Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

DNC Blacklisting of Fox News from Debates is a Strategic Mistake

posted by martyb on Monday March 11 2019, @10:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the just-line-up-the-sights-on-your-toe-and-squeeeeeeze dept.

RandomFactor writes:

Here in the U.S., the presidential election season, like Christmas, seems to start earlier and earlier each time.

In keeping with this, the Democratic National Committee is making waves by announcing that it will exclude Fox News, which has the largest viewership of the major cable news networks by a considerable margin, from debate coverage of DNC presidential candidates.

Thomas Lifson outlines a number of reasons this may not be a good move.

One is that from a historical and strategy perspective:

Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces,"

And it appears he has pounced and done exactly that from his twitter account:

Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!

Really all either party has to do is A) not be crazy and/or B) keep their idiot mouths shut to win.

Neither of these seems to be in the cards dealt to either side, so it should be a heck of a ride.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
DNC Blacklisting of Fox News from Debates is a Strategic Mistake | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 216 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:09PM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 11 2019, @06:09PM (#812808) Journal

    Let's suppose that the white wing decided the election. So - maybe you need to get off your ass, and help to get the more colorful vote out. But, don't be surprised when it bites you in the ass. The Latin vote passed Proposition 8 in California. But, the left wasn't having any of that, for damn sure! Instead of bowing to democracy, the left ran off to an activist judge, who overturned a proper democratic vote. Those coloreds had better stay on the plantation, where they belong, or by God, the left will put them in their place!

    Tell me more about how democracy really works.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:35PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:35PM (#812832)

    Awww, someone doesn't like the Constitution huh? Get bent you fucked up fascist piece of shit.

    I'm sure you'll sweep it under the rug as "activist judges" but a lot of work went into the fight against Prop 8. Regressive assholes, holding back humanity since 88,000 B.C. What a hateful prick you are.

    In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8]

    On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.[9][10][11] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.[12]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:40PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:40PM (#812840)

      Cocksucker spotted ^

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:51PM (#812854)

        Incorrect, I just don't believe the government should restrict the freedom of individuals to marry. You are free to shove your bible waaaaay up your butt and keep pretending you support the "Land of the free".

        At least with that book up there you we could literally call you a dumbass :D