The DNC says no debates on FOX

tom said:
To me it's not a question of being able to handle tough questions. It's, what are the questions?
The Dems have certain issues and positions they want to push out. Green energy; healthcare; income inequality; climate change; voting rights. They're important issues, they're winning issues where Americans are largely in favor of the Dem platform.
How those questions are framed is important, that's certain. But more importantly, are those questions going to be asked at all.
I simply wouldn't trust Fox moderators to bring up those issues. So instead the candidates will be dancing to the tune of whatever issues Republicans think are most important. 

 Nope. They are Politicians. They are skilled at avoiding questions they do not like. They can say whatever they want, even change the subject completely. 

I have certainly seen that in debates and interviews.

tom said:

Red_Barchetta said:

paulsurovell said:
If a Democratic candidate for President isn't able to handle biased questions from Fox News, they're not qualified to be President.
And the same goes for Republican candidates appearing on NBC, ABC or CBS.

 Sure they should be able to handle tough questions.  It would be a sign of respect and trust for the DNC to send their candidates to a debate at Fox.  They don't deserve any favors from the DNC.  It's not like there aren't other networks to host the debates. 

To me it's not a question of being able to handle tough questions. It's, what are the questions?
The Dems have certain issues and positions they want to push out. Green energy; healthcare; income inequality; climate change; voting rights. They're important issues, they're winning issues where Americans are largely in favor of the Dem platform.
How those questions are framed is important, that's certain. But more importantly, are those questions going to be asked at all.
I simply wouldn't trust Fox moderators to bring up those issues. So instead the candidates will be dancing to the tune of whatever issues Republicans think are most important. 

 You talk about the candidates as though they are helpless children. If questions being asked are inappropriate, biased or are predicated on false assumptions, the candidate has the opportunity to point that out and turn the question to his/her advantage.

Ed Rendell, in criticizing the DNC decision, notes that 3% of the Fox audience could have swung the last election. Why do Democrats want to concede that potential vote? It's moronic to assume that no Fox viewers will switch to a Democrat.

The exclusion of Fox will be used by the Republicans to motivate their base. It's like a variation on Hillary's "deplorables" gift to Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-dnc-chair-ed-rendell-it-was-a-mistake-for-to-bar-fox-news-from-covering-democratic-debates/2019/03/08/ee1810ec-419d-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?utm_term=.9fc79ff4835c

paulsurovell said:

tom said:

Red_Barchetta said:

paulsurovell said:
If a Democratic candidate for President isn't able to handle biased questions from Fox News, they're not qualified to be President.
And the same goes for Republican candidates appearing on NBC, ABC or CBS.

 Sure they should be able to handle tough questions.  It would be a sign of respect and trust for the DNC to send their candidates to a debate at Fox.  They don't deserve any favors from the DNC.  It's not like there aren't other networks to host the debates. 

To me it's not a question of being able to handle tough questions. It's, what are the questions?
The Dems have certain issues and positions they want to push out. Green energy; healthcare; income inequality; climate change; voting rights. They're important issues, they're winning issues where Americans are largely in favor of the Dem platform.
How those questions are framed is important, that's certain. But more importantly, are those questions going to be asked at all.
I simply wouldn't trust Fox moderators to bring up those issues. So instead the candidates will be dancing to the tune of whatever issues Republicans think are most important. 

 You talk about the candidates as though they are helpless children. If questions being asked are inappropriate, biased or are predicated on false assumptions, the candidate has the opportunity to point that out and turn the question to his/her advantage.
Ed Rendell, in criticizing the DNC decision, notes that 3% of the Fox audience could have swung the last election. Why do Democrats want to concede that potential vote? It's moronic to assume that no Fox viewers will switch to a Democrat.

The exclusion of Fox will be used by the Republicans to motivate their base. It's like a variation on Hillary's "deplorables" gift to Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-dnc-chair-ed-rendell-it-was-a-mistake-for-to-bar-fox-news-from-covering-democratic-debates/2019/03/08/ee1810ec-419d-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?utm_term=.9fc79ff4835c

 You make good points here.  It would be beneficial for their viewers to see Democratic candidates in the flesh, since they usually only hear them ridiculed for statements made out of context. 

STANV said:
 Nope. They are Politicians. They are skilled at avoiding questions they do not like. They can say whatever they want, even change the subject completely. 
I have certainly seen that in debates and interviews.

 tom is right. It has nothing to do with how the candidates answer. It has everything to do with framing. On Fox the entire narrative frame of the debate will be determined by their executives, who are a bunch of right wing propagandists. In fact their narrative frame for the entire campaign will be in place long before the debates. Who needs that? Certainly not the Democratic candidates. 

We might as well let Infowars host a debate.

Some of the comments seem to be losing the focus, of what the specific issue is.

The DNC did NOT say, "No candidate will appear on a Fox News program."

The DNC did NOT say, "The nominee will not participate in a general election debate on Fox News."

So any arguments that the candidate has to be able to handle tough "Fox News" questions, or that Fox News viewers have to be reached, don't apply here.

The only question is whether the DNC should have a primary debate on Fox.  Since the purpose of primary debates is for Democratic primary voters to find out which candidate they want to represent the Democratic Party, Fox isn't the place.

ml1 said:
 tom is right. It has nothing to do with how the candidates answer. It has everything to do with framing. On Fox the entire narrative frame of the debate will be determined by their executives, who are a bunch of right wing propagandists. In fact their narrative frame for the entire campaign will be in place long before the debates. Who needs that? Certainly not the Democratic candidates. 

Chances are, one of the first Fox News questions would be about Rep. Ilhan Omar, or whatever the Fox "outrage" is at the time of the debate, instead of about a Democratic Primary issue.

One of the refrains I find wearying is the "But Wallace and Baier and that other guy I can't remember are legit... ." Ya know what? They work in a place that has zero credibility. 

I could be the most legit reporter for the National Enquirer but why TF would I work there?

The Mayer article and its revelation about the Stormy story should be the last straw for anyone.

this is why liberals lose. Does anyone think any conservatives would give a rat's if the RNC decided to refuse to debate on MSNBC? Of course not. But liberals want to take the high road, reach out to Fox viewers, pretend that FNC isn't a corrupt organization devoted to Trump propaganda. Liberals should be treating FNC with the contempt it deserves. 

Fox News is not a news channel, it is an entertainment channel. Therefore it's totally OK to ignore them.

basil said:
Fox News is not a news channel, it is an entertainment channel. Therefore it's totally OK to ignore them.

 well, I don't know about "entertainment"...

I'd like to share a profound thought on this topic, that someone shared with me:

"Letting Fox News sponsor a Democratic debate just because it has Chris Wallace and Shep Smith is like letting a whorehouse host a Chopin recital just because it has a piano player."

If there was any writer who would have been comfortable reciting her work to an audience of prostitutes, with or without musical accompaniment, it was Kate Chopin.

DaveSchmidt said:
If there was any writer who would have been comfortable reciting her work to an audience of prostitutes, with or without musical accompaniment, it was Kate Chopin.

And you knew this off the top of your head?

tjohn said:

And you knew this off the top of your head?

And people say an English major is worthless.

No, I had to refresh my memory. “Désirée’s Baby” impressed me all over again.

There's a Chopin off the top of your head joke to be made here, but I'll let you guys come up with it.

I 'liked' Ridski's joke... but I do appreciate the rest of your lead-ins to it.

mrincredible said:
 Unfortunately it is the main news source for a large percentage of the electorate. And I still maintain that some of its viewers are people that need to be courted by democrats in the general election next year if they want to win.

 I think that’s fair.   They WILL be courted in the lead up to the general election.   Just not the primary.  

But having said all this, didn't the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox in 2007?

ridski said:
But having said all this, didn't the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox in 2007?

 And look how that played out. Loss of the 2010 midterms and gain of Mitch McConnell.

mrincredible said:
 And look how that played out. Loss of the 2010 midterms and gain of Mitch McConnell.

 are you actually attributing causation?

and ignoring that little victory in 2008?

Well, I seem to be going off the deep end in my posting lately but sure, let's go.

My post was more than a little tongue and cheek.  I have fond memories of the heady days of 2008 when Obama reached the mountaintop ... we actually have a copy of that day's Star Ledger in our house still!

But suppose the Democrats' refusing to debate on Fox in 2007 even slightly furthered the extreme polarization that helped lead to the Republican takeover of Congress in 2010?  Not full causation, but a contributing factor.  Part of the winning Republican strategy was to foster fear of the "other", a strategy which was helped by the Democratic candidates saying "No, we don't want to appear on that channel".  "Screw you, Fox viewers" was how that could be twisted.  Another would be to claim it was proof of how arrogant Democrats are, how they consider themselves above Joe Six-Pack (remember him?).

I'm pretty out there in left field, I know, but sometimes you catch a fly ball out there.

I agree that Fox news primarily serves as a propaganda arm for the Trumpublican Party.  But maybe by accepting an offer to go on there and show millions of viewers another side of the Democratic party you could inch a little closer to breaking their evil spell. At least over a few people.  Maybe an important opportunity was missed in 2007.

Now back to you, ml1.

I'm thinking the 2010 result was due more to backlash against the first black man in the White House, the anti-ACA propaganda, the fact that the economy hadn't bounced back yet, and obstruction from the Republicans in Congress. Plus the typical midterm losses to the party in the White House. 

And you think it's because the DNC hurt FNC's fee-fees by snubbing their debate invitation. 

I guess we can agree to disagree. 

Like I said, the tongue is in the cheek.

I understand and agree with what you're saying about the reasons for the 2010 backlash. I do think Obama should have done more to sell the ACA after it passed. My perfect 20/20 hindsight also tells me the ACA should have come after doing more to accelerate the recovery and helping lower and middle class Americans. 

I think we Democrats have been guilty of some Olympic level hubris in the last 12 years or so. It feels like we were so excited about a black man in the Oval Office we missed the work the Repubs were doing capturing state legislatures, governorships and ultimately Congress. (Although ask me if I would trade away the Blue wave of 2018 if we could magically have Obama back as President).

If we have President Harris / Booker / Buttigieg / Sanders / Gabbard in 2021, as well as a Democrat controlled House (and Senate?) I hope nobody makes stupid proclamations about the Republican party being done and in disarray. That **** happened in 2009 and look where we are now. 

And dismissing Fox viewers would be a stoopid thing to do. 

I may have had a big serving of Guinness before writing this. 

mrincredible said:
Like I said, the tongue is in the cheek.
I understand and agree with what you're saying about the reasons for the 2010 backlash. I do think Obama should have done more to sell the ACA after it passed. My perfect 20/20 hindsight also tells me the ACA should have come after doing more to accelerate the recovery and helping lower and middle class Americans. 
I think we Democrats have been guilty of some Olympic level hubris in the last 12 years or so. It feels like we were so excited about a black man in the Oval Office we missed the work the Repubs were doing capturing state legislatures, governorships and ultimately Congress. (Although ask me if I would trade away the Blue wave of 2018 if we could magically have Obama back as President).
If we have President Harris / Booker / Buttigieg / Sanders / Gabbard in 2021, as well as a Democrat controlled House (and Senate?) I hope nobody makes stupid proclamations about the Republican party being done and in disarray. That **** happened in 2009 and look where we are now. 
And dismissing Fox viewers would be a stoopid thing to do. 
I may have had a big serving of Guinness before writing this. 

 dismissing Fox viewers is the efficient thing to do. Fish where the fish are is a cliché but it's also good advice. 

Well, here's what I'll say to that.

In the last fishing contest, our angler landed about 3 million more fish than the other guy by fishing where the fish are. Yet the other guy ended up with the trophy. 

mrincredible said:
Well, here's what I'll say to that.
In the last fishing contest, our angler landed about 3 million more fish than the other guy by fishing where the fish are. Yet the other guy ended up with the trophy. 

I was told to never mix Guinness with Bass. Talk about bad politics.

mrincredible said:
Well, here's what I'll say to that.
In the last fishing contest, our angler landed about 3 million more fish than the other guy by fishing where the fish are. Yet the other guy ended up with the trophy. 

 and the voters to get her over the top weren't Fox viewers. 

Sorry to keep carping about this but there's not one sole type of person who watches Fox news. Yes, some of them are crabby old bigots, but some of them are not so crappie. You can try and bunch them all together or you can avoid being such a grouper.

You could say the 2016 election was a fluke of the electoral college system, I suppose. But I'm worried the Dems are just floundering right now and need to try and cast a wider net.