'They Get Away With Murder'
7/6/15 20:21![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSanders: I Want to Debate GOPers Before General Election
"Senator Bernie Sanders is trying to push for debates between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates now, because, he says, the GOP is “getting away with murder” and they need to be called out on that. Sanders is pushing for more Democratic debates, as well as cross-party debates, which would be unheard of in the modern era of presidential campaigning. Rachel Maddow asked Sanders tonight why he would want to do that. Sanders explained, “In a sense, the Republicans get away with murder. They have an absolutely reactionary agenda.” He argued that a cross-party debate would be a great opportunity to cut out the “political gossip” and honestly confront each other on the issues."
The hyperbolic "murder" soundbite notwithstanding, I don't think it's likely that anyone (not Republicans, and definitely not Hillary Clinton) would go for this. Not likely by a long shot. Although that doesn't make much sense, actually. It looks absurd to me that a GOP contender wouldn't find it beneficial to debate Sanders if they actually did sincerely believe in their stated political positions, and that their policies were genuinely noble and useful. Wouldn't such a new type of bipartisan debate solve the GOP's problem with not being able to include all their possible candidates in the primaries? Instead, we get the same old mugs - including Trump.
Obviously, Sanders is not afraid to go head to head with any candidate, on either side of the political barricade. He's definitely looking forward to debating Hillary, at least that one's for sure. And they'll surely have at least half a dozen chances to lock horns. He does have a clear message, and he can't wait to get it out. What I don't get is why wouldn't his complete opposites, the right-wingers, want to throw their hats into the ring as well, rather than being inevitably dissed early on out of the primaries - whereas they could really have a chance to present a platform to debate against Sanders and the likes?
And isn't this whole thing with having many candidates of the same or a similar flavor selecting one among them, to then face the opposite champion, a way to deprave the public of more options, more political nuance, and a larger array of stances and proposed policies than they could've been having?
On a side note, turns out the old adage that Sanders is some sort of fringe wacko, is completely false. If we look a bit closer, and do some comparison, here's what sticks out:
POLL finds 80% of Republicans agree with Bernie Sanders
"Sen. Bernie Sanders is often characterized by the media as an out of the mainstream presidential candidate, but a new CBS/New York Times poll revealed that 80% of Republicans agree with Sanders on the issue of getting money out of politics. The CBS/NYT poll found that:
– 80% of Republicans believe that money has too much influence in our politics.
– 54% believed that most of the time candidates directly help those who gave money to them.
– 81% of Republicans felt that the campaign finance system needed fundamental changes (45%) or a complete rebuild (36%).
– 64% are pessimistic that changes will be made to reform the campaign finance system.
– 71% want to limit the amount that individuals can give to campaigns.
– 73% felt that super PAC spending should be limited by law.
– 76% thought that superPACs should be required to disclose their donors."
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans do agree that campaign finance reform is necessary, but the politicians who share that belief don't end up getting elected too often - which seems kinda odd, huh?
"Senator Bernie Sanders is trying to push for debates between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates now, because, he says, the GOP is “getting away with murder” and they need to be called out on that. Sanders is pushing for more Democratic debates, as well as cross-party debates, which would be unheard of in the modern era of presidential campaigning. Rachel Maddow asked Sanders tonight why he would want to do that. Sanders explained, “In a sense, the Republicans get away with murder. They have an absolutely reactionary agenda.” He argued that a cross-party debate would be a great opportunity to cut out the “political gossip” and honestly confront each other on the issues."
The hyperbolic "murder" soundbite notwithstanding, I don't think it's likely that anyone (not Republicans, and definitely not Hillary Clinton) would go for this. Not likely by a long shot. Although that doesn't make much sense, actually. It looks absurd to me that a GOP contender wouldn't find it beneficial to debate Sanders if they actually did sincerely believe in their stated political positions, and that their policies were genuinely noble and useful. Wouldn't such a new type of bipartisan debate solve the GOP's problem with not being able to include all their possible candidates in the primaries? Instead, we get the same old mugs - including Trump.
Obviously, Sanders is not afraid to go head to head with any candidate, on either side of the political barricade. He's definitely looking forward to debating Hillary, at least that one's for sure. And they'll surely have at least half a dozen chances to lock horns. He does have a clear message, and he can't wait to get it out. What I don't get is why wouldn't his complete opposites, the right-wingers, want to throw their hats into the ring as well, rather than being inevitably dissed early on out of the primaries - whereas they could really have a chance to present a platform to debate against Sanders and the likes?
And isn't this whole thing with having many candidates of the same or a similar flavor selecting one among them, to then face the opposite champion, a way to deprave the public of more options, more political nuance, and a larger array of stances and proposed policies than they could've been having?
On a side note, turns out the old adage that Sanders is some sort of fringe wacko, is completely false. If we look a bit closer, and do some comparison, here's what sticks out:
POLL finds 80% of Republicans agree with Bernie Sanders
"Sen. Bernie Sanders is often characterized by the media as an out of the mainstream presidential candidate, but a new CBS/New York Times poll revealed that 80% of Republicans agree with Sanders on the issue of getting money out of politics. The CBS/NYT poll found that:
– 80% of Republicans believe that money has too much influence in our politics.
– 54% believed that most of the time candidates directly help those who gave money to them.
– 81% of Republicans felt that the campaign finance system needed fundamental changes (45%) or a complete rebuild (36%).
– 64% are pessimistic that changes will be made to reform the campaign finance system.
– 71% want to limit the amount that individuals can give to campaigns.
– 73% felt that super PAC spending should be limited by law.
– 76% thought that superPACs should be required to disclose their donors."
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans do agree that campaign finance reform is necessary, but the politicians who share that belief don't end up getting elected too often - which seems kinda odd, huh?
(no subject)
Date: 7/6/15 17:27 (UTC)Because that's how the entire system has been designed to work.
Great idea, Bernie!
Date: 7/6/15 20:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/6/15 21:54 (UTC)This is generally what happens to fringe candidates who cannot draw meaningful support.
To put it another way, Ron Paul's campaign was unsuccessful, but it wasn't because of the establishment or the media.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 08:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 08:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 08:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 10:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/6/15 20:46 (UTC)It's a lot more likely than you think. A candidate that's behind in the polls, or wouldn't be allowed to be in the Republican debates for some arbitrary reason, and already resents the constraints imposed on them, would obviously jump at the chance to get free face time on national media. And if any of the candidates can make themselves look good by their supporting such an open debate, and also making those who won't participate look bad, then Bernie Saunder's suggestion happening is even more likely. Social media software like Twitter's Periscope (https://www.periscope.tv/)basically allows anyone with a smart phone to live stream content from anywhere, bypassing the national networks.
"Rachel Maddow, the left-leaning prime-time host on MSNBC, thinks Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is onto something with his proposal to dramatically shake up the 2016 primary debates. Maddow said more debates with candidates from both parties would allow voters more opportunities to see how potential presidential nominees would take on the policy ideas of their opponents. She said it would also free up Republicans, many of who may not qualify to participate in GOP-only debates."
And as Maddow shows, there are some serious issues with the way the Republican National Committee will handle the GOP debates: e.g. if they pick the top ten based on national polling, then Donald Trump, a media circus act in his own hair would qualify, but Rick Perry, a sitting governor in the 2nd largest state is left out, and Lindsay Graham, who sits on important several Senate committees is also left out. That's just plain nuts. So I love Senator Saunder's proposal and it would be great to have real debates between candidates from other parties.
So far, the RNC has suggested they would only allow the top ten based on polling of likely Republican voters. But that process leaves a lot to be desired.
Rachel Maddow's piece on Senator Saunder's proposal is an interesting watch. (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/sanders-proposes-more-and-bipartisan-debates-456068163820)
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 00:38 (UTC)Nevertheless.
Schedule the debates in groups of eight. Take the sixteen candidates in the Maddow graphic, for example. Take the top eight and randomly assign 4 to Debate One and 4 to Debate Two. Do the same with the bottom eight. Then have a substantial and open ended debate for both groups. Then, after the polls rejigger the field, and if there are still and unweildy number of contenders, do it again, same criteria, same random assignment. Once the field narrows, go to a single debate night format. That way no one is excluded, no one is put "in a second tier forum" and everyone gets a chance to get their views out there and make a mark if they can.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 07:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/15 11:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/6/15 21:52 (UTC)Because primary debates are for primary voters and for the individual parties. They're to help candidates differentiate themselves to their core voters. A debate with Bernie Sanders would devolve into figuring out who says "I disagree with Bernie Sanders" the best, and does nothing to help a Republican primary voter figure out the differences between those Republican candidates.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans do agree that campaign finance reform is necessary, but the politicians who share that belief don't end up getting elected too often - which seems kinda odd, huh?
Not odd. "Campaign finance reform" is hardly ever an issue that actively drives voters to the polls.
(no subject)
Date: 7/6/15 23:57 (UTC)You mean, besides the people who wrote the dictionary definition of "primary election?"
Who says that the best way to distinguish candidates is to have them debate other candidates that hold closely similar views,
I don't know if anyone is saying it is "the best way." It is part of the campaign that is between candidates that hold broadly similar views. So, it is another marker on a continuum that voters use to evaluate these candidates in order to judge which most closely agrees with the party and which has the best chance of success in the general election. I don't even think it is the most important marker. It just happens to be a very visible and occasionally a dramatic one.
I think voters would derive a lot of value from a forum that pits Walker against Sanders, for instance - it would really help to demonstrate the stark philosophical difference between the two parties. Or Jeb against Hillary. Right?
Sure. That would be interesting. But in a primary, a primary election, you aren't choosing between Walker and Sanders, or between Bush and Clinton. By definition. The differences you want to parse are the ones between Walker and Bush, or Sanders and Clinton, depending on your party preference. I think everyone can take as read that Sanders and Walker disagree dramatically, and come the general election we can all spend time figuring out which one has a better argument. But that is a job for a general election. Not for a primary.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 10:36 (UTC)Do you not understand the distinction between a "primary" and "general" election? Primary debates are for primary voters because that's who votes in the primary. Extra-party (vice intra-party) debate is what the general debates and election are for.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 12:13 (UTC)You're getting specious answers because you asked a specious question.
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/15 21:02 (UTC)To a degree, but once again that's part of the distinction between a primary and general election. Yes there are a lot of lazy / low information voters but they don't usually don't participate in the primaries because voting in a primary generally requires a greater level of commitment on the part of the voter.
"Know your audience" is one of the oldest and most important rules in rhetoric for a reason. Arguing specific policies and positions with people who are, for the most part, on the same page, is a very different beast from trying to sell yourself in the overall popularity contest/charm-off that is a general election which is why we have seperate primary elections in the first place.
You've slippery-sloped your way to this absurdity despite my having made repeatedly clear that I would assess the standards applicable to debates and elections according to the functions of each.
How can you do that when you seem to be having difficulty with the idea of debates and elections having a function in the first place. We've asserted that given debates and elections have given functions, and you've called this begging the question.
If we are going to question debates or elections having functions at all, why would "trial by hot-dog eating contest" be any more absurd than having an election, or fighting a war of succession?
If I've asked a specious question, you ought to be able to demonstrate as much without resorting to question-begging.
Reducto ad absurdium is very different from Question Begging. and the question in this case is whether debates and elections have a function so...
Either they do, in which case they should be designed to best fulfill their stated functions. Or they don't and we are wasting time/money/resources that could be better spent on hot dogs.
(no subject)
Date: 15/6/15 09:29 (UTC)You keep talking about the debates, and electoral campaigns in general, as if they exist independently of the elections.
What's begging the question is your treating debates as having a particular function relative to the elections to which they relate.
As opposed to what? Having no particular function? Not relating to an election? Having a secret function known only to you?
They don't have any "stated functions" apart from the ones you've decided, without basis, they necessarily have.
No basis outside of common use, dictionary definitions, and inductive reasoning you mean.
Now I know that you are trolling me.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/15 11:01 (UTC)Now look who is "begging the question"
You have less basis for your assertions than I do.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 13:12 (UTC)I would have expected this sort of thing to be obvious but It seems that I have to spell it out explicitly...
Say 60% of a democracy of a population is pro-baseball and their votes are split evenly between 4 pro-baseball candidates. The pro-baseball candidates each get 15% of the vote each which allows a radical anti-baseball candidate to win the election with 20%.
If everyone who was pro-baseball had agreed beforehand on which candidate to back one of the pro-baseball candidates would have won by 40% rather than lost by 5%. Those who are pro-baseball baseball have a vested interest in agreeing on a candidate beforehand. Just as those who are anti-baseball have a vested interest in preventing that agreement.
This is why primary elections exists, and why participation in them is regulated. The pro-baseball faction doesn't want the antis spoiling their selection process anymore than the antis want the more numerous pros to hijack theirs.
As a faction's population grows the election of a leader/candidate will become more complex and, in all likelihood, mirror the general election. Primary debates, stump speeches, etc... are simply an outgrowth of this except that the candidate is not running for president (or minister of recreation). They are running for the position of "best represents the pro-baseball faction", which brings us full circle to Jeff's initial reply (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1985432.html?thread=149627544#t149627544)...
Because primary debates are for primary voters and for the individual parties. They're to help candidates differentiate themselves to their core voters. A debate with Bernie Sanders would devolve into figuring out who says "I disagree with Bernie Sanders" the best, and does nothing to help a Republican primary voter figure out the differences between those Republican candidates.
TL/DR
A primary debate is for primary voters in the same way that the US Presidential Election is for US voters.
(no subject)
Date: 21/6/15 10:48 (UTC)Except that you haven't actually established its fallaciousness, nor is falsification through fallacy a valid form. You accused Jeff, Policratus, and me of begging the question and left it at that.
But what you haven't done, here, is explain why specifically intraparty debates during the primary season are the only means by which a candidate can prove that he or she "best represents the pro-baseball faction,"
That's because this was your assertion not mine.
What Jeff and I asserted is that intra-party/faction debates were the were an efficient way to resolve subtle distinction between candidates with broadly similar platforms.
That is the position you've been arguing against.
As for why restrict the debate to members of a given faction, we already covered that in my comment above and in Jeff's initial reply.
You then sum it up with a spurious and unsupported assertion that debates are some kind of "outgrowth" of the primary election.
Are you seriously suggesting that they are not? In the absence of an election there would be no candidates and nothing to debate.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 16:28 (UTC)Alabama
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters)
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 18:11 (UTC)You sure? Sure seems important for a lot of people.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/6/15 21:56 (UTC)The networks shouldn't mind. Just push Americas Best Hibiscus Grower Season 1 up into a later time slot.
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 07:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 06:59 (UTC)