GOP aims to ease bloodshed in 2016 primary debates
Finally, who conducts the debates? The last time around, some conservatives expressed anger about what they saw as liberal journalists subjecting GOP candidates to hostile questioning. “The Republicans have let this become the reality show of presidential politics,” said Katon Dawson, a former chairman of the South Carolina GOP, during that state’s primary week in January 2012. “We’ve let it be driven it by people who don’t like us. … For that hour and a half of earned media, we have let the drive-by shooting of the liberal media come after our Republican candidates unfettered.”
Dawson wasn’t alone. Many Republicans scratched their heads during a New Hampshire debate in which ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton operative, grilled Romney on the topic of contraception. Where did that come from? Later, when Democrats sought to make contraception a campaign issue, Republicans saw Stephanopoulos’ questions as a partisan preview of what was to come.
So who should conduct the debates in 2016? “That’s a tricky question,” says Fleischer. “Putting on a proper live debate is no simple matter, and usually the people who are good at it are the networks or the cables. So it’s something we’ve got to work through and talk through, to figure out how the debates are going to be reflective of what a Republican primary voter thinks.” In the end, the party might decide to assign a few debates to organizations that did not conduct them in 2012.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
@tommy71 Image matters in politics. And Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry all had image problems. Gingrich is arrogant; he rubs people the wrong way. Clinton is a good old boy. That is why Clinton was forgiven. Santorum comes off as a moral scold. Ryan, Jindal, and Rubio hold similar positions to Santorum but came frame them better. Perry suffered a You Tube defining moment. He could spout off arguments from the Federalists Papers in thenext debate and it wouldn’t have mattered.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM
Umm alright. Sure. Once again, take the tinfoil hat off.
No poll necessary. I have quite a few friends and lots of family in TX and many of them were Perry supporters. Even they, as biased as they are, weren’t convinced that Perry would win after he embarrassed himself and the state of TX. Of course, I would cite a poll, but they’re rigged or something. What’s funny is that I at least have something to back it up. You have nothing except your own hunch.
Ah but you assume. Did I ever say that Mitt was the perfect candidate? Did I say that he deserved no blame? Nope, I don’t believe I did. Nice strawman. What I’m saying is that for as much blame as you put on him for being a bad candidate, he actually ran a lot better than most of the statewide Republican candidates.
Okay, not trying to be a prick here, but you’ve done this twice so I thought I would correct you. It’s “worst” not “worse” in this context. Mitt did nothing to win the election? You must have forgotten the millions dollar worth of ads he ran. Or how he destroyed Obama in the first debate, in which many people called the best debate performance by a candidate in decades. Even Michael Reagan said it was better than any of his father’s performances. He was also dominating Obama in the second debate before Crowley interfered. He did plenty to win the election. The Obama campaign was just better. I don’t know about unicorns, but I’m sure unicorns are more believable than polls, which were pretty accurate in 2012, huh?
Umm actually, everything you just said is completely wrong. Brown didn’t have a chance until Coakley imploded. As soon as she did, the polls clearly showed momentum shifting towards Brown and with him consistently leading until Election Day. And as for Christie, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Corzine was seen as VERY beatable and most of the polls had Christie beating Corzine once his name recognition was above 80%. The polls said that Dems would not win the House in 2010 and they won? Umm…the Dems DID lose in 2010…pretty badly, in fact. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Which polls showed Mitt beating Obama besides Rasmussen and Gallup? Most of the other polls showed Obama with a slight edge. And you just saying that the polls showed Mitt would beat Obama…is that some evidence that the “liberal” pollsters wanted Romney to win or something?
I notice you didn’t respond to the fact that Nate Silver’s final prediction was pretty darn accurate in every state. What did he use? Oh right, those poll things.
GOPRanknFile on February 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM
@Illinidiva Yes, I agree. Image matters in politics. Romneys image was the father of Obamacare. Predictably, he lost. And yes, Gingrich pi**es people off, but in a debate with Obama, would have taken both him and the MSM through a meat grinder. That alone would have brought the pub electorate out. Perry, he had a youtube moment. So? You still don’t get it, do you? With a bit of coaching, he’d have been a hundred times better in the GE. And hes a present-day governor, not like Romney or Gingrich. And a conservative. Try harder. I have all day. Romney used his money power to win. Thats it.
tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM
No he wouldn’t have. Gingrich has the tendency to come off as a jerk in debates. The Republican primary electorate loved him hectoring the MSM moderators, but I don’t think that smarmily hectoring the sitting President in a general election debate would have helped him win over independents. As I said earlier, my favorite moment of the 2012 election cycle was the fact that Gingrich got ripped to shreds for criticizing Ryan’s budget and had to personally apologize to Ryan. Gingrich is so irrelevant that he had to grovel to a guy who was a 24-year-old low level staffer when Gingrich was first elected Speaker.
It confirmed the prevailing suspicions about Perry.. that he was an airhead. It was similar to Palin being unable to answer questions about the newspapers she read. That one was career ending for Perry.
Illinidiva on February 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM
I beg to differ. Gingrich, when faced with the sitting Preezy, would have blown both Obama, and the MSM out of the water. And the indies would have loved it. On Perry, again, you’re judging him on one moment. Thats feelings, not facts. Hes the sitting governor. You keep harping on feelings and emotions and assumptions, never facts.
tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM
Try harder, diva. Or recognize reality. Very hard for some. And you’re one of them.
tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2