the oxygen out of a day's news.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

They've upset baby

The RNC announced their 2024 debates, stating that their first will be held in Milwaukee in August 2023, the site for the 2024 RNC convention. The decision was announced Feb. 23.

[...]

Trump ranted that he wasn't consulted about the presidential debates for the 2024 cycle, and as such, he doesn't plan on attending

  MSN
He'll be there. He wouldn't pass up the chance to make fun of the others on the national stage. That is unless he's losing in all the many lawsuits he'll be fighting at the time. And why did he wait until now to complain?
"I see that everybody is talking about the Republican Debates, but nobody got my approval, or the approval of the Trump Campaign, before announcing them," Trump posted.
Must have the king's approval.
"When you’re leading by seemingly insurmountable numbers, and you have hostile Networks with angry, TRUMP & MAGA hating anchors asking the 'questions,' why subject yourself to being libeled and abused? Also, the Second Debate is being held at the Reagan Library, the Chairman of which is, amazingly, Fred Ryan, Publisher of The Washington Post. NO!"
Oh that WOULD be just too, too much.
Trump had such a poor performance in the 2020 presidential debates that the following weeks were filled with the press about his unhinged behavior. One report even noted that his own supporters were put off by it, and his campaign expressed concern about the fallout.

The second debate in Miami, Florida, in 2020 was canceled because Trump refused to participate. It was supposed to be a townhall style event with audience members asking questions of the candidates.
The Republican Party is a shell of its former self.

It could be bad for the Democrats if he doesn't participate and people get a chance to see what their other options are.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Notre Dame won't host debate

The University of Notre Dame has become the second United States university to withdraw as the host of one of this fall's three scheduled presidential debates amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The university was set to host the inaugural face-off between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden on September 29. The first debate will now be hosted by Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates announced Monday.

[...]

Reverend John I Jenkins, president of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, said in a statement that the health precautions necessary to stage the debate "would have greatly diminished the educational value of hosting the debate on our campus".

[...]

The University of Michigan was scheduled to host the second presidential debate but withdrew last month. That debate will now be held at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami.

  alJazeera
We do not need an audience for a debate. In fact, it would be so much better without one. And it would also be so much better if the League of Women Voters still hosted it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, December 13, 2019

Scared?

You bet.
President Trump is discussing with his advisers the possibility of sitting out the general election debates in 2020 because of his misgivings about the commission that oversees them, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

  NYT
Because he knows he can't stand up to any Democratic nominee.
Mr. Trump has told advisers that he does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonprofit entity that sponsors the debates, the two people said.
Cue the "Fake News!" tweet.
Less of a concern for Mr. Trump than who will emerge as the Democratic nominee is which media personality will be chosen as the debate moderator, according to people in contact with him.
Because some of them might ask a question he doesn't like?
In the 2016 general election debates, Mr. Trump repeatedly complained about being at a disadvantage to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. [...] Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton were essentially tied in the polls going into the first debate, but she received a bump after each of the three face-to-face matchups.
And with his Russia help being outed and his impeachment inevitable, he doesn't want to push his luck again.
After his performance in one of the debates was panned, Mr. Trump blamed a “defective mic” and questioned whether it was done “on purpose” to put him at a disadvantage. It turned out that a technical malfunction had indeed affected the volume of his voice during that debate, in September 2016.

That acknowledgment by the commission, however, never mollified Mr. Trump.

His 2016 debate team — led primarily at that time by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor — also clashed with the commission over where to seat a group of women who had accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault or sexual harassment.

[...]

Former Clinton aides said they expected Mr. Trump to participate in at least one 2020 debate, despite the president’s hints that he would refuse. “Not doing any would not be strategically smart,” said Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton adviser, who predicted that “he’ll bluff that he won’t do any with the goal of only having to do one.”
I imagine that's exactly what's going on here.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Friday, May 31, 2019

League of Women Voters should still be in charge of debates

The DNC - party leaders - have too much control over what the public gets to hear.
The new polling and donation requirements to make the third and fourth Democratic primary debates could winnow the field dramatically.

The Democratic National Committee’s stricter new requirements for presidential contenders to appear in party debates this fall triggered swift backlash Wednesday from Democratic candidates, many of whom are now in danger of being cut from the showcase events in September and October.

Some campaigns have already been struggling to reach the 65,000-donor threshold — or secure one percent in three qualified polls — to gain access to the first debates in June and July. But the DNC’s new criteria for the next round of debates — support from 130,000 unique donors as well as at least 2 percent support in four polls — is set to winnow out senators, governors and a number of other Democratic candidates who are not on a trajectory to hit the polling requirement and could have particular trouble hitting the donor requirement absent a viral moment or another future campaign-shaking event.

“The DNC is playing a gatekeeping function and they’re creating a filter to determine which candidates can make their arguments to the American people,” former Rep. John Delaney, who is largely self-funding his presidential campaign, said in an interview with POLITICO after sending a letter to the DNC to request more information on how the requirements were set. “A lot of very consequential rules are being created by the DNC, and we don’t know what goes into them.”

[...]

“Whether it’s hiring organizers, staffing, polling, any normal things that you do to build an operation — all has to get readjusted and cut because you now have to run Facebook ads,” said one Democratic presidential aide, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “You’re not building a movement that way.

“They are decimating the field,” the aide continued.

[...]

“For the debates to be meaningful, they have to winnow down the participants,” said Patti Solis Doyle, who managed Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. “This is the uncomfortable reality both the DNC and the candidates have to face.”

DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa defended the DNC’s debate qualifications as “fair, transparent and appropriate for each phase of the primary season,” she said in a statement. “We are confident that the two sets of criteria we have announced thus far achieve those goals, and have been communicated to candidates months before each debate."

[...]

“I don’t think they should be winnowing the field,” Sen. Michael Bennet, who only jumped into the presidential race this month, told reporters in New Hampshire on Wednesday. “I certainly don’t think the DNC should be favoring national fundraising and cable television over the early states like New Hampshire.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has echoed that criticism, arguing that the criteria aren’t a measure of success, electability or candidate quality. Gillibrand, who was one of the premier online fundraisers in the Democratic Party in 2017 and 2018, is still striving to hit the 65,000-donor criteria for the first debates, though she has qualified via polling.

[...]

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at that criteria and know who's going to get kicked out,” said Jess Morales Rocketto, a Democratic strategist who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. “It’s easy to see that the debates in the fall are going to be a bunch of white men and, if that’s the case, that’s a big misstep.”

Four candidates have already publicly said they have crossed the new, higher donor threshold: Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders and Warren. O'Rourke and Biden each got roughly 100,000 individual donors on their campaign launch days, meaning they could have passed the 130,000 threshold by now.

Seven others have publicly said they’ve hit the halfway mark to 130,000: Booker, Castro, Gabbard, Inslee, Klobuchar, Williamson and Yang. (Yang tweeted he needed another “20,000 or so” donors to hit the new threshold on Wednesday, calling it “very doable.”) Among the candidates scrambling to catch up: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, the only candidate running who has carried a Trump state.

In early polling, just eight candidates have crossed the modest 2 percent threshold in four qualifying polls: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, Buttiigeg and O’Rourke. None of these early polls will count toward qualifying for the later debates; only polls publicly released after the first debate in June will count in the criteria for the fall debates.

  Politico

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Wasting Everybody's Time

After Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on Monday evening became the third Republican senator to oppose the Graham-Cassidy bill to repeal Obamacare, effectively killing the legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he was still not done fighting for his bill.

He called for a vote on the bill even if it’s doomed to fail during a CNN debate between Graham and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and two backers of a single payer health care bill, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

[...]

It’s not yet clear whether Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will bring the legislation up for a vote given the lack of support.

  TPM
Depends on how he feels about incurring Dotard J's wrath.

CNN has the full debate here (with transcript) and a "highlights" clip here.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

A Little Good News

A challenge to our election system:
In a surprising decision, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the Federal Election Commission in the case of Level the Playing Field et al v. Federal Election Commission holding that the rules governing participation in the presidential debates were decided unfairly and arbitrarily.

[...]

Judge Chutkan’s ruling in favor of LPF grants their motion for summary judgement and ordered the FEC to reconsider the allegations against the CPD within 30 days.

  IVN

h/t Aidan

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Framing

This British Guardian story is typical of American major media.


I'm still waiting for the headline:  Clinton received debate questions.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Missed Opportunities

Ana Navarro reminds me of something I noted during the debate.  Hillary missed a golden opportunity.




Thursday, October 20, 2016

I Got This One



Easy.

1) There are things you say in public and things you say in private.

2) I said it to win an election.  -- or --

3) Here's a reset button. (She now knows the correct word.)




...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

3rd Debate P.S.

At the end, when Trump refused to say he'd accept the results if Hillary wins (he'll keep us "in suspense" - *eyeroll emoticon*), was the first time I've seen Hillary look shaken.  And she didn't seem to recover.  The personal jabs, the Wikileaks questions and hits didn't even throw her, but that did it.

I don't think there's any doubt Trump will cede the election, but that angry mob he's riled up could be a real problem.

And P.S., Mike Wallace must be disappointed beyond the grave.  Chris did nothing for the debate.  He wasted time on questions that had been asked and answered in the previous debates, and didn't go anywhere near climate change, domestic surveillance, Yemen and the expansion of  US wars, or racism. I understand he didn't want to bring up anything they agreed on, like US imperialism and domestic spying, because that would trigger the idea that there are third parties in this race and wouldn't get any fight (which, let's be honest, is one of the reasons these have been the most watched debates in television history), but climate change and racism could have been substituted for Russia/Putin, taxes and terrorism rehashing.  I give Chris a D-.  The fact that he couldn't control their bickering and talking over him doesn't count against him - that was a Herculean task - but he could have asked much better questions.

UPDATE:


Oh, yeah.  I forgot about that.  And he kept chiding the crowd all evening about keeping quiet.


I didn't get that far.

FURTHER UPDATE:


That, too.  That's exactly what his framing of the question on "entitlements" implied he wanted to hear.

FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE:

And, no media moderator wants them to talk about Israel.  Why is that do you think?



Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Wall

As Las Vegas prepares for Wednesday's third and final presidential debate, the Culinary Workers Union is protesting GOP nominee Donald Trump on his own turf by forming a "wall" of taco trucks outside his hotel Tuesday.

"We did not come up with the idea for the wall, Donald Trump came up with building the wall," Yvanna Cancela, political director of the Culinary Workers Union 226, told NBC News.

[...]

The protest is a dual reference to Trump's call to build a wall along the border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants and to a statement by Latinos for Trump founder Marco Gutierrez if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins, "you're gonna have taco trucks on every corner."

[...]

The taco trucks are being used to help register potential Latino voters in Nevada. But they also are aimed at drawing attention to an ongoing labor dispute between the union and Trump International Las Vegas hotel. [Trump has allegedly refused to bargain with workers after they unionized].

  News Max
Brilliant.

You couldn't pay me enough to be in Las Vegas tonight. Well, you COULD, but you don't have that much money.


There's an interestingly timed documentary currently streaming on Netflix about the 1968 contentious primary debates that included ABC coverage with equally contentious debates between William F. Buckley Jr and Gore Vidal:  Best of Enemies.  


Catch it if you have Netflix.  (h/t She)  Here's the trailer if you can't:


And here's the full recording of their most contentious (and debatably - pardon the pun - most interesting) debate on the evening of the police/protest clash in Lincoln Park, which is presented in a short clip in Best of Enemies:


On a related topic, a couple years ago I saw a good documentary on the trial of the Chicago 7, which I thought might have been a Netflix offering.  I don't see that now, streaming or otherwise, and I searched YouTube for it to no avail.  There are a number of videos about the events of the '68 convention, but I don't see what I'm looking for.  If you're young enough to not have been aware of that piece of our history, I recommend you check out some of those videos anyway.  

We're still trying to become a democracy.  Keep at it, and keep a safe distance from Las Vegas tonight.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Q&A



Feel free to submit possible answers in the comment section.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Will a Hillary Clinton Administration Usher in a New McCarthy Era?

[C]ome January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. — more so than ever — and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

[...]

On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes.

[...]

[M]ore than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this “Official Warning.” That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profile Clinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored.

[...]

MORE INSIDIOUS AND subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi.

[...]

Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

[...]

Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald’s words to Blumenthal.

[...]

Just watch how this warped narrative played out in a very short period of time, with nobody wanting to get in the way of the speeding train for fear of being castigated as a Trump supporter or Putin stooge.

[...]

[W]hile Donald Trump’s candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton — casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America — is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they’re under attack.

  Glenn Greenwald
Read the full article to understand what happened/is happening.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Buffett Response to Trump Claims

In last night's debate, Donald Trump shrugged off his refusal to release his tax information and his taking advantage of tax code that allowed him to take a carry over exemption that reportedly allows him to pay no taxes (offsetting huge losses in previous years) for 20 years. Twice he named Warren Buffett and George Soros as two of Hillary's "friends" who play the same game and take advantage of the tax code in the same way. Buffett has put out a response.


In reality, what Donald knows is that anyone leaning toward supporting him will not fact-check what he says.

Post Debate

Has anyone seen what Trump is blaming last night's performance on this morning?

I'm willing to bet it's Martha Raddatz.

Because...Trump


...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

I Missed This One


...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Pre Debate Issue

The leaders are tentatively planning to tell Republican lawmakers on a Monday morning conference call that they should feel free to abandon Trump as they seek to save their own political careers, according to multiple sources involved in planning. But top aides and lawmakers warn that the plan could change depending on Trump's debate performance.

If Trump isn’t "contrite," as one source involved with the planning put it, and if he continually pokes elected Republicans, GOP leaders believe they could face a groundswell of lawmakers urging them to publicly distance themselves from his candidacy

  Politico
Trump contrite!? Are you kidding.

So, now the debate is over, and not only was he not contrite, he dissed Mike Pence "big league" to steal a descriptor from Himself.
Republican strategists involved in House races say their dreams of single-digit losses could be quickly dissipating.

[...]

Overall, 35 House and Senate Republicans have disavowed Trump, including 19 House Republicans.

[...]

While the stampede of Republicans abandoning Trump slowed on Sunday, top Republicans predicted it could quickly restart if he bombs at the debate or uses an overly negative tone, including focusing on Bill Clinton's sexual history.
Bingo!
"Everyone knew [Trump] was no saint, but no one knew the depth" of his problems, said a top aide to one hard-line conservative. "And I'm betting there's more to come."
You won't get any takers.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.