Phone posted:

My main takeaways were that CNBC is a lieberal news org and that Rick Santelli is a communist.

About the access thing, like seriously who gives a poo poo? The loving Blaze cannot stand up a cable news channel that quickly. What's the other option? Fifteen "debates" on Fox News? The purpose of getting off the ranch is to convince people that aren't 100% in the RWM hole. If CNBC, or any other news org, decided to actually have these things called "rules" and have the audacity to cut off people's mics, maybe the narrative wouldn't have been "CNBC is a joke".

Trabisnikof posted:

lol if CNBC had cut off mics the audience would have started throwing things at the moderators.

Zeroisanumber posted:

That is the dumbest poo poo that I've ever heard in my life. We'd laugh him out of the building before he even got more than one foot in the door.

quote:

Bush’s fundamental problem is that the logic behind his candidacy—the reasonably conservative, but plausibly electable former governor of an important swing state should be a nationally viable presidential candidate—doesn’t appeal to Republican primary voters who’d rather hear Holocaust revisionism from non-politicians who genuinely believe the popular folk myths of the tribal conservative movement. Unable to make any case for himself on the merits, Bush has been stuck in a holding pattern, waiting for his more fervent opponents to flame out. But they haven’t yet flamed out, and each time Bush faces a conservative audience, their hate for him just intensifies.

Without any actual message, Bush has just been bumbling around, acting like the worst sort of Bush: peevish, resentful, out-of-touch, and incapable of going off-script without embarrassing himself. Having raised more than $133 million, all Jeb Bush’s campaign has accomplished is allowing Donald Trump to normalize the long-taboo notion that George W. Bush bears some responsibility for not preventing the 9/11 attacks.

The Bushes are East Coast establishmentarians in a party than long ago moved its spiritual base to the Bible Belt. Their political successes have required quite a bit of adaptation. George H. W. Bush abandoned both his critique of Reaganomics and his support for reproductive rights. George W. Bush convincingly portrayed himself as a born-again evangelical (which he actually probably isn’t, at least according to the usual evangelical definition of “born again”). Jeb Bush has no policy positions that violate the sacred tenets of movement conservatism, but he is running against people who are genuine movement conservatives (well, and Trump, who is just an old-fashioned white populist), and he plainly isn’t one. And the great political skill of the Bush family has always been fundraising, not campaigning.

Trying to appeal to the sort of idiots who back Dr. Ben Carson for president is a mug’s game. It is demeaning and, thus far, fruitless. Worst of all, Jeb Bush is doing possibly irreparable damage to the Bush family legacy—specifically, their aura of power. Republicans rejecting a Bush should seem impossible. If it happens on this grand a scale, the entire edifice collapses.

That is a real possibility, and it’s one the family seems aware of. In a New York Times story last weekend, Jonathan Martin and Matt Flegenheimer presented a portrait of an aged and angry George H. W. Bush, looking on in disgust at what has become of his Republican Party.

quote:

More is at stake in this race than Jeb Bush’s political career, friends of the family say. The Bush name has been prominent in national politics for three decades, and a rejection of the younger son by the electorate, especially in the primary, could be deeply wounding to a family proud of its role in American history.

Phone posted:

My main takeaways were that CNBC is a lieberal news org and that Rick Santelli is a communist.

About the access thing, like seriously who gives a poo poo? The loving Blaze cannot stand up a cable news channel that quickly. What's the other option? Fifteen "debates" on Fox News? The purpose of getting off the ranch is to convince people that aren't 100% in the RWM hole. If CNBC, or any other news org, decided to actually have these things called "rules" and have the audacity to cut off people's mics, maybe the narrative wouldn't have been "CNBC is a joke".

happyhippy posted:

All future debates should be hosted by 3 clones of Sean Hannity.
Only way the Republicans will be happy and there will be none of this gotcha poo poo.

HappyHippo posted:

The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part:

NoEyedSquareGuy posted:

Weird to refer to O'Malley as a real candidate.

HappyHippo posted:

The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part:

Phone posted:

My main takeaways were that CNBC is a lieberal news org and that Rick Santelli is a communist.

About the access thing, like seriously who gives a poo poo? The loving Blaze cannot stand up a cable news channel that quickly. What's the other option? Fifteen "debates" on Fox News? The purpose of getting off the ranch is to convince people that aren't 100% in the RWM hole. If CNBC, or any other news org, decided to actually have these things called "rules" and have the audacity to cut off people's mics, maybe the narrative wouldn't have been "CNBC is a joke".

zoux posted:

American journalism is locked in a cage match right now with circulation being the prize. So if a candidate is like "If you don't stop hurting my feelings I won't let you ride on my campaign bus anymore" instead of all the press corps going "Oh word, well you do that we will as a unit retaliate by not covering your campaign and then you are dead in the water" they go "good, good, more ratings/papers sold/website hits for me".

Also Fox News is always going to defect in this particular Prisoner's Dilemma which means everyone is going to follow their lead.

zoux posted:

Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates.

Oh and since these massive clusterfuck debates are drawing so many viewers, that's gonna be how we do things from now on.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Why are candidates being let in at 5%? Because the top performer still is only like 25%.

zoux posted:

Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates.

Oh and since these massive clusterfuck debates are drawing so many viewers, that's gonna be how we do things from now on.

zoux posted:

So why were three candidates polling at one percent let into the Democratic debate?

zoux posted:

So why were three candidates polling at one percent let into the Democratic debate?

Nintendo Kid posted:

Why are candidates being let in at 5%? Because the top performer still is only like 25%.

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway.

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway.

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway.

mcmagic posted:

Do you really want cable TV networks making arbitrary decisions on who should be allowed on that stage?

Joementum posted:

I did not know that Ryan was once a waiter at the Tortilla Coast. That's hilarious.

NoEyedSquareGuy posted:

Ayn Rand-loving, cool-youth-Republican, serious-numbers-guy Paul Ryan is now Speaker of the House. What is this stupid loving country?

HappyHippo posted:

The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part:

happyhippy posted:

It's a combination of Trump and the last time in 2012.
Back in 2012 everyone had a turn being top runner for a month or two, gently caress Gingrich was top runner for like 3 months if I recall correctly.
And as Trump is not a 'true' Republican in their eyes, they don't want a situation where kicking a potential front runner who is only 3% atm from dropping out and giving Trump that 3%.
That's how I see it anyway.

zoux posted:

No, having a set threshold or other set requirements is the opposite of arbitrary. The absurd thing you just said is the reason they have to pretend like everyone has an equal chance at being president.

DOOP posted:

Is Ryab the youngest and/or least senior Speaker ever

Gyges posted:

There was a story just this week about how Rubio's team was sure that physical presence was over rated and was running an almost entirely electronic campaign. Iowa and New Hampshire are going to be interesting as gently caress if a lot of these campaigns attempt to use a cheaper alternative to a traditional ground game.

mcmagic posted:

Of course it's arbitrary. It's a random number that someone pulled out of their rear end based on an arbitrary group of polls.

zoux posted:

I firmly believe the only bias in the media is profit margin, so they don't give a gently caress if Donald Trump is ideologically correct or not. CNN has run more than 2500 stories on Trump since he announced, more than anyone else, because CNN chases ratings the hardest out of all the 24 hour networks. The media loves Trump, his stories write themselves and he draws eyeballs.

Mr Jaunts posted:

If they really want to keep everyone above 1% in, they should at least split it up, make the debates 7 and 7 or something instead of 4 and 10

happyhippy posted:

gently caress yeah, that too.
But you are not hearing the top few atm complaining about the lower half of the candidates, not at least as loud as they complain about the debate moderators.
Only Tump is saying 'why bother debate you, you only have 1%', the others are strangely quiet about it.

Mulva posted:

The time for that would have been before the first debate, but now that Fox has set the format it's never going to change until all the "undercard" candidates drop out.

zoux posted:

Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates.

Trabisnikof posted:

Yeah and CNBC was really caught off guard by the candidates getting that truthiness matters more than facts. They just couldn't really handle candidates just lying or completely ignoring the rules collaboratively.

Three Olives posted: