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.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:59AM (5 children)
Doesn't surprise me. Dems congregate heavily in the more populated states; primarily in the largest cities even. That's their choice though. It's not like there aren't tons and tons of other places to live, most of which are much more enjoyable to live in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @10:03AM (4 children)
De-gerrymandering simulations have repeatedly shown that the 5% bias almost completely disappears when districts shaped like serpents are abolished. The whole idea of having winners being allowed to redistrict after their victories *shocks* people from every even vaguely functioning democracy in the world (no need for the word "other" in there, the US does not have even a vaguely functioning democracy) - that should be a warning sign that maybe your system's broken.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:41PM (3 children)
Who would you have redraw districts when populations change? It's not like you're ever going to find an impartial third party. They pretty much don't exist when power is on the line.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:57PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:50PM (1 child)
That would be the fatal flaw in your proposition, yes. We don't do bipartisan round these parts anymore. If one party declares they like puppies, the other takes up puppy stomping reflexively.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:50PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves