You may be correct, but if we still have free and fair elections in 2028 (I have my doubts), and if we have 2 brand new candidates, the demand for a debate will be higher. I just don’t think anyone wants to hear from these two men, in particular, because we’ve already heard everything they have to say.
I hear you, but this article makes clear in a way that no others have that the decision to put them in time out must be made by Congress, not Biden. Most of the transfers he’s “approving” throughout this war, were mandated years ago.
Oh…you’re one of those.
That study looked into 62 elections in ten countries since 1952. I’m sure people said the debates helped them make up their minds, but the statistical evidence doesn’t bear that out.
Edit: if debates don’t have effect on outcomes, why would it even matter then? lol
I’m quite literally not saying it does. You’re the one hyperventilating over his exclusion. I think it’s just white noise, and the parties are free to do whatever the fuck they want, because they’re private organizations.
Here’s one from a month ago, and an ad hominem retort is flatly unconvincing and uninspiring.
There is no way he’s pulling anyone away from Biden lol
Factually incorrect:
He also has the possibility to siphon off enough Biden voters to maybe give Trump a way to win. Neither of them have an incentive to give him airtime, and no offense, but as a society I’m not sure I’d say we “deserve” anything, much less a WWE-style debate where a bunch of old dudes yell at each other.
edit to add: Presidential Debates Have Shockingly Little Effect on Election Outcomes.
No, they’re never taken seriously because it’s a winner-take-all system. The number of people who make a voting decision based on debates is vanishingly small, if it ever even mattered.
edit: Proof that debates are irrelevant.
We have more than two options each election. In 2020 there were 4, in 2012 and 2016 there were 7, in 2004 and 2008 there were 6, in 2000 there were 8. Having options isn’t the problem. It’s that all the losers get out of running and losing, is absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is the winner.
Lowering the percentage puts us back in 1992, and we saw where that led us: to today, where the 2 party system is as strong as it ever was. Giving RFK airtime does nothing to meaningfully alter the US political landscape, or the fundamental structure of our election rules.
They are self-governing organizations of private citizens. What they want is actually all that matters when it comes to when and where they put their candidate on a stage. As corrupting as political parties can be at times, they’re still just groups of citizens who agree to field a candidate in elections. They are under no obligation to give airtime to literally anyone they don’t want to win, and so they’re under no obligation to do literally anything to help RFK Jr between now and November.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. At least this puts the Commission on notice that they’re shitting the bed and dramatic changes are expected.
Amen to that. I DESPISE how debates have morphed into glorified episodes of American Idol.
Admittedly, this is probably self serving because Biden stumbles enough that his performance would be made into a ‘bIdEn oLd!’ spectacle by the blowhard and his Fox News minions, but debates should NEVER have devolved into the WWE shitshows they’ve been for the last decade. That format is partly to blame for Trump’s rise to power, because they basically rolled out the red carpet for a bloviating showman to gobble up all the oxygen in the room.
OP doesn’t care. OP is here to push a narrative, nuance be damned.
You want to look like an unhinged melodramatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously?
Because statements like that are how you look like an unhinged melodramatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him. He could play this like an intelligent human being and still keep his job, so long as he’s willing to weather a bit of right-wing media blowback for the next few months. He just has to strike a bipartisan deal, like he’s supposed to.
Did you notice that he said it would be illegal to send bombs to them if they’re being used on civilians? That’s because rejection because they “can’t be trusted” isn’t a thing that can happen. It must be a violation of the statue that was passed to mandate the shipment, or some other law. His DoD needs rock solid legal grounds to refuse a Congressional mandate, and the clearest reason to disobey statue is to show that it requires that you violate some other law.