Whatever these clowns are doing, it's not debating.
Vote for me because I never lie and am always right is not debate language.
How many people hate clowns? Probably most.
Vote for me because I never lie and am always right is not debate language.
How many people hate clowns? Probably most.
2
I say we put them all on the National Mall, stick a giant glass dome over them and watch them fight it out until only ten are left - Hunger Games style. There will have to be limited supplies, like a single bottle of water (see how Marco Rubio likes that), or only one assault weapon (how will Ted Cruz feel when he is the one taking away the guns). When it comes to the fighting, alliances and unions should be allowed (sorry Scott Walker) and retaliation should be encouraged (maybe Chris Christie will be the nomination after all!). If Rand Paul wants to prove his libertarian, near anarchistic, political views are viable, then there's no better way to show the American people. Its just a suggestion, but is Washington really any different from the Hunger Games anyway these days?
3
After reading your piece re Pres. debates I checked readers comments,
assuming many would gently point out that your semi-serious suggestions
about a joint debate to include a double handful of candidates, evenly split
between the parties; who would cross-question each other. Like your article, none mentioned it. So FYI: such an event was televised by NBC live from the Kennedy Center in 1988 (I was in the audience.) Present and participating were, among others GWH Bush, Dukakis, Al Haig, Jesse Jackson, Bruce Babbit, Pierre Dupont and several more (probably including Al Gore). Each had to ask a question of someone from the other party in a designated area.
assuming many would gently point out that your semi-serious suggestions
about a joint debate to include a double handful of candidates, evenly split
between the parties; who would cross-question each other. Like your article, none mentioned it. So FYI: such an event was televised by NBC live from the Kennedy Center in 1988 (I was in the audience.) Present and participating were, among others GWH Bush, Dukakis, Al Haig, Jesse Jackson, Bruce Babbit, Pierre Dupont and several more (probably including Al Gore). Each had to ask a question of someone from the other party in a designated area.
1
Was Mike Gravel one of those swept up in the 1984 "sex scandal" in which Wayne Hays of Ohio had a secretary who couldn't type or file but had a wondrous bosom that Hays used to attract support for his legislation? The best thing that came out of that tempest in a teapot was Joan Mondale's 1984 wisecrack (only 10 years after Nixon resigned) that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats do it to their secretaries; Republicans do it to the country. Great zinger, Ms Mondale, and still all too true.
3
Make politics even more of a circus? No thanks. The public wants serious conversation or least that's what I'm hearing in newspapers like these. The times we live in deserve more than the American Idol treatment.
2
This article could have just as easily been titled Let's Make Congress more, not less, of a Circus. Or government. Perhaps it is time for us to consider a change to a Parliamentarian form of government? Something that is more characteristic of a circus - a big tent. Something that includes everyone.
1
Forget debates. All the Republican "hopefuls" should be interviewed by Rachel Maddow for 90 minutes, and to be fair and balanced Bill O'Reilly gets the same crack at the Dems.
2
Lots of comedy here. However, the serious ideas are not bad. A real debate should have candidates being able to paraphrase someone else's viewpoint and then explain where they differ or agree. They should not be able to get away with spin, projecting and deliberate mis-interpretations. A real moderator would also be able to summarize, challenge the thinking or a change in thinking and ask a follow up question to clarify. In a real debate the participants should be allowed to ask questions of one another. Some other rules might be no snarky remarks, sound bytes or "rhetoric/catch phrases" - buzzer. A survey might be made from across the country to capture the ten most important issues rather than questions from the audience (I agree with the writer - eliminate the audience).
How about winnowing down the hot topics to a series of questions that do not contain the words of the hot topic (e.g. hypotheticals), get voters to take the survey, get the candidates to take the survey and then see who matches up best? If need be, some personal experience questions could be included. (This could replace voting all together, cut expenses, time, annoyance and frustration).
It is time to be more intelligent about who we select as leaders, get the acting part of the "performance" out and get serious about the job performance.
How about winnowing down the hot topics to a series of questions that do not contain the words of the hot topic (e.g. hypotheticals), get voters to take the survey, get the candidates to take the survey and then see who matches up best? If need be, some personal experience questions could be included. (This could replace voting all together, cut expenses, time, annoyance and frustration).
It is time to be more intelligent about who we select as leaders, get the acting part of the "performance" out and get serious about the job performance.
I like these suggestions, however the chance of any type of real debate went away after the first Kennedy-Nixon debate. When Richard Nixon came on camera needing a shave, sweating, and wear a suit that faded into the background, he blew it before even speaking. At the same time, Kennedy wore makeup for television, a dark suit, and looked relaxed. On the radio, without the visual image of the two men, it sounded as if Nixon won the debate. On television, Kennedy had the upper hand. it became obvious that image trumped everything in these programs. Since then debates have been about how a candidate looks far more than how they can really promote ideas. These debates are more about American Idol imagery, t.v. ratings, and trying to sound good rather than thought and substance. I don't see any way they will change, or even want to change in the future. That is too bad. The American public deserve quality and thought provoking discussions rather than sound bites and happy talk.
Why not, when candidates evade the question, simply repeat it again, saying very nicely, "you didn't answer the question." Repeat as needed until an answer is forthcoming.
If the question is repeatedly not answered, the next question should be, "is this how you plan to communicate with the American people?"
Too often questioners are too timid to call evasion what it is.
If the question is repeatedly not answered, the next question should be, "is this how you plan to communicate with the American people?"
Too often questioners are too timid to call evasion what it is.
2
On the bright side, perhaps it makes the GOP look more nuanced. More cynically, what good is a political party if it can't choose one or maybe two representatives to spare us this circus? I think the answer is that the GOP is afraid to commit to one candidate, or even three, until every possible permutation of embodied modern conservatism has had a chance to eliminate itself on the national stage. That or (and) they truly have no idea what they are doing.
Where is that old vaudevillian hook when we need it? That's the only thing which will get these idiotic, incompetent, ego-maniacial clowns off the stage!
4
Why is "the magazine’s chief national correspondent" so overtly partisan? Apparently the Times has given up any pretense of being unbiased.
Fox News, NYT. What's the difference?
Fox News, NYT. What's the difference?
1
big difference.
14
Chris: The article is talking about The Republican debates and about Fox News solutions. He also mentioned some Dems whom he considered to be in the same position in times past. The serious ideas are good ones and could apply to all debates and the funny ones, are, well just funny. Where do you see bias here?
1
When the NYT publishes erroneous information, there is a public apology and correction. When Fox broadcasts an error, it is called "Fair and Balanced."
When a NYT reporter looks at poor people, s/he sees desperation and hopelessness in a society where the cards are stacked against the unconnected and destitute. When a Fox reporter looks at poor people, s/he sees well-fed, able-bodied, highly fertile moochers buying shrimp with EBT and shooting up drugs for fun.
When an NYT writer prepares a story, s/he does the research, consults the experts, reads the studies, and strives to present all sides. When a Fox News writer prepares a story, s/he consults the GOP playbook, studies the audience demographics and asks, "How do Rupert and Roger want to spin this?"
Most NYT readers are fully aware that the paper leans to the left and adjust their skepticism accordingly. Most Fox News viewers believe they are getting their news straight from heaven and consider skepticism to be tantamount to treason.
When a NYT reporter looks at poor people, s/he sees desperation and hopelessness in a society where the cards are stacked against the unconnected and destitute. When a Fox reporter looks at poor people, s/he sees well-fed, able-bodied, highly fertile moochers buying shrimp with EBT and shooting up drugs for fun.
When an NYT writer prepares a story, s/he does the research, consults the experts, reads the studies, and strives to present all sides. When a Fox News writer prepares a story, s/he consults the GOP playbook, studies the audience demographics and asks, "How do Rupert and Roger want to spin this?"
Most NYT readers are fully aware that the paper leans to the left and adjust their skepticism accordingly. Most Fox News viewers believe they are getting their news straight from heaven and consider skepticism to be tantamount to treason.
3
By all means. Let's give them a VW Bug and tell them Ronald Reagan said that only those who can get inside are true conservatives. It should be fun.
3
Wikipedia is not a source. Anybody can edit a Wikipedia article to make the first line say anything they want.
Why not place each candidate atop his own dunking tank, and the audience can participate by eliminating candidates one by one, until one last survivor is still dry? May not be good politics, but it would be good TV. And isn't that what really matters?
5
If all these clowns can't even figure our how to hold a debate, how are they going to be able to govern the country. Of course, the so-called party of the "big [or is it big-oted] tent" could ask Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey if they could borrow their railroad cars, tents and perhaps elephants and go on the road. The three rings should be enough for all of them except perhaps Ted Cruz who'd have to check his ego in Texas where it just about fits. I'm sure we'd all be entranced with the Chris Christie clown act as he tightropes across a mock George Washington Bridge while pushing Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein off into the Hudson. And who would not love to see Bobby Jindal as he juggles same-sex clubs--separately, of course; and Scott Walker cavorting in his anti-union suit paid for by the Koch brothers. But first, we'd have to start with Jeb Bush's opening monologue about 20 hypothetical Iraq War questions. And who would not want to stay through the sweltering, non-global warming filibuster by Rand Paul about the horrors of vaccinating the circus animals. All this and much much more--snake-oil being hawked by Mike Huckabee; used, slightly dented HP computers available from Carly Fiorina; along with real "fire and brimstone" by Rick Santorum with Marco Rubio standing by with bottled water just in case. All in all it's just what we need to fill the void left by David Letterman and the endangered species he brought to our attention.
11
I especially like the final suggestion,but would go further;recruit a pro -wresting audience and let it know there are no limits to the rudeness and crudeness they're allowed.This would work especially well for the Fox reality shows that call themselves " news." To add to the circus atmosphere of the GOP,make candidates such as Ben Carson debate moderators once they drop out of the race.
3
I would suggest the media not discuss how well the candidates performed. Instead they should evaluate the validity of their positions on issues.
6
The clowns should be introduced by their cleaning ladies and gardeners. The workers should give us a profile of the candidate and her/his family, their customs, how they ask things and how much they pay.
12
The ineptness of the GOP hopefuls aside....the entire debate process is becoming disconcerting. I don't keep a TV --haven't for 20 years. I watched a 2012 debate on TV, somewhere, about 5 of them lined up wearing black, on a huge stage with a huge overblown image of the Flag behind them, bright lights everywhere, lots of neon blue background, the podiums were looking fancy. Believe me when I say that the first thing that went through my mind was "is this a game show?" and the second thing was, "this is embarrassing."
3
The best suggestions so far (IMHO)
Auctioning off the slots in the debate
Allowing the viewers to vote a candidate off the "Island" each week
Having the debates occur at random times with random selections of candidates
and finally, my favorite
Having a panel with Kim Jong Un on it that will eliminate any candidate they find tiresome
Auctioning off the slots in the debate
Allowing the viewers to vote a candidate off the "Island" each week
Having the debates occur at random times with random selections of candidates
and finally, my favorite
Having a panel with Kim Jong Un on it that will eliminate any candidate they find tiresome
1
How about this? Let the ten who "contribute" the most money be in the debate. Give the contributions to the candidates' favorite government program, like the military, veteran affairs, or infrastructure, etc. Then reduce the budget for that program by the same amount, which would further reduce the tax burden on all citizens.
In other words, if the election is up for sale (which it is) let the price of participation be applied to the needs of the country as the candidates see fit.
In other words, if the election is up for sale (which it is) let the price of participation be applied to the needs of the country as the candidates see fit.
1
Participants should be chosen based on when they officially declared there presidential ambitions. Since both parties start their precidential campaigns almost at the moment the current president is sworn in, anyone who officially declares their presidential run during the first year of the current president's term is guaranteed a place at the first debate. Second year declarations are given a place with a contribution to a know charity of their choice. 3rd year, contribution plus community service. 4th year, remaining places are auctioned off. Money to these late entries shouldn't be a problem, given the state of campaign financing.
1
Perhaps the debates could be moderated by Jerry Springer
5
The debates will be a circus in the same same way bad reality TV is a circus. The NYT has effectively established that the republican candidates are not just ineffective politicians, but deeply flawed human beings not capable of rational thought or behavior. They don't need to be in power, but they do need professional help. This is a group that deserves some limited empathy and professional intervention.
4
My proposal recognizes our current system and accepts it. Our billionaire class would buy in by contributing $100 million. That money would be used for some good non controversial purpose such as infrastructure. Those who chipped in would then meet and choose our president.
Long expensive joke campaigns would be eliminated. Big money spent to influence the few of us who still vote would be redirected to a useful end. Since the elite are choosing for us anyway nothing much would be lost.
Long expensive joke campaigns would be eliminated. Big money spent to influence the few of us who still vote would be redirected to a useful end. Since the elite are choosing for us anyway nothing much would be lost.
Great idea.
Good idea but not nearly enough. They're Billionaires! Let them put some of the billions (not millions) they've socked away to good use.
re headline:
Not sure its possible.
Not sure its possible.
1
Republican "debates". I'd rather watch Gilligan's Island reruns.
2
I'll give many things if only I can relive the 2012 debates. 9-9-9 deal; "oops"; who is more anti-gay; who allayed Arabs more; dog on the roof; destroying Mr. Romney's vulture capitalism. Those were my college days and I surely enjoyed them.
"..Dog on the roof..." - do you mean "...man on dog..."?
You got fantastic suggestions, Mark!!! Any moderator should be empowered to quit a candidate's mic if s/he doesn't answer the question or provides some boilerplate response. Better --- hit a loud BUZZER. Let the live audience "buzz" them off for failing to provide, straight-forward and concise answers. That will limit the size of the group. These dog-and-pony shows are down-right insulting to anyone's intelligence. They are NOT DEBATES, rather opportunities to spew the same tired 30 sec sound bites. Sometimes you get some entertainment (cue Palin), but not always.
Here's an idea; why not incorporate elements of the old "GONG SHOW" into the format.
*A (suggested) panel of consisting of Tucker Carlson, John Oliver, Megyn Kelly and Cenk Uyger, give eavh candudate 45 seconds to answer or rebut an opppsing comment with the risk of gettimg "gonged"by one of the judges, who would then must justify why tgst canfidate wss "gonged,"
*A tally is kept of how many times each candidate was "gonged"; the one with the fewest number wins for their coffer, the sum of
$516.32; the top prize from the actual show.
*A (suggested) panel of consisting of Tucker Carlson, John Oliver, Megyn Kelly and Cenk Uyger, give eavh candudate 45 seconds to answer or rebut an opppsing comment with the risk of gettimg "gonged"by one of the judges, who would then must justify why tgst canfidate wss "gonged,"
*A tally is kept of how many times each candidate was "gonged"; the one with the fewest number wins for their coffer, the sum of
$516.32; the top prize from the actual show.
Every candidate must be asked to take a written quiz on both national and international affairs - including identifying Iran, Syria, Yemen, Benghazi and Iraq on a world map. That will prune down the list.
7
And add some science questions for the esteemed politicians too.
3
" . . . .where barriers to entry keep shrinking, both for the social-media-enabled peanut gallery that “covers” the campaign and the candidates who are running in it."
As a member of the original Peanut Gallery [initial caps please], of Howdy Doody fame, I take particular offense that Mr. Leibovich would besmirch the name of such a revered American institution by associating it with the clowns who have such low opinion of the American voter that each of them actually belief they have the gravitas to run the country.
Clarabell the Clown [see above] is more qualified than any of the Republican "hopefuls". The "hope" that they each possess is that all of the other candidates will make a dumb mistake which disqualifies them in the view of the Peanut Gallery.
This election season will be the best ever. I'm stocking up on peanuts.
As a member of the original Peanut Gallery [initial caps please], of Howdy Doody fame, I take particular offense that Mr. Leibovich would besmirch the name of such a revered American institution by associating it with the clowns who have such low opinion of the American voter that each of them actually belief they have the gravitas to run the country.
Clarabell the Clown [see above] is more qualified than any of the Republican "hopefuls". The "hope" that they each possess is that all of the other candidates will make a dumb mistake which disqualifies them in the view of the Peanut Gallery.
This election season will be the best ever. I'm stocking up on peanuts.
1
Were you REALLY in the original Peanut Gallery? I found Clarabell to be quite threatening with that seltzer bottle, but I did like the Indian princess. Look at the old kinescopes, with mothers trying to wrangle their wriggling, crying children. Absolutely hilarious.
You're right- Clarabell, and Flub-a-dub as his running mate would be more "viable" candidates than the current crop of delusional dimwits who present themselves a potential leaders of the free world. Buffalo Bob might be Secretary of the Interior.
You're right- Clarabell, and Flub-a-dub as his running mate would be more "viable" candidates than the current crop of delusional dimwits who present themselves a potential leaders of the free world. Buffalo Bob might be Secretary of the Interior.
1
I did get a few good chuckles out of this article. But what it pointed out to me is how sad it is that Hillary has so totally sucked all the oxygen out of the room on the Democratic side. No debates, No questions from the press, just stump speeches (in closed small forums) and a billion dollars worth of slick TV commercials.
To add only one idea which would logically follow the last paragraph of the article (to rile up the live audience), I suggest that the republican debates be organized and hosted by Vince McMahon. Now THAT would be worth watching.
Bring back the Gong Show! Give the gong to an sixth grade civics class.
2
Why not just accept the fact that money is everything in politics these days and just accept for national debates the top three fundraisers?
1
How about returning the League of Women Voters as moderators of the debates? We would get serious policy questions with everyone allotted equal time and held to that time limit. The audience might learn something of value.
Ah, but it's not "entertaining" enough. Right? That is why we did away with it. The public wants bread and circuses. The Republicans refuse to give them bread, but it such does provide the circuses!
Ah, but it's not "entertaining" enough. Right? That is why we did away with it. The public wants bread and circuses. The Republicans refuse to give them bread, but it such does provide the circuses!
3
The NYT editorial staff should rate the debating clowns in real time with an interactive graphic on these pages. Each candidate will be represented by an avatar. Its nose will grow longer with each lie and its cheeks will redden with each gaffe. The avatar will have a dunce cap on its head that will grow larger in proportion to candidate idiocy and will gain weight the more it panders to the Koch brothers. A light bulb will go off over its head if it says anything brilliant.
3
I think Jonathan Swift had it right: have the candidates juggle and walk tight-wires. Perfect training for the White House.
Fox news should require that all attendees of the debates have a gun.
1
Two words: Musical Chairs. We won't have to listen to the meaningless pandering and Made Up Stuff, and the selection is made in about 15 minutes. On to the Convention!
1
It's easier than this. Just like the Final Four, line them up two at a time in brackets. For ten candidates, that's 5 one hour debates. Are you telling me that Fox couldn't spare an hour each night for one of these? "Jindal vs. Perry!" "Huckabee vs. Trump!" "Fionina vs. Anybody!" This is serious tune-in stuff, plus you might actually learn something about the candidate.
1
But it is already a circus! We don't have to do anything. We could change the format though. Instead of giving the chosen hopefuls a lectern, how about a mud ring throwing all of them together to engage in a mud fight? That way, nobody can complain and claim they've been unfairly left out. And most important, we will have some real entertainment to satisfy our primal desires. I am gleefully imagining Carly Fiorna in her muddied designer suit and the million dollar smile Marco Rubio spitting out mud from his mouth. And of course, the show should be open to all - for free!
1
Here's my two cents on how the faux republican debates with its legion field should be organized: put all of the candidates on a carousel or stage in the round, then give it a spin; ask your question then set the wheels in motion and whoever happens to be in earshot as the world turns will get a few words out, to be completed, interrupted, and on rare occasions inadvertently made sense of by whoever happens to come next, and however briefly they remain in the very narrow and fixed auditory spotlight. Maybe Vanna White can moderate. Calliope music optional.
Great article. May I further suggest...The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson as ventriloquists? The replicas of the three remaining candidates made out of wood, with the oligarchs' hands controlling them with their hands up their, well, you know.
1
As I read this column, Judy Collins' version of "Send in the Clowns" is playing on my IPod. Coincidence?
1
That FOX News is holding any debate is stupid, but Republicans depend heavily on stupid people who will vote against there own best interests to get elected. Limiting the number of Republicans? Why not just go to echo chamber central and find out what the party line is? They all want lower taxes on the wealthy, war, and small government. So, we just need to know how they will implement their policy of low taxes, war and small government.
Formal debates are an utterly worthless way of establishing things. This is the only debate format that makes sense and has any intellectual value. I'd add Dave Barry's suggestion of injecting truth into the debates - literal truth serum.
One sobering indication of what's wrong in American politics was when the Democratic candidates a few elections back held a debate in Spanish, and the candidates who actually spoke Spanish were PROHIBITED FROM SPEAKING SPANISH for fear it would give them an "unfair advantage." Yes, having a skill is considered an "unfair advantage."
One sobering indication of what's wrong in American politics was when the Democratic candidates a few elections back held a debate in Spanish, and the candidates who actually spoke Spanish were PROHIBITED FROM SPEAKING SPANISH for fear it would give them an "unfair advantage." Yes, having a skill is considered an "unfair advantage."
1
Just use ranked choice voting before and after each initial debate or at the various conservative and fake think tank speaking engagements these folks appear before in the next six months. If there are 16 announced candidates and a few more 'not yet declared' list them all on the ballot and have people rank them first to last choice, and process the results. It would be efficient and give the candidates, voters and public a better sense of where people are. It is actually a fair process and might help the Republicans come up with a qualified candidate, which would annoy me but probably help them a tad.
Make there billionaire owners by a $2-3M entrance fee + $10k/word every time they speak. That will filter out the riff-raff and allow the real candidates (Adelson, Koch, Friess, etc..) to have their say.
Instead of having Donald Trump as a candidate, let him be the host and organize the Republican primary campaing as a reality show: "The Apprentice: Presidential Edition". Fire one candidate off the show each week.
Remember going to the circus and 20 clowns would come out of a little car the size of a Fiat. Well, there you have the republican debates. Just squeeze them all in. The late night comics are drooling over these debates.
I think the Apollo Theater in Harlem had it right... the debates should its version of the Sandman standing in the wings at the ready.
The author states that he wants to make the Republican debates more, not less, like a circus. OK, so let's stage the debates in a circus tent (recall that after the 2012 election a number of Republicans said that the GOP needed a bigger tent), and have the candidates dress up as clowns. Each candidate would enter the tent very appropriately riding an elephant or pretending to beat a donkey (no animal cruelty!). Instead of asking them to answer meaningless questions, each candidate should have to perform a circus act - e.g., they could be knife throwers with the target being a life size poster of Hillary shaking hands with Barack; or they could feign being a tight rope walker while their assistants dismantled the safety net. The winner would be selected by a three judge panel consisting of Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bill O'Reilly, and Clint Eastwood. I'd watch this debate!
I like the idea of the NCAA tournament, but with a caveat. All Republican candidates sit in the stands - a sellout so many Republican candidates there are - and they all cheer when Hilary Clinton is crowned champion.
It seems to be shaping up to be more of a rugby scrum than a foot race. These Republican "candidates" spend most of their campaign day trying to out tweet the others in a senseless and endless pander to their weird and wonderful constituencies. What a mess money has made of our politics!
Maybe the GOP should use a Hunger Games approach for picking their candidate.
2
I feel your pain, Mark, but will offer a contrarian view. (I'm no Bill Clinton, Mark. Your pain is your pain, and I'll add to it). If we're a true democracy, and a country with progressive media, then there should be a way to accommodate all these, uh, performers.
Furthermore, it's the GOP itself that has purposely created this situation. Now it's saying it wants to correct it? Fox News is backing off on its entertainment strategy in politics? You're right, fake contenders have made fortunes off of the primaries, but this was deliberately enabled by the Right Wing media. If their strategy has failed, then let them come up with another one. But they can't leave all of those poor lesser contenders hanging, slowly twisting in the wind. It's downright immoral. And from the moral party, no less.
There *is* a way, and you hinted at it by restructuring the debate format. I'm for that, but we can again rally the changes in modern media to accommodate *all* of the contenders. Look, social media has rendered voters' attention spans to that of a turnip. 140 characters of communication is de rigeur. So just allow each canadidate no more than 140 characters of comment, and go around a few times until the "debate" is over. It never was a debate anyway.
I think that if we all work hard at this, we can preserve democracy in the U.S. As Mao once said, let a thousand flowers bloom.
Furthermore, it's the GOP itself that has purposely created this situation. Now it's saying it wants to correct it? Fox News is backing off on its entertainment strategy in politics? You're right, fake contenders have made fortunes off of the primaries, but this was deliberately enabled by the Right Wing media. If their strategy has failed, then let them come up with another one. But they can't leave all of those poor lesser contenders hanging, slowly twisting in the wind. It's downright immoral. And from the moral party, no less.
There *is* a way, and you hinted at it by restructuring the debate format. I'm for that, but we can again rally the changes in modern media to accommodate *all* of the contenders. Look, social media has rendered voters' attention spans to that of a turnip. 140 characters of communication is de rigeur. So just allow each canadidate no more than 140 characters of comment, and go around a few times until the "debate" is over. It never was a debate anyway.
I think that if we all work hard at this, we can preserve democracy in the U.S. As Mao once said, let a thousand flowers bloom.
1
How about dividing them into two groups of 10, drawing the names blind from an enclosed ball.
The debates would take place on subsequent nights and the two least prepared or convincing aspirants would be dropped from future deputes. The remaining 16 would be shuffled again and put into two groups of eight. The same procedure is followed reducing the number to 12. More reshuffling, a round of sixes, reducing the number to eight. These would remain in place for the rest of the debates. The elimination could be done on the basis of people calling in their votes. A kind of popular decision.
Fairness all around, a chance to watch the weirdos as well as the serious candidates, a popular participation.
Since this is a TV special, we might as well enjoy it as one.
The debates would take place on subsequent nights and the two least prepared or convincing aspirants would be dropped from future deputes. The remaining 16 would be shuffled again and put into two groups of eight. The same procedure is followed reducing the number to 12. More reshuffling, a round of sixes, reducing the number to eight. These would remain in place for the rest of the debates. The elimination could be done on the basis of people calling in their votes. A kind of popular decision.
Fairness all around, a chance to watch the weirdos as well as the serious candidates, a popular participation.
Since this is a TV special, we might as well enjoy it as one.
2
I like the bracket idea, but let's take it a step further -- seeds. So in the first debates you have the candidates with the highest poll numbers debating the candidates with the lowest; meanwhile, the candidates with the middling numbers also debate. The winners are those whose numbers rose after their respective debates. The others don't get invited to the next debate. Needs refining, but everybody would get a chance and it would separate the sheep from the goats.
8
The Clowns are already here,
The Circus will not disappear,
Funded by SuperPacs
We're inundated with Acts
But not one that merits a Cheer.
The Circus will not disappear,
Funded by SuperPacs
We're inundated with Acts
But not one that merits a Cheer.
30
Political debates as a whole are a waste of time, really.
The time allotted to them, people's generally short attention spans and a number of candidates, combined with vague themes and fantastically complex subject material all conspire to undermine the very purpose of such a debate: illumination.
Ultimately, it ends up being two bi-pedal creatures attacking each other, failing to answer questions or present any real evidence to support their assertions.
Your suggestions appear to be for one purpose; entertainment. Government isn't about being entertaining (although it's nice when it is!).
You could do a debate just about refuse collection, in the same format and not scratch the surface of the complexities of such an operation. The notion therefore that something as complex as what you want to do with a Nation State - and the orders of magnitude more complexity that entails - can be adequately discussed in a 90 minute format through talking is silly.
Some of the suggestions here - such as 30 second answers - would only compound the error that the debate provided any meaningful insight.
The time allotted to them, people's generally short attention spans and a number of candidates, combined with vague themes and fantastically complex subject material all conspire to undermine the very purpose of such a debate: illumination.
Ultimately, it ends up being two bi-pedal creatures attacking each other, failing to answer questions or present any real evidence to support their assertions.
Your suggestions appear to be for one purpose; entertainment. Government isn't about being entertaining (although it's nice when it is!).
You could do a debate just about refuse collection, in the same format and not scratch the surface of the complexities of such an operation. The notion therefore that something as complex as what you want to do with a Nation State - and the orders of magnitude more complexity that entails - can be adequately discussed in a 90 minute format through talking is silly.
Some of the suggestions here - such as 30 second answers - would only compound the error that the debate provided any meaningful insight.
4
Some candidates do utter fatal perspectives, views, and errors. This has destroyed candidacies--fortunately.
This "debate" process resembles nothing other than a game show. They should use a game show format, but which one? Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? The Dating Game? 500 Questions? Deal or No Deal? Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
9
Jeopardy would be best. They actually have to answer the question, even if in the form of a question.
The more the Merrier! With the demise of the Colbert Report & imminent retirement of Jon Stewart we need good Political Humor & who better than the Republicans running for President to provide us with a Multitude of Laughs! So please don't limit the number of participants or even have a set time for the debates so we can see just how dumb these candidates truly are, but of course if we want to send it into the Hysterical Stratosphere we Need "The Donald!"
11
@Bud: Please don't remind me that Colbert (my own personal god) and Stewart will be gone during this mad show. I'm in mourning already. I sobbed my way through Colbert's departure, I cried watching Samantha B's goodbye, I will need to be really prepared for the grief when Jon goes. It's actually not funny, how much in despair I am that there much-needed presence will be gone. (And Stephen taking over the Night Show will be a whole new trip, wonderful I'm sure, but he won't be the character of his right-wing persona and oh, I dearly loved him)
(1) Take a page from reality TV: Lock them in the same house for weeks at a time with 24/7 live camera coverage (same as a colony of rats in a laboratory), (2) Have them explain their position using only hand signals (charades). (3) Provide everyone with handguns and plenty of ammunition (open carry) and put a convicted criminal on the panel. (4) Ask Kim Jong-un to eliminate anyone from the process that he finds tedious, annoying or a threat to North Korea (synchronized dancing by the contestants optional).
I guess sending them all out moose hunting in Alaska won't work (Discovery Channel). We've already had one moose hunter and she and her family might draw attention away from the serious intent of our political processes.
I guess sending them all out moose hunting in Alaska won't work (Discovery Channel). We've already had one moose hunter and she and her family might draw attention away from the serious intent of our political processes.
14
On a serious note, Fox should not be deciding who the voters get to hear. Anyone who is a Republican Candidate for President should be heard. The person with the 1 percent poll ranking might be at 49 percent if their ideas are superior. Let everyone on the deck.
9
As hard as this is to say, Fox is acting responsibly in this isolated case - well... also dealing with the inexorable requirement of for-profit Tee-Vee [ yes Fox is actually an American profit-making enterprise, not a branch of guv-mint as Low-Information-Voters assume ]. And keep in mind: at every step of the American POTUS process there are gatekeepers, hidden or not...
This was really funny. However, buried in the middle was a mention of a very serious problem. We have just two parties that are accepted as possible winners of the Whie House. The idea of having one big debate with all parties is not funny, it is an answer to every serious minded voter. Even more tragic is that there seems to be, on the part of many, a Bush vs. Clinton choice already made in an election still so far away.
6
Killing the mic when a candidate talks past the allotted time is a good start, but that's all. In addition, I propose that a candidate who fails to answer the actual question gets an electric shock. A second-time offender gets a slap from a mechanical hand that springs out of the podium. With the third offense, he or she is dropped through a trapdoor.
65
Fabulous! A debate, for either party, with these rules would have more viewers than the Super Bowl.
1
This is my favorite suggestion. Bet more people would watch. And the candidate might actually listen to the questions instead of listening for an entry for a rehearsed sound-bite.
Sounds like a sound approach regardless of the candidate or party event.
1
Hillary Clinton will be taking the oath of office while the Republicans are still trying to pick a nominee.
15
The only thing Hillary will be doing is getting fitted for new prison garb....
The republican candidates represent the most racially diverse field in the history of US Presidential Primaries, and the liberal press mocks this as a bad thing? This is proof of two facts:
1) the press believes that being a republican disqualifies someone as actually being a member of an ethnic group,
2) the press remains silent over the complete lack of choice in the democratic primary, where money, nepotism, and back door arrangements demonstrate how corrupt that party actually is.
1) the press believes that being a republican disqualifies someone as actually being a member of an ethnic group,
2) the press remains silent over the complete lack of choice in the democratic primary, where money, nepotism, and back door arrangements demonstrate how corrupt that party actually is.
1
The problem with the Republican candidates is not their racial diversity, it is the lack of solutions combined with the uncanny ability of at least one of them shooting themselves in the foot weekly. As to racial diversity, what racial diversity?
9
Hey, @surgres, it looks like it's Fox News that thinks that the diversity is a bad thing.
"The republican candidates represent the most racially diverse field in the history of US Presidential Primaries"
Are you forgetting that in 2008 the Democrats had a black (Obama), a woman (Clinton) and a Latino (Richardson) all running?
Are you forgetting that in 2008 the Democrats had a black (Obama), a woman (Clinton) and a Latino (Richardson) all running?
Debates should not have an audience. It only encourages bad behavior, preening and strutting (by both the politician and the audience). In the primaries, you should be only allowed to attack candidates from your party and comparisons or attacks of any potential candidate from the opposite party is forbidden. Leave those attacks for the general election. How about paintball gun duels on stage? What about requiring all candidates to have a stage backdrop with the names of all campaign donors?
4
How about they dress like race car drivers with the logos of their sponsors on their clothing and their podiums? That way we at least get to know which industry would profit the most from their election.
Set up the selection process as charity auction. Have all the candidates waiting off stage, while donors (preferably billionaires) mill around over drinks and hors d'oeuvres, dropping cash or checks in the boxes of the various candidates. The top ten (or whatever) fund raising candidates get to come out and debate, and those funds go to charity.
The entire campaign process to date has focused on who is collecting the most campaign contributions. That may be all well and good if those contributions can be directed away from consultants and attack ads, with instead the money going to worthy charities.
The entire campaign process to date has focused on who is collecting the most campaign contributions. That may be all well and good if those contributions can be directed away from consultants and attack ads, with instead the money going to worthy charities.
3
Planned Parenthood pops into my mind first.
No matter what else, one qualifier at least should be that one has to actually announce an official presidential campaign first in order to get invited to the debates. If nothing else, that would probably knock out Donald Trump (who no one seriously thinks is actually going to get in the race), and qualify Carly Fiorina, who is -- believe it or not -- an actual declared candidate.
2
Send in the clowns. Like a circus, the hopefuls will all run out in outfits and try to make everyone laugh. Wait a minute, that's what they are doing now.
2
The real problem, and it's especially striking now, is the lack of strong candidates, from any party. No surprise given the ridiculous amounts of money that need to be raised, the expectation that candidates and their families must completely sacrifice their privacy, and the feeding frenzy of a news media bent on sensationalism and entertainment rather than substantive reporting. Indeed, it is a circus — in which only clowns are eager to participate.
4
The number of Republican hopefuls just goes to show that there are a lot more megalomaniacs in the Republican party than there are in the Democrat party.
Most of them must know they do not have a chance of going the distance, but just can not turn away from the attention and limelight.
Most of them must know they do not have a chance of going the distance, but just can not turn away from the attention and limelight.
7
Does anybody doubt that Hillary Clinton has been planning this move far longer than any Republican? The pecking order in the Democratic Party hasn't changed while the large field of candidates shows me a Republican Party without one. It also tells me that nobody really controls it. Not now or even later when they find their candidate will the individual exert the same control or influence over the GOP. Until they settle their differences over the issues and establish order within the GOP things will stay messy.
1
This circus is an unanticipated result of the Citizens United decision. By allowing, nay, encouraging unlimited spending by corporations and the rich the Republican party machinery lost its hold on its members. They used to control them by controlling the campaign coffers. Now, anyone with enough cash (and they are nearly all Republicans) can fund his own candidate to support his own pet peeve. For Adelson it is Israeli "defense"; the Kochs want total deregulation, elimination of labor laws, racism, and climate change denial; Peterson wants to privatize Social Security for Wall Street.
It is ironic that the supremes handed the GOP a victory in Citizens United that may turn out to be a Trojan horse. It made it possible to destroy the establishment Republican party from within by promoting its downfall in the creation of the Astro turf Tea Party.
The joke may be on them, but the pain is on us.
It is ironic that the supremes handed the GOP a victory in Citizens United that may turn out to be a Trojan horse. It made it possible to destroy the establishment Republican party from within by promoting its downfall in the creation of the Astro turf Tea Party.
The joke may be on them, but the pain is on us.
Only allow candidates who refuse to sign any promise made by Grover Norquist. Any candidate who DOES sign and is elected should not be sworn in. Not to glorify Norquist, but there's a little something about "allegiance to a foreign power" if I remember correctly
6
I cannot help but agree with this author.
The circus is where I would expect to find such clowns.
The circus is where I would expect to find such clowns.
1
You could put each and everyone of them on, with one simple rule, they cannot mention Hillary Clinton directly or indirectly in their comments. Instead they have to only talk about their own views and what they would do. That should keep the show to a half hour.
36
How could the GOP debates be any more of a circus? As Timothy Egan put it so eloquently in these pages a few weeks ago, the Republican clown car now requires a bus to house them all.
8
A Zeppelin might be required. Dare I add made of lead.
Since a "Hollywood Squares" format could handle only nine contestants, and the Republican cattle call is nearly double that, the only way to make the field anything other than unwieldy before the debates begin in August would be let the N.C.A.A. organize -- in the spirit of a civics lesson (you know, education) -- two single-elimination rounds.
Why not? Just like the G.O.P., it knows everything there is to know about Big Money. And who doesn't like office pools?
Similar to March Madness (July Jambalaya?), the N.C.A.A. could put together traditional Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight rounds -- think of the TV ratings! -- and then hand the Final Four over to the party, the sponsors and, ultimately, the primary voters.
Those two rounds could go something like this:
SWEET SIXTEEN
Bush vs. Santorum
Walker vs. Trump
Paul vs. Huckabee
Pataki vs. Jindal
Perry vs. Carson
Kasich vs. Graham
Christie vs. Cruz
Rubio vs. Fiorina
ELITE EIGHT
Bush vs. Walker
Paul vs. Pataki
Perry vs. Kasich
Christie vs. Rubio
FINAL FOUR
Kasich, Paul, Rubio and Walker
Now, there! -- wasn't that easy? Just like fantasy football. The rest, fellow commenters, is left to your imagination.
Why not? Just like the G.O.P., it knows everything there is to know about Big Money. And who doesn't like office pools?
Similar to March Madness (July Jambalaya?), the N.C.A.A. could put together traditional Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight rounds -- think of the TV ratings! -- and then hand the Final Four over to the party, the sponsors and, ultimately, the primary voters.
Those two rounds could go something like this:
SWEET SIXTEEN
Bush vs. Santorum
Walker vs. Trump
Paul vs. Huckabee
Pataki vs. Jindal
Perry vs. Carson
Kasich vs. Graham
Christie vs. Cruz
Rubio vs. Fiorina
ELITE EIGHT
Bush vs. Walker
Paul vs. Pataki
Perry vs. Kasich
Christie vs. Rubio
FINAL FOUR
Kasich, Paul, Rubio and Walker
Now, there! -- wasn't that easy? Just like fantasy football. The rest, fellow commenters, is left to your imagination.
5
Any system of brackets needs to include double-elimination wrestlebacks. I mean quite literally. It gives the small, wiry candidates a better chance if we aren't using weight classes.
As a party that advocates fiscal conservatism, limit each candidate to $50 million, spending $1M per state. The winning candidate is the person who runs the most effective primary campaign without exceeding the spending limit for each state. After all, they continue to preach that we all need to learn how to get along with less. This would demonstrate those who know how to "walk the talk."
Next, hold a lottery 15 months prior to the national election to determine which states will hold the first primaries|caucuses|conventions. This will end the absurd influence granted to the few states that go first in the primary cycle, forcing candidates to focus on all 50 states because they won't know far ahead of time which ones will go first.
Next, hold a lottery 15 months prior to the national election to determine which states will hold the first primaries|caucuses|conventions. This will end the absurd influence granted to the few states that go first in the primary cycle, forcing candidates to focus on all 50 states because they won't know far ahead of time which ones will go first.
It has been determined in the comments of a Gail Collins column that a Hollywood Squares set with more layers is the best approach to stack ranking the clowns. I further vote that physically climbing up the squares should be encouraged and whoever ends up atop takes the crown. I would advise all the doughy boys to physically train for this event.
At least there will be a, debate. Who is hillary going to debate....herself?
2
The 'circus' has shifted to the Dems what with Email gate, Benghazi gate,etc.etc.
1
In your dreams. No one cares about any of that except the tiny percent watching Fox.
I say bring back the set of the TV show "Hollywood Squares."
Squares are allotted by drawing in the first round, top three picks get their own squares, the rest have to double up...once actual voting begins future square assignments can be made on the basis of vote totals.
Squares are allotted by drawing in the first round, top three picks get their own squares, the rest have to double up...once actual voting begins future square assignments can be made on the basis of vote totals.
I think they should be banned from TV until 30 days before the first primary.
My concern is the political press ignoring Senator Sanders due to villager enthrallment with Republicans. Any crazed eyed Republican who wants to throw Grandma out in the cold is treated like a serious candidate and the DC Villagers all seem determined to coronate Hillary. Water Boy Rubio a serious candidate? Please.
Hint from the heartland: we do not want Hillary, and we sure do not want any of the clowns in the Republican Party. Why don't you stand back and let the people decide without the pundit class interfering for a change? Left to their own radical pandering, the Republicans will again render themselves unelectable without voter suppression.
My concern is the political press ignoring Senator Sanders due to villager enthrallment with Republicans. Any crazed eyed Republican who wants to throw Grandma out in the cold is treated like a serious candidate and the DC Villagers all seem determined to coronate Hillary. Water Boy Rubio a serious candidate? Please.
Hint from the heartland: we do not want Hillary, and we sure do not want any of the clowns in the Republican Party. Why don't you stand back and let the people decide without the pundit class interfering for a change? Left to their own radical pandering, the Republicans will again render themselves unelectable without voter suppression.
5
I am eagerly waiting for Herman Cain to un-suspend his campaign from 2008. Come on, Mr. Cain; if Rick Santorum can do it, so can you.
4
Send them to live in a giant mansion where they will have the opportunity to go on dates and get to know a bevy of shallow, sexy women (and men, for Carly Fiorina and perhaps some of the others). At the end of each week have a rose ceremony with one candidate being sent home. Throw in a few surprise guests along the way "who want a second chance," such as John McCain, Alan Keyes, Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes, and Bob Dole. The final three candidates will be allowed to spend the night in a Fantasy Suite; rose petals litter the floor and the bedspread, a bowl of condoms on the nightstand.
2
They should have to put up there own weight in gold. That will eliminate the Huck though.
For the week prior to the debates, make all comers be contestants on the Food Network's show "Chopped" where they are assigned food-stamp-style groceries with which to create delicious appetizers, entrees, and desserts, judged by a panel of cafeteria lunch ladies.
Instead of winning money, the top 10 finishers get to debate, and the money that would have been awarded during the week could be donated to a fund to buy George W. Bush oil paints for his hobby (to atone for omitting him in a neighboring NYT article about "best" and "worst" ex-presidents).
GWB could use the oil paints to document the debates with courtroom-style quick paintings throughout the debate, which could be auctioned off at the end of the broadcast, to raise money for Guide Dogs For The Blind.
Everybody wins.
Instead of winning money, the top 10 finishers get to debate, and the money that would have been awarded during the week could be donated to a fund to buy George W. Bush oil paints for his hobby (to atone for omitting him in a neighboring NYT article about "best" and "worst" ex-presidents).
GWB could use the oil paints to document the debates with courtroom-style quick paintings throughout the debate, which could be auctioned off at the end of the broadcast, to raise money for Guide Dogs For The Blind.
Everybody wins.
1
The only hope for gravitas in these idiotic proceedings is a lot of pies and water balloons.
5
I think the bigger circus is how HIllary has trapped the Dems into ONE and ONE only candidates. This corrupt, incompetnt woman actually has conned the Dems into installing her as their one and only...even with the evidence against her on Benghazi, forgetfulmness and of course this email scandal. Abd yet, zdems will pull the trigger for this woman who shoul dbe as far away from votes as oil and vinegar.
2
That demands a capacity for planning & political skill well beyond her competitors.
Isn't the last season of American Idol beginning in January? Fox won't have to hold auditions around the country to invite people to Hollywood. They could just take the whole field of Republican candidates, and use that show to whittle them down, one by one, until there's one left standing as the Republican nominee for President.
1
Wouldn't it be nice if the NYT did a piece on how the candidates, and their families grow rich on "running for President."
6
Fox 'news' will host a GOP debate that is similar to late night TV " paid commercial for a bunch of losers touting weight loss shlock. ZZZZZZ
Better yet, let all the interchangeable GOP candidates speak so none can have any excuses later on.
1
I like the idea of allowing candidates to actually debate each other. Both parties could use this idea. Really, our two party system is showing many signs of being a Bad Idea. Parliamentary government with coalitions would be better. Maybe then the pro-business Republicans would have to explain why the Religiously Conservative should be in a coalition with them. Pro business but anti theocratic Democrats would have to explain why Social Democratic Americans should always wind up voting for them for a reason beyond the Republicans are worse. That would be interesting and perhaps actually useful.
3
An afterthought bracket, the " Jindal Conference. " Heh, heh, heh...nice!
1
More of a circus? For both parties, politics has already become a combination of reality shows. Thanks to the wonderful reluctance of both parties to stop their corporate financial overseers from ruling that Americans, presumably because of our stubborn insistence on being treated as citizens of a free country rather than serfs or slaves, all too many of our jobs have either been exported or 'outsourced' at home (Thank you, H1-B supporters.) Result? We're basically the American Idle, struggling to be Survivors because we're led by the Biggest Losers.
3
Easy enough to laugh at the Republicans when the only candidate the Democrats have is an old retread who has no accomplishments other than having married well.
2
That is the most immature hate post I have seen on the Times comment section. You will be happy to know the Democratic party is not running any candidate that meets your description.
1
JoeB: she is the most duplicitous scandal ridden candidate in recent history.. part of the Bonnie and Clyde flim - flam team.
Why only booze? Allow concealed handguns. Including on stage.
5
I think they should have a hot dog eating contest.
2
How about having a real, structured, bona fide debate, with resolutions to be debated pro and con picked from a hat from voter suggestions. The candidates could flip coins for which ones would assume the roles of con-man. This would lend an air of authenticity to the episode.
If not, don't call these events "debates." Label them as the crazy "circuses" that they have come to be.
If not, don't call these events "debates." Label them as the crazy "circuses" that they have come to be.
The GOP should hire Mr Hillary Clinton to moderate the debates and keep the clowns in line.
Frankly I think the moderator of the the debates should be Sarah Palin and the debates should include a swimsuit competition, a talent section and, of course, a shooting competition with funding by the NRA.
2
I think FOX should insist that this debate is Open Carry and that each candidate is required to bring the gun of their choice. Wayne LaPierre could be the Gun Approval person and could make sure each gun is loaded and ready to rock n' roll if a heckler gets out of line. But, of course, that heckler would be allowed to Open Carry so, wow, it could get really exciting.
All of these politicians want us 'Every Day Normals' to face Open Carry everywhere we go. I think we should return the favor.
All of these politicians want us 'Every Day Normals' to face Open Carry everywhere we go. I think we should return the favor.
7
Where can you buy all those badges? Some will become scarce collectors' items in a matter of weeks.
1
And then on the left, the anointed and entitled one: Hillary. Too bad there aren't any real qualified Democrat candidates.
Secretary of State, twice elected US Senator, twice placed on list of top 100 Attorneys in the country. Here read this and tell me which Republican candidate has anything close: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons...
This move was telegraphed years ago. Everybody in both Parties knew what was coming and didn't care to stand in the path of a speeding train but would rather be on board.
An excellent example of the new business of running for the presidency, would be Dr. Ben Carson. He certainly has no chance of winning but will come out of this far better off than working as a neurosurgeon. His wife (MBA), runs his campaign, writes his speeches and books and now his speaking fees will keep him rolling in the money for years to come as a "former presidential candidate".
2
Only actual pie throwing would make it more of a circus.
Discounting the Republican Party via their lack of a credible candidate will only work if they only had 2 candidates, like the other clown show called the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately the art of the campaign is visibility and that is why the Republicans have multiple candidates and multiple debates. They currently hold the upper hand over a media avoiding Hillary and the often media minimalized Bernie.
I agree that the pool of Republican Presidential candidates are inept, but not nearly as inept as the Democratic Party is at not realizing the definition of campaign.
Unfortunately the art of the campaign is visibility and that is why the Republicans have multiple candidates and multiple debates. They currently hold the upper hand over a media avoiding Hillary and the often media minimalized Bernie.
I agree that the pool of Republican Presidential candidates are inept, but not nearly as inept as the Democratic Party is at not realizing the definition of campaign.
1
What thinking person has any concern about the republican debates - I would rather watch Sponge Bob for laughs. Watching the republican debates is watching the intellectually and morally challenged lackeys of the 1%. Nothing to see here - move on.
Oh please - the coming Republican debates will be great entertainment and even funnier than those in 2012. Instead of Bachman, Perry, and Cain, we now have Fiorina, Perry, and a brain surgeon! And, if we get really lucky, we could have The Donald, who will vie with Rand Paul for the worst hair do.
REMEMBER HE GOP PRIMARY CIRCUS: 2012?
2016 WILL BE FAR MORE BIZARRE! . . .
Why? Double the number and double the fun. And there is a lack of a monolithic ideology among them with more than three discrete camps. (If only Herman Cain could be induced to again play the godfather and go back to his 999 economic solution.)
All (expect Rand Paul) will play to the base and attempt to destroy each other as not being a real conservative. But, the one who gets the nomination will be left with what they said and then attempt to be moderate during the election process.
Even the unwashed proletariat will be confused. And, Hillary will win big time.
2016 WILL BE FAR MORE BIZARRE! . . .
Why? Double the number and double the fun. And there is a lack of a monolithic ideology among them with more than three discrete camps. (If only Herman Cain could be induced to again play the godfather and go back to his 999 economic solution.)
All (expect Rand Paul) will play to the base and attempt to destroy each other as not being a real conservative. But, the one who gets the nomination will be left with what they said and then attempt to be moderate during the election process.
Even the unwashed proletariat will be confused. And, Hillary will win big time.
2
So on the one hand we have a limo full of suitors..and on the other.. an arranged marriage. Yay.
5
In the spirit of your series, "Not the Knicks", about basketball teams which actually win, you should do a biographical series on past presidents when they were just starting out as candidates, and call it something like "Not the 2016 Republicans". I'd read it.
1
I like the idea of having the debates broken into geographical conferences, kind of like the NBA. We could have the Liberal Northeast Conference (Hillary Clinton, Lincoln Chafee, Bernie Sanders, George Pataki, Chris Christie, Donald Trump, etc.), the Southern Good Ol' Boys Conference (Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Jim Webb, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, etc.), the Beachcombers Conference (Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, etc.), Midwestern Conference (Rick Santorum, John Kasich, Scott Walker, etc.), until you eventually take the best one or two from each of these brackets and then place them in the Final Ten debates.
It's painfully obvious. Republicans run for President to make money. It's a profit making venture for them. Campaign contributions? Why don't they just call it campaign banking, because it all goes straight in their pockets. It's the American way.
32
And Hillary is running for some other reason?
Check out the list of 112 candidates running for President in 2016, one third of them Republicans, compiled at the U. Minnesota.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2014/07/fringe_candidates_fil...
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2014/07/fringe_candidates_fil...
2
Someone earlier suggested employing the Hollywood Squares format and I agree. Rand Paul could have the square once occupied by Paul Lynde, famous for having answered the question - 'which organ of the human body is most abused and neglected' - by replying 'my organ is often abused but rarely neglected,' a description that would also apply to GOP primary voters.
22
There are way too many republican candidates out there. How is GOP going to compete with Hillary when they have so many people running for president? They need to choose only one of them and put all the efforts into promoting him. Or they just are going to lose. Sometimes it feels like they stand for elections only to get more fame. Seems like many of them don't actually believe they have any chances to achieve victory.
3
Mr. Gonzales--
Most of them aren't running for President; they are running for campaign cash.
Most of them aren't running for President; they are running for campaign cash.
1
It's really cyclical. The Republicans need time. They must settle differences and establish their leadership. I don't see it happening in 2016. This process takes years and will likely affect politics after Clinton when factions in both Parties struggle for control of their Parties.
"As of now, there are about a dozen viable candidates and probable candidates in the field . . . ."
Mr. Leibovich, you and I have different defintions of the word "viable."
Mr. Leibovich, you and I have different defintions of the word "viable."
49
""playing “hide-and-seek with cash” (“Hide bundles of money throughout the studio"".
I thought you were talking about Republicans.
This M.O. sounds exactly like what Hillary is doing-and she has NO competition!
I thought you were talking about Republicans.
This M.O. sounds exactly like what Hillary is doing-and she has NO competition!
4
No, she will have serious competition for the first time. If I have to vote for Hillary I will hold my nose and do it purely because she will nominate better Supreme Court justices than any Republican but as Goldwater famously said how about a "choice, not an echo". On foreign policy we get the same regardless of who gets elected ( excluding Rand Paul if he holds to his father's courageous anti interventionism).
Pretty funny (just kidding) but you're still gonna lose.
My favorite Republican debate moment occurred I believe in the 2008 debates. Members of the public were allowed to question the candidates by Skype. Up comes a wild eyed guy holding up a Holy Bible, demanding that each candidate state whether he believes every word in the Bible to be 100% true.
Given the core values of many GOP primary voters, part of each debate, or one full debate, should be devoted to a Jeopardy style contest of the candidates knowledge of the Good Book.
Given the core values of many GOP primary voters, part of each debate, or one full debate, should be devoted to a Jeopardy style contest of the candidates knowledge of the Good Book.
29
A word to the wise is sufficient. Republicans need at least a paragraph.
6
Enough of the stupid school yard "debates", especially the preliminaries.
Time for each candidate take a "qualifier" test that would cover economics, history, civics including constitutional law, basic science, basic accounting, and math including a dose of statistics and probability. This would be at the high school A.P. level or beginning college level, maybe a little lower for science and math.
Part 1 would check factual knowledge, Part 2 would include case problems with essay responses; e.g., Mexico has gone bankrupt and the drug cartels are about to assume power (just making that up) - what would you do (and explain your reasoning)?
The tests would be taken concurrently by all candidates, conducted over several days in a cone of internet and human silence. Detailed results would be made public.
From our 319 million people it ought to be possible to identify viable candidates from across the political spectrum who are as intelligent and knowledgable as a 95th percentile kid.
Time for each candidate take a "qualifier" test that would cover economics, history, civics including constitutional law, basic science, basic accounting, and math including a dose of statistics and probability. This would be at the high school A.P. level or beginning college level, maybe a little lower for science and math.
Part 1 would check factual knowledge, Part 2 would include case problems with essay responses; e.g., Mexico has gone bankrupt and the drug cartels are about to assume power (just making that up) - what would you do (and explain your reasoning)?
The tests would be taken concurrently by all candidates, conducted over several days in a cone of internet and human silence. Detailed results would be made public.
From our 319 million people it ought to be possible to identify viable candidates from across the political spectrum who are as intelligent and knowledgable as a 95th percentile kid.
42
Hillary would have to be given the list of questions in advance so that she could first of all commission a poll to determine what her answers should be, and then have her speechwriters compose answers that sound good but do not convey any actual information about her opinions.
But that is not what campaigns are about. It's American Idol time. It's all about appearances and debate points. Competence, knowledge and character play little role.
I support you idea with gusto.
I support you idea with gusto.
1
Why not let the whole country participate, we might find Presidential material where we weren't looking.
For anyone who is going to vote republican...you are voting against your own best interest. No matter which candidate wins the primary, his or her vision is to dismantle Obamacare,say no to immigration overhaul, say no to marriage equality. Any policy that benefits the middle class will never see the light of day during their administration. They would be a lap dog for wealthy powerful interests that would see the middle class as slave chattel to serve them. In essence the GOP and their presidential candidates would turn the clock back a hundred years on human and economic rights in our country.
98
My interests are:
1. Start, continue or escalate as many wars as possible.
2. Spy on as many innocent Americans as possible.
3. Give as much money to Goldman Sachs as possible.
Therefore I'm voting for Hillary.
1. Start, continue or escalate as many wars as possible.
2. Spy on as many innocent Americans as possible.
3. Give as much money to Goldman Sachs as possible.
Therefore I'm voting for Hillary.
2
As evidenced by the excellent economic recovery that has been advanced by the Democrats?
Absolutely- Vote, vote vote! No matter what vote Democrat!
1
Let Gordon Ramsey moderate, now that's a funny word.
1
I like the idea of a self-important 16 play-off. To determine who wins and advances, it would be good to employ an applause-o-meter, and which ever candidate gets the highest applause decibel reading wins. Candidates would have to be on top of their game, obviously, as losing one round is sudden death for that debate. Some audience screening would be necessary so that one candidate's crowd wouldn't be able to stack the deck with sheer numbers. But other than that, it would be a free-for-all.
4
I really would like to see a brokered convention. It would keep the press happy with rumors and reports of support between the candidates if they alter the Party position on this issue or if they obtain control of one part of government.
Have all candidates go through an X-ray machine like they have in airports to make sure they are not wearing wires or a cell phone or any other means of receiving communications during a debate.
I propose this because some of these candidates have a woefully poor grasp of many issues. And in this day and age we, the voters, need to have reassurance that the candidate is forced to think on their feet with words of their own.
Let the buyer beware. And let the electorate be sure.
I propose this because some of these candidates have a woefully poor grasp of many issues. And in this day and age we, the voters, need to have reassurance that the candidate is forced to think on their feet with words of their own.
Let the buyer beware. And let the electorate be sure.
8
Indeed, to this day I'm quite convinced that #43 wore a wire that evening. The ONLY thing that gives me pause is the obvious difficulty of keeping such a thing secret for this long - one would expect something to have come out by now. Nevertheless: Bush wore a wire!
Forget debates, instead require that every candidate produce a position paper, containing an executive summary in the front that is available to any voter who wants a copy. The candidates should be required to answer the same set of questions on key issues. Boring, I admit, but sane and responsible.
15
GOP should go for a lottery system to pick their candidate. They are all equally bad and it will make no difference to who gets picked in a lottery system, which will at least be fair and not corrupted by billionaires.
14
Since our electoral process seems to be all about the Benjamins,why not sell the debate slots to the highest bidders? Might weed out the weaklings.
46
vonstipatz, I think you are on the right track. If the candidates bid on the 4 or 5 spots for the debate, we would certainly find out who the oligarchs want us to vote for.
1
... and that will turn the elections into a stand-up comedy show. I do not say it is bad, I even think it is reasonable to allow nasty jokes (for example about Hillary's husband and Cruz's origin) just to be sure that our future president is ready to withstand the challenge. It would also be good to make a poll and draw a list of the problems, which are considered the most urgent (like health, education and national security) and make each candidate answer them directly, letting the others openly criticize the answers. This will be just great or at least interesting... or we may occasionally find a substitute for 'American gladiators'.
3
We should test the politicians. They insist on testing in schools. That citizenship test or a test on the constitution would be most helpful in deciding who to vote for.
82
Let's have a bible quiz while we're at it. I'll bet they haven't a clue what the bible actually says, and you could slip 15 Shakespeare quotes past them!
3
Selfishly, I disagree with Mark's first suggestion and agree with the others. I mean, Republicans badmouth Mrs. Clinton so much when she is not around that it's unwise (for her) to compel her to stay in the same room in the pre-nominee stage. Their questioners are at least as bad -- "Can you stop the bit*h?" -- and so for her, it makes sense to stay away from the debate until after the convention.
But I'd love a loud audience (or none at all). A loud audience -- particularly one with beer and wine flowing -- would be entertaining. People would be more bold -- more spiteful -- and that would be fun to watch.
One other suggestion: please get rid of that thing referred to as the spin room. If debates are filled with empty promises and cavalier politicians, well the spin room is just full of liars.
But I'd love a loud audience (or none at all). A loud audience -- particularly one with beer and wine flowing -- would be entertaining. People would be more bold -- more spiteful -- and that would be fun to watch.
One other suggestion: please get rid of that thing referred to as the spin room. If debates are filled with empty promises and cavalier politicians, well the spin room is just full of liars.
12
Whether you like it or not the next leader of the free world will be one of these Republicans.
4
Keep dreaming....
27
Doubtful but keep telling your friends that.
21
Fear=denial
2
I've said for years that a 90 minute presidential debate in which all participants had to down a shot every 15 minutes would yield something much more real and meaningful, in terms of seeing the candidate for how good a job s/he might do in office, than what we typically get from such events.
On the more plausible side, the mixed party debate idea is a good one, and I don't see why the candidates couldn't arrange it themselves. You could do one-on-ones; it's not like the cable news networks wouldn't be interested in that programming. Huckabee and O'Malley, say, might not have much opportunity to get attention through any of the usual channels. But if they booked an hour of airtime to argue with each other about policy, I think that would draw some notice if only for the novelty.
On the more plausible side, the mixed party debate idea is a good one, and I don't see why the candidates couldn't arrange it themselves. You could do one-on-ones; it's not like the cable news networks wouldn't be interested in that programming. Huckabee and O'Malley, say, might not have much opportunity to get attention through any of the usual channels. But if they booked an hour of airtime to argue with each other about policy, I think that would draw some notice if only for the novelty.
2
So, the Reps. don't make sense now. Geez, we're just waking up to this? Since Reagan it's been downhiill, according to facts. Yes, facts. We're so in debt thanks to whom... Clinton produced a net postive budget. The Reps. produced seriously negative ones. Especially W. So... here we are. Each generation a little poorer than the last one. Education, infrastructure, ecological measures, justice and equality disappearing... I guess that those who got theirs are now content, safely away, eh?
20
The national debt increased every year of Clinton's eight year administration, and the economy was in recession when he left office. The budget was never balanced.
Clinton produced a net positive budget as compelled by Newt Gingrich and a Republican Congress.
They can't debate because they don't know anything about governance.
The GOP is nothing more than a loose collection of various untalented business types who drop into government just long enough to exploit the Constitution on behalf of their wealthy patrons and then themselves upon their return to the private sector. It's why they're such a miserable lot totally devoid of any original ideas. They genuinely don't know anything about managing infrastructural and civil life. They just want the benefits that go with the position without having to do any real work on behalf of the elderly, the poor, the children whom they insist be born.
By no means are the Democrats saints, but at least they exploit the Constitution to benefit as many people as possible, and know a thing or two about management in the public sector.
The only question about those in this year's GOP clown car is which one will first levy tiresome charges against being a target of the so-called "liberal" media for inquiring about health, labor, science,and any other rational, pragmatic topic.
Not enough popcorn to go around for that spectacle.
The GOP is nothing more than a loose collection of various untalented business types who drop into government just long enough to exploit the Constitution on behalf of their wealthy patrons and then themselves upon their return to the private sector. It's why they're such a miserable lot totally devoid of any original ideas. They genuinely don't know anything about managing infrastructural and civil life. They just want the benefits that go with the position without having to do any real work on behalf of the elderly, the poor, the children whom they insist be born.
By no means are the Democrats saints, but at least they exploit the Constitution to benefit as many people as possible, and know a thing or two about management in the public sector.
The only question about those in this year's GOP clown car is which one will first levy tiresome charges against being a target of the so-called "liberal" media for inquiring about health, labor, science,and any other rational, pragmatic topic.
Not enough popcorn to go around for that spectacle.
137
Just ask them three questions on live TV (no prep), if you can answer two, you get in.
e.g.
1. Average price of a 1/2 gallon of milk (where you live, or where are most of the time.)
2. What is the first thing a landlord does when they are starting an eviction process.
3. Average price of a gallon of gas within 10 miles of your home or place of employment (+- 5 cents)
e.g.
1. Average price of a 1/2 gallon of milk (where you live, or where are most of the time.)
2. What is the first thing a landlord does when they are starting an eviction process.
3. Average price of a gallon of gas within 10 miles of your home or place of employment (+- 5 cents)
24
Why does Murdoch-owned FOX News get to be a credible moderator of political debate? It´s clear Murdoch´s reputation as a responsible media owner is in tatters and that he deliberately interferes with editorial policy to convey his own severely biased political agenda. This powerful media ran underhanded political interference in Britain resulting in a full blown parliamentary commission inquiry. Murdoch was deemed not fit to run a major international media company on ethics and moral grounds. Clearly his key, highly profitable media holding FOX news leaves no doubt that his allegiances lie with the GOP, backed up in print by his newspapers the WSJ and NY Post. And just as his political clout poisoned British politics, doubtless Murdoch´s meddlesome ways are taking hold in the US political theatre.
16
ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, PBS are far more biased than Fox.
How about putting the political Truth-O-Meter behind each one and have stay in the "Pants-On-Fire" liar zone the whole time? Conspiracy candidates could get extra points for the biggest wopper. Winner gets a spot on the new game show, "Are You Dumber Than A Politician." Voters get to vote on answers from home via text. The audience would be huge and the entertainment value - priceless!
14
I think I would rather have a number of candidates so that people can actually have a choice based on the three true criteria for an election: issues, integrity, capability. On the Democratic side, there is one candidate no criteria other than being a woman who is notorious for having no integrity and has never proved to be capable. The issues part is just whether you agree on not. Give me a group of honest competing candidates any day.
1
" Give me a group of honest competing candidates any day."
OK, where are they, do you have any?
OK, where are they, do you have any?
4
How about letting everyone in, but modeling it after the gong show. After about 10 minutes we would be down to two candidates and they could fill the remaining time.
12
It will be a circus no matter how they set it up. The writers at SNL will essentially get 9 weeks during those debates in which they will have to just transcribe rather that come up with routines.
The article makes the statement that there are about a dozen viable candidates. Viable only in that they could possibly get the gop nomination. Not one of them comes close to being a viable candidate for president. A billion in additional spending from the kochs, and another billion or so from secret billionaire funded super pacs cannot change the hard cold fact that not one of them is electable, or remotely qualified to be president.
The article makes the statement that there are about a dozen viable candidates. Viable only in that they could possibly get the gop nomination. Not one of them comes close to being a viable candidate for president. A billion in additional spending from the kochs, and another billion or so from secret billionaire funded super pacs cannot change the hard cold fact that not one of them is electable, or remotely qualified to be president.
56
You forget the value of Sarah Palin to US and world culture. Can you imagine a world where we had not known the like of Sarah Palin during the McCain campaign. Romney realised the cultural impact but thought entertainment was an unwanted distraction so he was businesslike. He brought back dignity but lost heavily in the entertainment stakes. Palin will be remembered by all, Romney will be forgotten. Lets have more of the entertainment. The world will be poorer without it.
5
Take a page from the gotcha book of Jerry Springer: When a candidate makes a blatantly false statement, bring someone onstage who can refute it (as the audience goes "oooooohhhh!")
Chris Christie "I had no knowledge of Bridgegate."
"Ladies and gentlemen, say hello to David Wildstein!"
Jeb Bush: "I didn't understand that question about Iraq."
"Here she is, Megyn Kelly!"
Ted Cruz: "My colleagues in the Senate respect me and admire my record of accomplishment."
"Please welcome [any member of the US Senate] ."
Carly Fiorina: "My background as a CEO makes me well equipped to be president."
"Here they are: all 30,000 employees who lost their jobs before Ms. Fiorina herself was asked to leave HP!"
Rand Paul: "I understand that no job has more pressure than that of the US president, and I have the temperament to do it."
"A round of applause, please, for Savannah Guthrie!"
Chris Christie "I had no knowledge of Bridgegate."
"Ladies and gentlemen, say hello to David Wildstein!"
Jeb Bush: "I didn't understand that question about Iraq."
"Here she is, Megyn Kelly!"
Ted Cruz: "My colleagues in the Senate respect me and admire my record of accomplishment."
"Please welcome [any member of the US Senate] ."
Carly Fiorina: "My background as a CEO makes me well equipped to be president."
"Here they are: all 30,000 employees who lost their jobs before Ms. Fiorina herself was asked to leave HP!"
Rand Paul: "I understand that no job has more pressure than that of the US president, and I have the temperament to do it."
"A round of applause, please, for Savannah Guthrie!"
117
“With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery." - Rand Paul
So many citizens of nations around the world believe, with good reason, that voting is meaningful. We don't, also for good reason. The nation that led the way into democratic thinking about government has become the world's laughing stock.
55
Eliminate all 'moderators'. Lincoln and Douglas didn't need them. Let the candidates organize themselves and run the debates, and we'll see how good a job they do at it.
92
Now that would be entertaining. Can we watch it on-line? I don't think any of those ego maniacs could organize a line dance.
1
GOP candidates should be eliminated from the debates by a quiz on American history and the constitution. Make it simple: 100 written questions chosen by that many college professors. Seventy correct answers and the candidate wins a spot. If none get 70 right, Hillary has only to pass the same test to advance to the presidency automatically. But if she also answers fewer than 70, President Obama gets another term.
148
You could give them ten question from a middle school class, set the bar at 50%... And problem solved. An empty stage.
13
Why is it that Democrats insist that a Republican President be knowledgeable about American history and the Constitution when they elected a President who thought there were 58 states and is unfamiliar with the concept of separation of powers?
Hillary had better win the presidency because the only thing protecting her from indictment is a corrupt justice department.
Hillary had better win the presidency because the only thing protecting her from indictment is a corrupt justice department.
How about giving the same quiz to Bernie Sanders, and seeing how he stacks up against Hillary Clinton?
1
I agree with all of Mark's suggestions except the first. One thing we have learned from social media is that people will express themselves about another person in ways they would never do to that person's face. The Republicans without Hillary are like schoolkids when the teacher has had to step out of the classroom. When the school marm comes back in, their behavior becomes much less entertaining.
24
Regardless the format Republican debate circus will not reach the heights of the Hillary campaign where each day's news brings another breathless response to Hillary's arrogance, disregard for protocol and process, and disregard for anyone she deems unworthy, which is just about everyone. Her campaign is a three ring circus, sure to entertain for a long while.
5
Yes, the precious media are all so put out when their mile-wide and inch-deep sensationalism is ignored. If that's the Clinton strategy, let's have more of it!
7
I beg to differ. It's the arrogance of the GOP that's trying to blame the problems in the middle east and ISIL on president Obama! THAT is the epitome of arrogance.
Who started this war in Iraq? The Republican's!
Who lied about WMD's? The Republican's!
Who ran our economy into the ground? The Republican's!
Who protects the Big Banks? The Republican's!
Who wants to deny access to health care for 8 million Americans? The Republican's!
I can go on for days... The GOP, The party of Stupid, The party of mean! The party of arrogance! I gave you 5 examples of my proof? What proof, real PROOF, against Hillary do you have? Nothing...
Who started this war in Iraq? The Republican's!
Who lied about WMD's? The Republican's!
Who ran our economy into the ground? The Republican's!
Who protects the Big Banks? The Republican's!
Who wants to deny access to health care for 8 million Americans? The Republican's!
I can go on for days... The GOP, The party of Stupid, The party of mean! The party of arrogance! I gave you 5 examples of my proof? What proof, real PROOF, against Hillary do you have? Nothing...
10
And she's the biggest clown of them all.
The Republican Party is now the political arm of Fox Broadcasting. The presidential debates are an excellent way to promote both brands. Why not turn the debates into a regular, weekly reality series? All the candidates could get together Saturday nights from 7-11 Central Time & debate the great issues of our time.
Week 1: Why I hate the gays & why they hate me. Week 2: How to cut taxes to zero & still have a robust military while keeping every program you like. Week 3: Black people - do they really need to vote anyway? Week 4: Brown people - do we really still need them? Week 5: Muslims - why genocide is not such a bad idea. Week 6: Women - why we can never satisfy them so let's stop trying.
The series could go on for months without running out of topics that are guaranteed to keep the American electorate entertained & enlightened.
Fox could have a weekly "Guest Candidate" to rant and rave about whatever the contemporaneous wacko conspiracy theory Fox is pushing that week. Benghazi? Clinton Foundation scandals? Well, anything Clinton. The upcoming military takeover of Texas? Why Obamacare is forcing girls to lose their virginity & have abortions.
Trust me - this would be ratings gold & Fox could start making some money off their subsidiary that has not been too profitable for them the last six years.
Week 1: Why I hate the gays & why they hate me. Week 2: How to cut taxes to zero & still have a robust military while keeping every program you like. Week 3: Black people - do they really need to vote anyway? Week 4: Brown people - do we really still need them? Week 5: Muslims - why genocide is not such a bad idea. Week 6: Women - why we can never satisfy them so let's stop trying.
The series could go on for months without running out of topics that are guaranteed to keep the American electorate entertained & enlightened.
Fox could have a weekly "Guest Candidate" to rant and rave about whatever the contemporaneous wacko conspiracy theory Fox is pushing that week. Benghazi? Clinton Foundation scandals? Well, anything Clinton. The upcoming military takeover of Texas? Why Obamacare is forcing girls to lose their virginity & have abortions.
Trust me - this would be ratings gold & Fox could start making some money off their subsidiary that has not been too profitable for them the last six years.
236
Not sure whether MGR really is a network programmer or a professional comic but his comment is so funny I may have to retire.
4
Music by Ted Nugent.
2
It seems that Rush Limbaugh already follows this formula.
1
Put them all on an island for 180 days, no food,water only what they can find or make, and let them fend for themselves. At the end the survivors get to debate.
53
And they should all be naked. (I'm afraid even to think about that!)
1
This sounds like a remake of the movie "Lord of the Flies."
1
This one made me laugh. Thanks.
1
There is no stopping this carnival because the actual fuel is the media and unbridled narcism. Polling will therotically eliminate people along the way but the canadates will all point to some poll or state that says that he or she is moving up as we speak. HRC will begin to look comparatively saintly and levelheaded: Presidential. This is because these Republicans hate everything and everybody especially their colleagues.
35
The debates should take place in a classroom (big seats) with the moderator taking the spot a teacher would be in. Question "Why do you want to be President Hillary?" " And you Jeb how about you?" " Anybody have any ideas on what you would do about inequality?." "Yes Bernie ...go ahead. OK, OK...relax you will all get your chance and this class will be a double session and run two hours.
12
I never realized it before, but this was probably a political game show and he was probably a candidate of the future.