d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Presidential Debates
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Jan 13 2022 10:01pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 13 2022 07:12pm)
I don't think its fair to say that the CPD is directly biased against republicans, but its clear they were biased against Trump because Trump was anti-establishment and the CPD represents the most engrained beltway insider interests. They went all-out on opposing Trump, in debate structure choices and moderator choices and question choices. They didn't have any pretense of neutrality, its like the RNC said, the board of the CPD was openly hostile to Trump. They weren't that way against the Bushs. The RNC isn't saying the quiet part out loud, but the CPD is clearly establishment biased and the RNC has embraced the anti-establishment with Trump, and the CPD just went all out anti-Trump.

The bias against third parties hit a critical mass after Nader (and I should mention Ventura) broke the system. Until that point, 3rd parties were allowed reasonable participation on the debate stages, even if they couldn't win. It would be the greens and libertarians or whatever other were the #3 and #4. They didn't need to flood the stage with complete nobodies with no polling threshold, but they did allow the most notable 3rd parties on stage so it wasn't just a two-party system.
Sure there hasn't been a 3rd party on the national stage with a real chance, but Ventura showed how dangerous it was during the 1998 gubernatorial race. They put an alpha personality with reasonable policies and good articulation on stage next to two fucking clowns running for the RNC and DFL, and he won purely based on that debate. After that, they started suppressing 3rd parties hard and both parties were happy to agree with it. That's what the two-party system used to be, they were willing to collude for their mutual benefit. Now with the extreme strain of TDS, they've broken their dark bond.


Again, I don't know what you mean by "establishment." I would characterize Mitch McConnell as part of the "establishment" but would Ted Cruz be part of it? I would say no but many would say yes. What about Josh Hawley? I don't think the CPD would be particularly biased against someone like Hawley or even Sanders. If you stick to your principles and are moderately truthful, I doubt you'd get much pushback from the moderators. Trump is a unique creature who was incredibly crass and most importantly, lied all the fucking time. Trump could have been the most establishment friendly candidate ever and he would have received the same amount of pushback I think. I think it's important to separate "Trump" from "anti-establishment" in this context.

For Presidential debates, I don't think there have been 3 on stage since Perot in 1992. I'm happy to lower the threshold to 10% because I think it's possible for a candidate to win a statewide race even if they are polling that low nationally. I don't think they are intentionally trying to screw over third parties...I just think they are trying to save everyone time.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jan 13 2022 10:07pm
Quote (thundercock @ Jan 13 2022 10:01pm)
Again, I don't know what you mean by "establishment." I would characterize Mitch McConnell as part of the "establishment" but would Ted Cruz be part of it? I would say no but many would say yes.


He was a laywer for Bush during the 2000 election. I'd say solidly yes, but he's like the weird guy nobody likes that is still at the meetings.
Member
Posts: 50,869
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,846.00
Jan 13 2022 10:30pm
Quote (thundercock @ Jan 13 2022 10:01pm)
Again, I don't know what you mean by "establishment." I would characterize Mitch McConnell as part of the "establishment" but would Ted Cruz be part of it? I would say no but many would say yes. What about Josh Hawley? I don't think the CPD would be particularly biased against someone like Hawley or even Sanders. If you stick to your principles and are moderately truthful, I doubt you'd get much pushback from the moderators. Trump is a unique creature who was incredibly crass and most importantly, lied all the fucking time. Trump could have been the most establishment friendly candidate ever and he would have received the same amount of pushback I think. I think it's important to separate "Trump" from "anti-establishment" in this context.

For Presidential debates, I don't think there have been 3 on stage since Perot in 1992. I'm happy to lower the threshold to 10% because I think it's possible for a candidate to win a statewide race even if they are polling that low nationally. I don't think they are intentionally trying to screw over third parties...I just think they are trying to save everyone time.


Look at the 2016 election. At least for most candidates, I think its pretty easy to see who was 'establishment'. Remember that at the time, Ted Cruz would be part of it. He only started emulating Trump after he won. It would be Clinton, Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie as establishment candidates, Trump, Sanders, Stein, Paul and Johnson as anti-establishment. And who got screwed by the debate committees at the primary and general elections? Everyone had knives out for Trump and rigged it against Sanders and didn't even put Stein or Johnson on stage.

Yes the last debates to actually have third parties was 1992. In 1996 they just directly excluded Perot with no real criterion, just arguing he couldn't win without any rule to point to, after his supposed spoiler role in 1992. The committee for the debates changed the criterion in 2000 specifically to exclude the third party candidates like Perot: Johnson and Stein had polled at 13% and 7% in 2016, but the CPD made the rules say it required an average of at least 15% on 5+ ballots and on ballots in 270+ EV of states. Before 1996, we had third parties on stage with the major parties all the time, now the greens get arrested each year for protesting the CPD;



Can anyone really pretend that the CPD isn't a blatantly establishment biased commission? It was used by the two major parties to exclude the third parties as soon as the third parties started to threaten them. And when anti-establishment candidates started threatening them again in 2016, they went all-out and dropped any pretense of neutrality and tried to just stab Trump to death on stage. Except he used their momentum for a jiu jitsu suplex.
Member
Posts: 9,899
Joined: May 7 2006
Gold: 550.00
Jan 13 2022 11:15pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 13 2022 08:30pm)
Before 1996, we had third parties on stage with the major parties all the time, now the greens get arrested each year for protesting the CPD;


It happened twice. Perot in 1992 and Anderson in 1980. Perot because he was doing well in the polls, and Anderson because Reagan refused to attend the debate if Anderson was excluded.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll