I must say it is silly to boycott any network

[actsnoblemartin]

The candidates , both republican and democrat should be willing and open, to debates hosted by any network. To be honest, I was very disapointed with msnbc, what kind of questions were those, "what do you NOT like about america". I know chris matthews is a partisan, could he atleast be honest about it.

Secondly, I know fox news is slanted a bit right, but ive seen democratic strategists, democrats, and even people with liberal leanings on their channel. They are not satan, to be honest, I like cnn best. I think they are the most in the middle of the three majors (msnbc, cnn, fox)

BBC is preety good too.

your thoughts please?

 

[maineman]

democratic debates are first and foremost designed to reach and influence democratic primary voters. If I wanted to maximize the viewing audience, Faux News would not be my choice.

If you wanted to get a maximum audience for the NFL draft, for example, you would not broadcast it on Lifetime.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

democratic debates are first and foremost designed to reach and influence democratic primary voters. If I wanted to maximize the viewing audience, Faux News would not be my choice.

If you wanted to get a maximum audience for the NFL draft, for example, you would not broadcast it on Lifetime.

True, but i dont like the spirit of what it says. As you well know my dear friend, one of those men will be the democratic nominee and im sure there are democrats and independants who watch fox news. It would be like the republicans boycotting msnbc because they think its too liberal. But i digress maineman, how is your day going, and what is your favorite news station.

 

[maineman]

True, but i dont like the spirit of what it says. As you well know my dear friend, one of those men will be the democratic nominee and im sure there are democrats and independants who watch fox news. It would be like the republicans boycotting msnbc because they think its too liberal. But i digress maineman, how is your day going, and what is your favorite news station.

This isn't the presidential debates..it is the debates that precede the primaries.... I am sure that there are some moderate democrats and independent voters who watch Faux.... but you need to realize that in the primaries, all candidates run to the sides to capture their committed base -who are the ones who actually VOTE in primaries...and then, when they get the nomination, they run to the middle to capture the center of the bell curve. The majority of Faux voters will not really like what the democratic presidential candidate has to say during the general election campaign, they will really not like what democratic primary candidates have to say!

Re: news channels... I watch them all...but probably spend more time on CNN than the others.

 

[Superlative]

They serve no purpose in informing the public.

Their sole purpose is PR.

They shouldnt even be called Debates, no one is actually Debating anything, they are Question and Answer sessions, sometimes they dont get to answer with anything more than a raised hand.

They are ridiculous, and an easy way for the media to gather fodder for blasting the candidates on the front page.

its a elimination process, it gets rid of the candidates that cant speak well in public, and those that have trouble forming coherent sentances.

Dont ask me how Bush got by this.

Its a way to measure public feeling toward ceratin candidates. Since the candidates are so far removed from the little people.

The "Debates" are designed to help the candidates gather information for themselves,(PR) they find what resonates best with the viewers and they hit those notes more and more as the whole process moves on.


These "Debates" are not for the better understanding of the candidates by the public.

They are for a better understanding of the public for the candidates.


It doesnt matter what network they are on, it actually serves as a benefit to have them on specific networks, then the candidates actually get the necessary feedback and public polling info they want from their specific voters.

Why should Democrats discuss anything on a Republican Network? Republicans most likely going to vote Republican.

If the Dems want to know the opinions of Democratic voters they want to broadcast on those specific networks, same as Republicans, its called a Target market.

 

[Gem]

maineman wrote:

democratic debates are first and foremost designed to reach and influence democratic primary voters. If I wanted to maximize the viewing audience, Faux News would not be my choice.

If you wanted to get a maximum audience for the NFL draft, for example, you would not broadcast it on Lifetime.

This is actually the best response I have seen so far as to why the Democratic candidates refused to debate on FoxNews. It is logical, makes sense, and doesn't make them sound like whiny babies.

Unfortunately, none of the Democratic candidates have handlers smart enough to spin it this way. If they had stated this upfront, they would have been fine. "Hey, we aren't going to debate on Fox because most of the people we are trying to reach at this time don't watch Fox. Talk to us during the Presidential debate...then maybe we'll reconsider." They would have come across as honest, sincere, and interested in reaching their base (even though the stats of liberals who watch Fox are pretty impressive last I heard).

Instead, they came across as elitist hard-line lefties who wouldn't dream of standing up infront of one of the most popular, wide-reaching cable news channels because it slants right, instead of left. At best, they looked afraid of what questions a big, bad, Fox News person might ask. At worst, they looked like they were willing to isolate the media if it didn't report things the way THEY wanted them reported.

Maineman, I think you need to pick your favorite Dem and start working for them...you'd do a better job than whatever nimrods they currently have on their payroll!

 

[Toro]

I think its silly to boycott a network.

The Democrats should meet the shrills on Fox Spews head on.

Of course, the problem is that the shrills aren't interested in debate. They're interested in shouting down their opponents. Guys like Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly et. al. would never appear on a level playing field because they'd get slaughtered.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

This isn't the presidential debates..it is the debates that precede the primaries.... I am sure that there are some moderate democrats and independent voters who watch Faux.... but you need to realize that in the primaries, all candidates run to the sides to capture their committed base -who are the ones who actually VOTE in primaries...and then, when they get the nomination, they run to the middle to capture the center of the bell curve. The majority of Faux voters will not really like what the democratic presidential candidate has to say during the general election campaign, they will really not like what democratic primary candidates have to say!

Re: news channels... I watch them all...but probably spend more time on CNN than the others.

I agree with you, but i must ask one question. Is it appropriate then for republicans to boycott msnbc because not many republicans watch the so-called debates?.

also, it is sad, that as a nation, were so partisan and divided that we wont watch the other party debate, and see why and how we disagree with them, and god forbid, maybe we agree with them on some things.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

They serve no purpose in informing the public.

Their sole purpose is PR.

They shouldnt even be called Debates, no one is actually Debating anything, they are Question and Answer sessions, sometimes they dont get to answer with anything more than a raised hand.

They are ridiculous, and an easy way for the media to gather fodder for blasting the candidates on the front page.

its a elimination process, it gets rid of the candidates that cant speak well in public, and those that have trouble forming coherent sentances.

Dont ask me how Bush got by this.

Its a way to measure public feeling toward ceratin candidates. Since the candidates are so far removed from the little people.

The "Debates" are designed to help the candidates gather information for themselves,(PR) they find what resonates best with the viewers and they hit those notes more and more as the whole process moves on.


These "Debates" are not for the better understanding of the candidates by the public.

They are for a better understanding of the public for the candidates.


It doesnt matter what network they are on, it actually serves as a benefit to have them on specific networks, then the candidates actually get the necessary feedback and public polling info they want from their specific voters.

Why should Democrats discuss anything on a Republican Network? Republicans most likely going to vote Republican.

If the Dems want to know the opinions of Democratic voters they want to broadcast on those specific networks, same as Republicans, its called a Target market.

But the republicans havent boycotted msnbc, and i doubt many republicans watch them. What would u say if republicans boycotted msnbc?.

I wonder this though, should republicans watch the democrats in these primary so-called debates, and vice versa, or is it, we dont like the other side, so we wont listen to them. I admit, i have trouble listening to clinton and edwards, cause im sorry a 400$ haircut, and clinton is a wishy washer liar.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im sorry, but I believe the democrats wont go on fox because they dont like fox news. Now, do i think o'reilly, limbaugh, and hannity bully and shout down people, yes i do. I think civility is lost on those men, not only those men, but we are talking about fox news. If you want to say, republicans on fox news, and democrats on msnbc fine.

maineman wrote:


This is actually the best response I have seen so far as to why the Democratic candidates refused to debate on FoxNews. It is logical, makes sense, and doesn't make them sound like whiny babies.

Unfortunately, none of the Democratic candidates have handlers smart enough to spin it this way. If they had stated this upfront, they would have been fine. "Hey, we aren't going to debate on Fox because most of the people we are trying to reach at this time don't watch Fox. Talk to us during the Presidential debate...then maybe we'll reconsider." They would have come across as honest, sincere, and interested in reaching their base (even though the stats of liberals who watch Fox are pretty impressive last I heard).

Instead, they came across as elitist hard-line lefties who wouldn't dream of standing up infront of one of the most popular, wide-reaching cable news channels because it slants right, instead of left. At best, they looked afraid of what questions a big, bad, Fox News person might ask. At worst, they looked like they were willing to isolate the media if it didn't report things the way THEY wanted them reported.

Maineman, I think you need to pick your favorite Dem and start working for them...you'd do a better job than whatever nimrods they currently have on their payroll!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think its silly to boycott a network.

The Democrats should meet the shrills on Fox Spews head on.

Of course, the problem is that the shrills aren't interested in debate. They're interested in shouting down their opponents. Guys like Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly et. al. would never appear on a level playing field because they'd get slaughtered.

I think this is insightful thought, I must say, I want the news to become news, and stop being about entertainment and arguing, and this isnt only fox news. I think keith olbermann is just as guilty of being an arrogant s.o.b. as o'reilly is.

 

[Superlative]

But the republicans havent boycotted msnbc, and i doubt many republicans watch them. What would u say if republicans boycotted msnbc?.

I wonder this though, should republicans watch the democrats in these primary so-called debates, and vice versa, or is it, we dont like the other side, so we wont listen to them. I admit, i have trouble listening to clinton and edwards, cause im sorry a 400$ haircut, and clinton is a wishy washer liar.

I dont think either side cares what the other is saying, they both know their stances.

Thats why they face either side of the aisle.

I think they are interested in finding the little blunders when someone says something politically suicidal, those gems are closely watched for and used by the news networks first, and then the opposing parties to dirty candidates.

It is very hard to wash political mud off. Defence is practically and admission of guilt, and people tend to believe what they hear, and have a particularly hard time forgetting.

The Republican party seems to find it newsworthy that Hillary has dropped Rodham from her name, as if it has anything to do with being president.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think either side cares what the other is saying, they both know their stances.

Thats why they face either side of the aisle.

I think they are interested in finding the little blunders when someone says something politically suicidal, those gems are closely watched for and used by the news networks first, and then the opposing parties to dirty candidates.

It is very hard to wash political mud off. Defence is practically and admission of guilt, and people tend to believe what they hear, and have a particularly hard time forgetting.

The Republican party seems to find it newsworthy that Hillary has dropped Rodham from her name, as if it has anything to do with being president.

I think youre right, but i must ask you... if either side of the aisle claims to be completely right, if we believe we are supremely right and the other side supremely wrong, with no concept of areas where we agree and can work together, arent we all just being arrogant?

 

[maineman]

I agree with you, but i must ask one question. Is it appropriate then for republicans to boycott msnbc because not many republicans watch the so-called debates?.

also, it is sad, that as a nation, were so partisan and divided that we wont watch the other party debate, and see why and how we disagree with them, and god forbid, maybe we agree with them on some things.

I think that the republican party should conduct its debates leading up to the primary season on whatever networks they feel will reach the most republican primary voters. period.

And again.... how the other party debates in the primaries is not how their winning candidate will debate in the general election. When they pick their guy, I will listen to him - I know whoever he is isn't talking to ME now anyway. I will listen to all the democratic candidates NOW because I will have to go into a party caucus and vote for one of them.

 

[Superlative]

I think youre right, but i must ask you... if either side of the aisle claims to be completely right, if we believe we are supremely right and the other side supremely wrong, with no concept of areas where we agree and can work together, arent we all just being arrogant?

Yes.

There seems to be no middle ground on an issue.

And thats because they cannot tell the truth, no one can give the real reason for a stance, or a decision, no one can actually say why they believe anything.

if they dont have the same bland answer, that follows suit with their party, or what the public expects to hear, then they might as well go home.

Each of the parties has someone who is outspoken, someone who could possibly initiate change, and those people will disappear, because those people dont have the best interests of people in power in mind.

It doesnt matter who wins, we arent leaving Iraq until its stable, or we have control over the region, whether it be by Oil or Politically.

Working together and being arrogant, dont matter, the people in charge have created this messy, business of beaurocratic warfare, and it amounts to nothing, there will always be a balance in favour of power. end of story.
Each party can do and say whatever they want up to and beyond the election.
Not much is going to change in the long run, the US will continue to police the earth in the name of peace and corporate profit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think that the republican party should conduct its debates leading up to the primary season on whatever networks they feel will reach the most republican primary voters. period.

And again.... how the other party debates in the primaries is not how their winning candidate will debate in the general election. When they pick their guy, I will listen to him - I know whoever he is isn't talking to ME now anyway. I will listen to all the democratic candidates NOW because I will have to go into a party caucus and vote for one of them.

I am willing to bet that come the time for debate between the two candidates the Liberals refuse to do so on Fox.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I am willing to bet that come the time for debate between the two candidates the Liberals refuse to do so on Fox.

exactly.

 

[red states rule]

democratic debates are first and foremost designed to reach and influence democratic primary voters. If I wanted to maximize the viewing audience, Faux News would not be my choice.

If you wanted to get a maximum audience for the NFL draft, for example, you would not broadcast it on Lifetime.

Yea, if you want to reach out to the voters - why in the hell would you debate on the #1 watched cable news network?

The network that creams the network you are going to debate on

Perhaps they want to debate on CNN and MSNBC so they will get soft ball questions - like "Raise your hand if............."

 

[maineman]

Yea, if you want to reach out to the voters - why in the hell would you debate on the #1 watched cable news network?

The network that creams the network you are going to debate on

Perhaps they want to debate on CNN and MSNBC so they will get soft ball questions - like "Raise your hand if............."

the question has been asked and answered. is reading comprehension really that much of a problem for you?
Do try to keep up.

 

[red states rule]

the question has been asked and answered. is reading comprehension really that much of a problem for you?
Do try to keep up.

Yes it has

The last thing Dems want to do in a debate is to answer real questions where they have to actually explain what they stand for