Posted on 08/05/2015 6:50:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“I was thinking of setting myself on fire” -- that’s how former Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens felt in January 2012. His candidate was in the midst of a marathon of primary debates and he despaired at the draining, repetitive nature of the events, saying they had a “‘Groundhog Day’ quality” to them.
Stevens’ despair about that campaign cycle’s torturously repetitious series of debates highlights a simple but oft-forgotten fact about these events: Candidates may put a lot of effort into preparing for debates, but they don’t usually move the polls. There were 20 Republican presidential primary debates in 2011 and 2012, and even the most knowledgeable political junkies can probably only name a handful of memorable moments from them.
But despite the relative boringness of those debates, there is significant anticipation surrounding Thursday’s inaugural GOP face-off. The sheer amount of media coverage related to who made it onto the prime-time stage, how candidates are or aren’t preparing and what to expect from Donald Trump suggests that this gathering won’t be the snooze that many past debates were. That raises a simple question – what accounts for the difference?
My take is that information makes the difference. Specifically, the 2012 debates failed to move the polls because they typically didn’t provide much new information on candidates, while Thursday’s event could provide a significant amount of new information to the party elite, the media and rank-and-file primary voters.
In 2011 and 2012, the Republican primary debates simply did not move the polls. To determine this, I calculated the difference between each candidate’s RCP average on the day of the debate and seven days after for every debate each candidate participated in. The results indicate that in most weeks following a debate, most candidates did not see a big uptick or drop
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
They should only have 3-4 debates and then let it go. 9 is way too many.
“I was thinking of setting myself on fire” — Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens
The Republican convention is nearly a year away.
Something like 95% of voters already know how they’ll vote (even if they won’t admit it).
Come the convention, most of us will agree with Stuart.
I’d be happier if we could just lock all the primary candidates in a conference room, feed them bread and water, and not let them out until they agree unanimously on who will be the Right’s candidate. POTUS has to guide & get consensus on contentious issues; if a candidate can’t persuade like-minded contenders s/he should be the candidate, s/he should not be the candidate.
Alas, the point of Primary Season and the debates isn’t to persuade voters, but trial-by-fire to see who can withstand the pressure and who flames out with an unexpected stupid (Cain, I’m glaring at you).
“Something like 95% of voters already know how they’ll vote (even if they won’t admit it).”
Maybe in Iowa and NH, but most people have no idea who is going to be on their ballot and in the race when they get a chance to vote. In Virginia, my choices were Ron Paul and Mitt Romney last time around. I wouldn’t in a million years told you in August that I’d be voting for Ron Paul in protest, but I did. In 2008, it was also sown up so I voted for Hillary in the democratic primary (operation chaos).
So is that a point of pride or shame? You and the other like minded Kamikaze Conservatives handed the election to Obama.
How did I hand the election to Obama? I voted against him. McCain had already sown up the delagates at that point so I voted for the weaker dem candidate. No pride or shame.
“most people have no idea who is going to be on their ballot and in the race when they get a chance to vote.”
I said “how”, not “who”. The slate of candidates usually covers a certain pattern, and voters know which part they’ll vote for regardless of who’s actually there. Roughly, there’s the “populist centrist”, about 3 viable “hard Right” contenders equally splitting votes (so they can’t possibly overcome the former), and about 5 “no chance in he11” name-makers. The first one wins because the next group, despite aggregating a majority of votes, can’t get an individual to a plurality. The last group gets about 5% of votes, making statements that nobody cares about.
The question is, again, who will run out of money, and who will unexpectedly flame out. Typically the front-runner(s) this early in the game don’t make it to the end. I’m wondering if Trump & Cruz have a deal whereby Donald will bow out when he’s stirred things up the way he wants, having cleared a path for Cruz who otherwise couldn’t have done so (someone _more_ outrageous had to normalize blunt talk before the real contender could take that platform and survive).
People were SALIVATING at the idea of Obama being the democrat nominee over Clinton. No one believed he could win. This is exactly why I constantly warn against hoping Sanders gets the nomination.
It doesn’t matter who’s on the ballot for the Dems. The Dems are of one mind, period. They will stand behind a child rapist/serial killer if they’re from the Jackass party. That’s the problem. Conservatives still think they can teach pols a lesson by voting against them. They are beyond teaching; they “got over” the whole fired-up tea party thing within a couple years. They have power, money, and a fortress. They’re not giving any of it up unless we physically go there and remove all 500 of the b-tards and burn DC to the ground.
Because 95% of the voters vote straight ticket regardless who is on the ticket.
If only the jackasses were half as smart as Balaam’s donkey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.