Sunday, September 18, 2016

So why not boycott the debates?


For the benefit of those who are new to this blog, let me repeat:  I'm politically neutral.  I vote for the person, not the party;  and in the current Presidential election campaign, I'm not a supporter of any particular candidate.  I share the concerns of many concerning Donald Trump's potential to make a good President, but I also concede that he's at least unlikely to be worse than any of his rivals for the office.  In many ways, his business experience is likely to prove an advantage.  What's more, he's never given up.  He's endured bankruptcy, slander, virulent opposition and much more, and kept his head.  When the dust settled, he was still on his feet, and he's always bounced back from failure.  A Presidential candidate could have a lot worse track record than that.

That said, I'm amazed that he plans to participate in the debates with his opponent when this sort of report comes out.

The men and women who run the supposedly “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates have put their money where their mouths are — and it all has gone to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The amount of money is small by the standards of a modern presidential campaign, but it is one-sided. A pair of Ph.D. candidates at Stanford University examined campaign finance reports and found that all of the $5,650 in contributions that commission members have made to presidential candidates during this election season have gone to Clinton.

Republican Donald Trump, who will meet Clinton in the first debate a week from Monday, received no donations from debate commission members.

There's more at the link.

Mr. Trump, if you know that every single one of those organizing the debates supports your opponent, you can't possibly expect fairness from them - or from your opponent, or from the press, who've made their own partisanship blindingly obvious.  That being the case, why stick your head into the lion's mouth?  Why debate at all?  Why not plan other functions, rallies or whatever on those nights, and make your case to the electorate in a forum that won't be riddled with bias, preconceptions and negativity?

Or am I missing something?

On the subject of Mr. Trump's support, I'm more and more wondering whether all the opinion polls aren't understating it dramatically, at least in some states.  Borepatch noted this morning that in Frederick County in Maryland, his support appears to be surprisingly strong.  I'm hearing the same thing from friends and acquaintances in a number of other states.

An unexpected, unlooked-for Trumpalanche, perhaps?  One does wonder . . .

Peter

17 comments:

Last Redoubt said...

Given how he's played the press like a fiddle and beat them like a red-headed stepchild, especially with this latest Rickroll re: "birtherism" - I dearly suspect he has a plan. Or figures the upsides of dodging aren't worth the negatives.

Old NFO said...

Gotta agree with Last... He's got a plan, and it's unlike any previous candidate! It's worked so far...

Borepatch said...

75% of the population says the country is on the wrong track. The elites tell them that the non-establishment candidate is bad, bad, so very bad. And the establishment is surprised and unhappy that the Great Unwashed aren't lining up to eat their latest turd sandwich?

I actually think the situation is that easy to explain. And you know how I like to complicate a cornflake ...

Quartermaster said...

If he goes tot eh debates, then I suppose he's going to make a point that the organizers are in the tank for his opponent. I'd make it at every turn, and when Hillary gets softballs, and the "moderator" tosses him a "gotcha" question, I'd make a point of that as well. Show the bias at every turn and go over their heads to the voters themselves making the point of their bias again.

Voters generally don't like overt bias.

Rolf said...

He may call out the "non-partisan" donations *during the debate*, and say in so many words that he doesn't expect to be treated fairly, and make it yet one more notch against "crooked Hillary" - she can't even debate fairly! Make it an issue right there, where she can't get away, and challenge her to debate him later where *HE* gets to call the shots. If she backs down, she loses face. If she accepts, she's toast.

Or, maybe, he's got some other way to play the media. We'll know soon enough.

Fred said...

It's all free media. He'll prove his discipline, especially when facts just like these come out. This also proves Bernie's (pre-sell out) complaint that the system is rigged. I'm sure there are plenty of " Les Deplorables" who will finally decide to come out of the closet.

Skip said...

Yard signs.
Trumps are growing,Clinton none...yet.

Gail said...

I am for the right person for the job. I believe Trump has more experience solving problems with HC. I'm from Arkansas. I certainly hope the country is wise enough to go with a successful business man.

Francis Turner said...

I would be completely unsurprised if Trump has a Brexit-like margin of victory in the total popular vote. How that converts to votes in the Electoral College is something I'm less clear on but the polls/commentary I'm seeing suggest he may take states that are normally reliably Democrat so he could end up blowing that out completely.

It would be interesting (in the Chinese sense) if he wins the popular vote but fails to win the Electoral College.

Will McKeon said...

I have a feeling that if he skipped the debate, then the narrative would be something along the lines of being too afraid to debate and if Trump's too afraid to debate Clinton, then how could he stand up to North Korea? Already if you type "too afraid to debate" in google, all the results come back about Trump being too afraid to debate either Clinton or Sanders. And that narrative would just get louder if he skipped. I think from a certain perspective, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. But as others have pointed out Trump is a master of working the media, so I'd say go into the debates and if the media scores you low or calls the debates for Clinton, then you point out the corruption and get people talking about corruption after the debates instead of nerfing that shot by using that info before the debates and as a added bonus no one would really be talking about what was said at the debates. Just my two cents.

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...

Fredrick Co. Is rather rural. A lot of Trump's support is in the rural areas. In Md., Of the 23 counties and Baltimore city, the urban areas of Prince George's Co., Montgomery, Charles, (all D.C. suburbs) Balto. City and county, and suburban Howard and Anne Arundel tend to deal the deal on State and Federal elections. That said, there is a large segment of blacks who aren't happy on the Dem. Plantation no more. (We'll see...) But Md. hasen't gone GOP since Reagan's 2nd term, and only two GOP Governors in 50 years.

Anonymous said...

Can HRC even physically debate? Can she stand there for an hour or more under hot lights and manage to suppress her Parkinson's symptoms without some major "dehydration" incident? I'm guessing the HRC camp is praying to Satan that Trump skips the debates. She's gonna either be all hepped up on goofballs to keep her vertical and presentable or she ends up freezing, falling over and flopping around on the floor like a gaffed tuna on the beach. Either way it has the potential to be one of the most entertaining debates in history. Trump doesn't have to worry so much about the actual debating than he does about his reaction to her physical collapse on stage. Does he run over to help her? Just stand there arms crossed? Lead the crowd in a prayer for her health?

DaveP. said...

The point in the debates isn't going to be Trump, it's going to be HRC. Even if all he gets are "Are you still beating your wife" questions and all HRC gets are "Is Donald Trump still beating his wife?" questions, he'll stick it out because he CAN function under intense public pressure and Hill can't. The viewing public will be left with an image of a completely incapable candidate... and Trump.

Minecraft Chuck said...

One word for a successful Trump debate strategy - trolling. This is not a formal, Robert's Rules debate. This is political theater. The winner is the one who entertains the audience most, while still sounding thoughtful and looking presidential. And Shrillary has never been good at that.

Plus, The Donald has executive hair. That beats Hillary's oven mitt-patterned pant suits.

Glen Filthie said...

Hmmmmmmmm.

Good point, Peter.

Were I in his boots, I would flip the debate panel the bird - and offer to debate Hillary in an honest venue.

She would never agree to it of course - which would make more political mileage...

Dirk said...

I agree with those who think Trump *has* to debate. I guarantee you that he has a plan. As has been pointed out, he is quite good at leading the media around by the nose. He has to present himself and carry himself as "presidential"...and he is fully capable of doing that.

I also believe Hillary will have some trouble standing there on stage for an extended period of time. I think we'll see her lack of stamina and health in all its glory.

I normally don't watch the debates, as I've often made up my mind well before then... but I'll watch this first one.

TCK said...

I think you may indeed be "missing something." Said "something" being the assumption that Trump would attend the debates in spite of the bias, rather than because of it. After all, can you think of a more public venue to shine a spotlight on the rampant bias the media has engaged in?