Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 10:16 AM Aug 2015

Republican Debate #1

As Thursday, August 6 approaches, community members may be deciding if they will watch the freak shows on Fox. The paternalistic nature of the republican party, along with the large number of candidates entering their primaries, has resulted in a two-tier debate format. It is, in essence, the JV team going first, followed by the varsity players. The republican machine’s attempt to decrease the number of primary debates seems sure to backfire on them.

In a sense, the JV contest could be viewed as a struggle to be considered as a vice presidential contender. Being relegated to the lower level would seem to close the door on those participant’s dreams of becoming president in 2016. Yet the character -- and specifically, the character flaws and the utter lack of character -- creates a situation in which several of the candidates will be going for broke, and attempting to gain a significant jump in the national opinion polls.

Thus, in many ways, the JV debate may provide more entertainment than the varsity game. There will be competition to see who can deliver the most outrageous sound bites. Indeed, some of the candidates are already shifting into high gear -- for example, Mike Huckleberry’s saying he would consider using the military to prevent abortions in the USA.

The self-righteous Huckleberry will no doubt gain support from the republican party’s rabid religious right with that claim, but he will also stoke the opposition of a segment of the tea party that opposes the use of federal troops in state and local matters. A few of them may have even read the Constitution. These folks weren’t concerned when, under Richard Nixon, Al Haig brought the US Army in to attack the Oglala Lakota who were at Wounded Knee in 1973. But they have become a wee bit more paranoid about the possibility of such confrontations, that may involve their circle of friends.

Such selective outrage can provide entertainment at both debates. Normally (relative to the republican party), candidates tend to be cautious in the early debates. They have a few well-rehearsed lines they are intent upon delivering. But they don’t want to make a mistake that could knee-cap their campaign. This would be the case in the varsity debate, except for the Trump factor. For Donald Trump is aware that in many contexts, emotion matters more than logic. And by appealing directly to emotion, he has established himself as the early leading contender.

Former Reagan aide Peggy Noonan recently noted that Trump is capitalizing on the utter contempt that republicans feel for politicians. That is, of course, accurate. The grass roots republicans recognize that the politicians they’ve long supported do not care about the; rather, they are the lap-dogs of the corporate state. As Trump’s numbers show, a growing number of the grass roots republicans are becoming unwilling to simple do what they are told, and to be satisfied. They are not excited about another Willard Romney candidacy.

The other varsity candidates face obvious difficulties in the debate featuring Trump. They can’t afford to ignore his outrageous statements, but the format for the first debate only allows 1 minute answers, and 30-second rebuttals. Hence, no detailed policy responses are possible. Thus, the verbal duels will be dangerous territory, as Trump has shown a greater ability to toss out one-line insults. His saying that Rick Perry needs to take an IQ test, while perhaps crude, reminds the audience of Perry’s 2012 primary fumble. Everyone will want to be the republican who puts Trump in his place; no one will want to be the target of his zingers.

The issues may favor Trump. Foreign policy issues will be fairly limited: ISIS, Iran, Israel, and Russia. Everyone will want to sound tough. Domestic issues will be more interesting. From boarder security to abortion, the economy to guns, the debate format will only allow for the shallowest of answers. And while all of the top-tier republicans have mastered “shallow,” Donald Trump has more experience in shallow television programming. Indeed, he doesn’t need to deliver more realistic, workable ideas than the other competitors: he only has to convey contempt for them.

It could be very entertaining. In fact, it would almost be funny -- but for the fact that one of these people could actually be elected in 2016.

Peace,
H2O Man

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Republican Debate #1 (Original Post) H2O Man Aug 2015 OP
It is a strange world where a party must be so bat shit crazy to win their nomination Agnosticsherbet Aug 2015 #1
Well said. H2O Man Aug 2015 #5
Today campaigns take a multimeida approach to package and sell a candidate Agnosticsherbet Aug 2015 #18
Well said DesertRat Aug 2015 #2
Thanks. H2O Man Aug 2015 #7
I think you summed it up well DesertRat Aug 2015 #24
Good question. H2O Man Aug 2015 #25
NONE of these crazies would've been given any thought by the media as recently as the St Ronnie era Roland99 Aug 2015 #3
Right! H2O Man Aug 2015 #8
It's definitely a competition in who can be the Biggest Crazy lunatica Aug 2015 #4
If a sociologist were H2O Man Aug 2015 #9
As it happens, I never watch debates. malthaussen Aug 2015 #6
Good points. H2O Man Aug 2015 #12
It's also notorious that RN won on points... malthaussen Aug 2015 #16
I will be flying to Cleveland... brooklynite Aug 2015 #10
Have fun! H2O Man Aug 2015 #13
14 GOP candidates not named Donald Trump will participate in the same event tonight. Here’s what to PADemD Aug 2015 #11
Right! H2O Man Aug 2015 #14
Thanks, I didn't know about this DesertRat Aug 2015 #23
Rec...but not watching, not analyzing, not concerned, not angry, don't care. Waiting for the Aftermath. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #15
I understand why H2O Man Aug 2015 #19
Social scientists do a job I am ill-equipped to do. Thank you. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #20
I don't even pay attention to republicans and their blithering drivel. Zorra Aug 2015 #17
Right. H2O Man Aug 2015 #21
Good insight about the JV contest as a forum for potential VP contenders. robertpaulsen Aug 2015 #22
Interesting. Thanks. H2O Man Aug 2015 #26

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
1. It is a strange world where a party must be so bat shit crazy to win their nomination
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 10:38 AM
Aug 2015

that it near guarantees a defeat in the November election.

Republicans have a history of picking the candidate that is viewed as the most acceptable to who they see as the center of the country. Romney, McCain, Bush II, and Dole were, for the most part, able to get nominated without saying things that were utterly insane. (They were also the Corporate Candidate, which was also a factor.

But with every candidate being back by a billionaire, Corporate Candidates may actually have a disadvantage.

It looks to me like we have entered an age of King Makers. The Koch Brothers or some other immensely wealthy individual decides to buy the presidency and shops for a suite with a suitable hunk of meat inside.

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
5. Well said.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:37 PM
Aug 2015

I would add technology to the tools of king-makers.

The debates between JFK and Richard Nixon played a significant role in JFK's being elected. But, it really wasn't the lone factor: having the King family endorse Kennedy after JFK's call to Mrs. King was also huge. But television was something the machine could control in the long run.

Reagan the politician was a televised package. Strange enough he was elected governor of CA. But to make that guy president? The power of tv.

The internet helped Gov. Dean, and then helped propel Barack Obama. (Dean, of course, was knee-capped by one televised clip; Obama mastered tv.)

Today, we are witnessing the machine's ability to combine tv and the internet to promote people with less insight or ability than Reagan. It is mind-boggling.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
18. Today campaigns take a multimeida approach to package and sell a candidate
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 03:02 PM
Aug 2015

In most cases, I don't think we acually see the real candidate because everything scripted.

Yes, you are right. Technology is remaking campaigns just like technology remade the global economy, and it appears for the benefit of the same people.

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
7. Thanks.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:39 PM
Aug 2015

Do you think I summed up the likely scenarios? What other dynamics do you think we might be treated to?

DesertRat

(27,995 posts)
24. I think you summed it up well
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 04:42 PM
Aug 2015

I'll be watching to see whether Trump stays within the debate time constraints or will attempt to bully his way into extending his answers.

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
25. Good question.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 05:47 PM
Aug 2015

If he does behave, it's a bonus for him in terms of republican support. But, even if he goes off, he'll gain support.

Despite his comments about never being in a debate, etc, I'm confident that he will be watching tonight's panel of candidates' addressing various questions, and incorporating their weaknesses into the responses his team is preparing.

Roland99

(53,342 posts)
3. NONE of these crazies would've been given any thought by the media as recently as the St Ronnie era
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:06 PM
Aug 2015

but now they're treated as kings amongst kings.

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
8. Right!
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:43 PM
Aug 2015

At very best, a couple of them might have been considered as a Danny Quayle-type VP option. Or an Agnew ....a little-known figure on the national scene, who could serve as the attack dog during the campaign.

But presidential material? No. The only possibility would have been a George Wallace-type run by Trump. But I don't think even that.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
4. It's definitely a competition in who can be the Biggest Crazy
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:13 PM
Aug 2015

I never thought the uber reactionary Tea Party types would have such a long run. But their true purity policies will end up throwing everyone under the bus for not being pure enough. Hatred takes over if it's fanned enough, and it overpowers everything else.

Sarah Palin unleashed them and they chewed her up and spit her out. And she was one of them. The Donald will come to the same demise as soon as he tries to back away from the frothing hatred. He may be able to easily control the rest of the candidates now, but the beast is in his followers, and he'll find he's not the one in control after all.

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
9. If a sociologist were
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:51 PM
Aug 2015

to identify the severity of pathology in our culture, almost all would be measured in thousands, if not millions, of people. The republican presidential primary for 2016 may be the starkest exception to that, as it measures under 20 people. Yet, it serves to illustrate almost everything wrong with our society.

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
6. As it happens, I never watch debates.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:39 PM
Aug 2015

I have higher standards for my entertainment, and I do not expect anything of substance to come out of the format. Since everyone knows how to look good for the camera these days, we won't have incidents like Richard Nixon sweating his way to defeat, and I also don't like the whole concept of some panel of journalistic "experts" telling me who "won" a confrontation that should be evaluated on the merits.

That said, the GOP debates -- whether JV or varsity -- have good potential for being amusing... if, as you point out, one were blissfully oblivious to the fact that one of these thugs is going to be running for President of the United States.

-- Mal

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
12. Good points.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:58 PM
Aug 2015

We really don't have debates at all. They are panel discussions. This is especially true for the primaries. There have been a few examples of one candidate confronting another, but that always interrupts the process, and the moderators attempt to get the discussion back on track.

Kennedy vs Nixon was, as far as I am aware, the only one that involved real debate (and, as you note, Nixon was damaged in the first of the series).

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
16. It's also notorious that RN won on points...
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 01:07 PM
Aug 2015

... but JFK swept the field on intangibles, which after all is about all our media pundits are competent to judge (whatever may have been the case in 1960).

But I was only four at the time, so I couldn't say I had an opinion.

-- Mal

brooklynite

(93,834 posts)
10. I will be flying to Cleveland...
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:55 PM
Aug 2015

...the Ohio Democratic Party is sponsoring a dinner and viewing party, and I'll figure I'll see something of the circus out on the Street before-hand.

PADemD

(4,482 posts)
11. 14 GOP candidates not named Donald Trump will participate in the same event tonight. Here’s what to
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 12:58 PM
Aug 2015

Fourteen of the 17 major Republican candidates for president plan to participate in a candidate forum in New Hampshire Monday night, giving voters an early glimpse of most of the packed field in the same setting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/03/14-gop-candidates-not-named-donald-trump-will-participate-in-the-same-event-tonight-heres-what-to-watch/

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
14. Right!
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 01:01 PM
Aug 2015

I saw this on another DU:GD thread today. I appreciate you folks mentioning it. I'll definitely be watching it.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
15. Rec...but not watching, not analyzing, not concerned, not angry, don't care. Waiting for the Aftermath.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 01:04 PM
Aug 2015

All this Fox propaganda blitz deserves, like all Fox propaganda blitzes, e.g. the PP criminal smear, is well earned heapings of derision and, of course, mockery in the extreme.

Why would anyone have to watch to do that, we already know what the script is?

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
19. I understand why
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 03:20 PM
Aug 2015

you and others will opt not to watch it. It really is plastic, at its very best. There is nothing authentic about republican debates. (I have issues with the democratic debates, and those for the general election, too, but they are superior to republican primary debates.)

Even that which is supposed to pass for "emotion" in these events is fake. And that makes it difficult for thinking people to watch. And you are absolutely correct, that we know the script already. Which raises the question, for me, as I think about this: why do I watch it?

I suppose that among my bad habits, a strange fascination with not so much the pure "politics" of it, but the manner that the machine controls (some) people's thinking .....that any group of people outside his immediate family could view Rick Perry as a "leader," for example. Because he is nothing more than a lap dog for those behind the curtain.

In self-defense, I'll add that because I'm active in local politics -- which is increasingly including debates -- I will be watching to examine the republican method. For even the republicans at the local level ape the republican primary tactics. And I'll be trying to come up with responses, in the sense of preparation for the future.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
17. I don't even pay attention to republicans and their blithering drivel.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 01:22 PM
Aug 2015

What I already know is that if any one of them is elected POTUS, they will immediately begin to wage a campaign to spread death, destruction, deprivation, and misery upon all life on earth, (and the earth as a living entity in herself if considered separately from all the life she sustains), as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow.

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
21. Right.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 03:29 PM
Aug 2015

I find myself thinking back to that jackass George W. Bush, When he babbled about "why they hate us." And not in the context of actual enemies, who would take violent actions to hurt this country. But rather, those people around the planet who we want as friends and allies. Why do so many of them hold us in contempt? The republican primary candidates represent exactly why.

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
22. Good insight about the JV contest as a forum for potential VP contenders.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 04:12 PM
Aug 2015

I found it very interesting that the Koch brothers had a conference this weekend at their retreat in Dana Point where of the 17 candidates, only 5 were invited. You had their favored son, Walker, their second, Jeb, and two middle-of-the-packers, Rubio and Cruz. What surprised me was the fifth candidate was Carly Fiorina. She's been polling at one or zero percent throughout the year. My feeling is that she was somehow able to negotiate an audition with them - not for President, there's no chance of that - but as a potential VP, perhaps under the delusion that she could take some votes from women away from Clinton. I'm curious how that all really played out and curious to see if she will try to behave the most "Presidential" among the JV circus where many will, as you say, try to provide the most "entertainment."

H2O Man

(73,308 posts)
26. Interesting. Thanks.
Mon Aug 3, 2015, 05:54 PM
Aug 2015

Two things that I've "heard":

First, Fiorina is more likely to be picked for a cabinet-type position, in which she can "down-size" several departments and budgets. That's her thing -- being a domestic economic hit person.

Second, the "wise men" behind the curtain are attempting to identify which candidate to sacrifice to damage Trump. What they will do is deliver the word to one of a few of the reliable campaign-management people, who now are in place with various candidates. The candidate they select may see a temporary rise in polls, but will be eliminated from anything above the VP spot in the general election.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Republican Debate #1