Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
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.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
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: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:22AM (5 children)

    by dry (223) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:22AM (#813082) Journal

    Yes, the tyranny of the minority is so much better. Perhaps you should have a dictator and take the tyranny of the minority to the max.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:31AM (4 children)

    Sorry but it doesn't work that way. No matter who is President, which is the only thing the electoral college deals with, whoever has the most people has the most votes in congress. Tyranny of the minority isn't an actual possibility, only a minimal check on majority power is.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:57AM (3 children)

      by dry (223) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:57AM (#813101) Journal

      For some weird reason you guys have also limited your number of representatives to 435 for close to a hundred years, which also works to give the minority more power, including electoral votes.
      Imagine if Article the 1st had passed (and it still could, Article the 2nd did).

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:39PM (2 children)

        Yes, that's by design. Tyranny of the majority was a major concern for our founders and tyranny of the minority isn't a realistic worry.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:05PM (#813329)

          The worst years in recent history were presided over by minority votes. Try joining us here in reality someday.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:41PM

          by dry (223) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:41PM (#813376) Journal

          How is tyranny of the minority not a realistic concern? Tyranny is tyranny even if it is the type that you like.