Trumping The Debates
Is Donald Trump the new face of the Republican Party? While this notion would have seemed downright ludicrous a few months ago, it is now being seriously contemplated on both sides of the aisle. Granted, Democrats are a lot happier about this prospect than many Republicans are, for the simple fact that it leads to the question of what a debate with Donald Trump in it is going to sound like -- which is pretty much a dream scenario for Democrats and a nightmare for those Republicans who care about the future direction of their party.
The first debate isn't all that far in the future. The rules, as stated, are that any Republican polling in the top ten in nationwide will be allowed onstage, while the other six (assuming Scott Walker and John Kasich jump in) will be shut out. Currently, Trump easily clears this hurdle while people like Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham do not. This has already led to handwringing among the Republican Party bigwigs, some of whom are beginning to hint that it might be better if they somehow tweaked the rules to blatantly shove Trump off the stage. It's hard to see how such blatant cherry-picking could be seen as acceptable, especially considering what Trump himself would have to say about such an arrangement (my guess is he'd have a slight problem with getting shut out, and wouldn't be shy about saying so).
When ten Republican candidates for president debate each other, most of them are going to be looking to break out of the pack and launch themselves into one of the frontrunner positions. There are two paths for them to take to achieve this. They can either appear reasonable and presidential in the hopes that sober-minded voters will give them credit for their seriousness, or they can toss rhetorical red meat to the crowd with abandon. Even without Trump on stage, this dynamic would still exist, it's worth pointing out. If Trump were somehow disqualified (say his poll ratings plummet, for example), other Republicans would quickly move to distinguish themselves by staking out the most radical of positions on one issue or another. For example, it'd be pretty easy to see Ben Carson making such a move. If not him, there are any number of others who would vie for the most outrageous statement in the hopes of getting a big round of applause from the audience and all the headline coverage the next day in the media.
Trump, of course, plays in a different ballpark from the other candidates -- even among the vanity candidates. He's running for president as a lark, essentially, and has no need to beg Republican donors for campaign cash. Therefore he's free to say anything that pops into his head -- which he's already been doing (his campaign announcement speech is the prime example of this). This is precisely what has some Republicans so worried. Here's GOP establishmentarian George Will, on Fox News Sunday last weekend, talking about Donald Trump's presence in the first debate:
Picture him on stage in Cleveland. He says something hideously inflammatory -- which is all he knows how to say -- and then what do the other nine people on stage do? Do they either become complicit in what he said by their silence, or do they all have to attack him? The debate gets hijacked. The process gets hijacked. At the end of the day he is a one-man Todd Akin. He's Todd Akin with ten different facets.
To put this slightly differently, Republicans are going to have to confront the worst parts of their own base's nature. Which is a tricky thing to do, because it can erode any given candidate's support among the very voters which will determine the outcome of the primary season. Yes, there are racists and xenophobes among the Republican base, just as there are likely racists and xenophobes among the Democratic base. The difference between the two parties, however, is that Democrats largely gave up pandering to these attitudes roughly a half-century ago (an argument could even be made they began to do so in 1948, when Strom Thurmond bolted the party to form the "Dixiecrats"). The Republican Party, as a whole, has not shied away from such pandering in recent decades. Most Republicans these days prefer to use code words (or "dog whistles") to show their support for these attitudes, but some simply aren't that polished. Some Republicans truly believe that if they get enough white votes they can still win a national election (they're wrong about this, incidentally -- Mitt Romney got a higher percentage of the white vote than Ronald Reagan, and still lost).
This is all just a longer version of the adage "if you lay down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas," really (there are other similar metaphors, so take your choice: "you reap what you sow" or perhaps "you made your bed, now lie in it"). Now, I don't mean to paint the entire Republican Party with such a broad brush -- there may indeed be a few "Sistah Souljah moments" in the Republican debates, where one brave candidate stands up for inclusiveness rather than divisiveness, even if it loses him primary voters. Jeb Bush would be the most likely to do so (after all, he's married to a Mexican immigrant), but others may indeed also take this route -- even knowing full well that the audience may boo them after cheering Trump.
George Will is right. The Donald is quite likely to just "trump" the debate, by veering off into inflammatory territory other candidates would prefer not to explore. And once Trump tosses out some verbal hand grenade or another, it'll be downright impossible for the other candidates to ignore. Most of them will be sweating and praying that they don't get called immediately after such a Trumpism, because the first guy up to the plate afterwards won't be able to just pretend Trump didn't say whatever it was he said. The candidates are going to have to react in one way or another, which (as Will put it) will indeed "hijack" the debate from the comfortable talking points all the candidates will have practiced.
Trump's schtick is to tell what he sees as the truth, politics be damned. But he's not the only Republican running on this playbook. Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson are all running similarly-themed campaigns (as well as a few others, to lesser degrees). Cruz has already thrown his lot in with Trump's immigration position, so it's to be expected that anything Trump says in a debate will garner at least some support from a few other candidates. This is the very definition of the problem, in fact. Trump isn't saying things that are so far beyond the bounds of Republican positions, after all, he's just saying them in rather colorful ways. If he truly were staking out what might be called pariah positions, then the entire Republican field would unite in denouncing them. They're not, to put it mildly. It took weeks for any Republican candidate to condemn Trump's immigration remarks, after all. It took Jeb Bush something like 18 days to disagree with Trump. Obviously, the Republican field would really prefer to ignore Trump as a distraction to their own campaign messaging. But that becomes impossible when he's saying such things right next to you on a national debate stage.
Donald Trump may not in fact be the new face of the Republican Party. Saying he is would probably be overstating the case. But one thing is beyond doubt -- the other candidates will have to face up to whatever Trump says in the debates, because ignoring him or pretending he doesn't exist (or pretending there aren't Republican voters who agree with him) isn't really going to be a viable option. Say what you want about Trump (good or bad), but he is going to be a hard man to ignore onstage. That is pretty much beyond debate, at this point.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Trump is the just about perfect embodiment of the logical outcome of Republicanism as it has been practiced in the last 30 years. As you noted, the rest of the field can't really object much to his outrageous statements because they differ only as a matter of degree, not essence, from the views of the rest. Where do they draw the line?
The other great thing is that he IS sucking the oxygen out of the others' campaigns -- Go Donald! Take it to eleven! I hope, hope, hope he's part of the debate.
OK, this is a total non-sequitur comment, because I am commenting here in response to an extended Twitter thread (possibly the first one I've ever had) with Bill Walsh, the Washington Post's editing/grammar/style maven.
Go to my Twitter feed @ChrisWeigant to see what has preceded this note. The original column (with a one-sentence editing test) is here. Here's his test sentence, for those who want to play along (find all the errors; he found 14):
A axe weilding suspect in a grey bandana murdered a couple that was travelling in middle America for their social security money.
I'm writing my answer here because I hate 140-character limits so very, very much. So please excuse the off-topic thread, everyone.
So, to Bill Walsh;
First off, I love your grammar chats and columns, and I thank you for writing them. Pedants unite! Heh. Also, thanks for answering back -- didn't expect an answer for hours or day (if at all), so I was pleasantly surprised.
Second, "We may get a good Abbott and Costello routine out of this" was hilarious. Have to agree, but then that's a function of the 140-character limit, I think.
I have to admit I've been busy today and wasn't able to read your whole chat column yet -- just skimmed it for the discussion of the quiz. So if I missed something crucial, mea culpa.
What I understood was that your sentence was a stand-alone quick quiz. In other words, no other info is provided to all the wannabe editors than just that sentence. So the question of conviction, for example, is unknowable. The only thing you specify is American English as used by American newspapers.
But it seems to me you're trying to have things two ways. Either Schrodinger's cat was the killer, or it wasn't. My point is that there's a stylistic (and legal) rule for American newspapers to use words like "accused" or "alleged" until the conviction happens. Search WashPost for "Dylann" to see multiple examples, such as this one. First paragraph says "shot and killed" but fourth graph (which names Dylann Roof) uses "accused shooter."
Maybe the hair you're splitting is whether a suspect has been caught and named, or whether it's just an article about the crime happening before an arrest. That would make sense with your Twitter comments. If it's a factual statement just after a crime happened, then maybe there's a "suspect" and maybe there isn't yet. That would make sense.
But even so, putting all that aside, here is my interpretation of the corrected sentence, after applying all of your numbered answer key items:
An ax-wielding killer in a gray bandanna killed a couple who were traveling in the Midwest, to steal their Social Security money.
Other interpretations may also be in line with your 14 points. But that should work.
Now, here's my final point, a stylistic one. Don't Journalism 101 students (or even English Writing 101 students) still learn that using the same root word twice, so close together in a sentence, is jarring and repetitive? In other words: Use your thesaurus! So wouldn't the line "...killer in a gray bandanna killed..." be instantly edited by any typical American newspaper editor?
You could say the "killer slaughtered" or the "killer hacked" (a good choice, given that ax information) or any other change that got rid of the repetitiveness. Wouldn't "the killer killed a couple" make you want to reach for a blue pencil if you saw it in an article? Maybe style standards have changed and I haven't noticed, or something.
In any case, I have it on good information that the killer was on first. The couple was on second, and the gray bandanna was playing shortstop. All in a ballpark in middle America, of course. Heh.
:-)
Respectfully,
-CW
You are absolutely right about it not being good form to use the same root word twice in the same sentence, even if the sentence is an unusually long one where the utterances are separated by a line or more.
I always try to avoid that, even if it means consulting a thesaurus. Which I had to do to write this comment. Heh.
LizM -
Thanks for that. This used to bug me no end about Brian Williams -- I always wondered "Does he write his own stuff, or just read the TelePrompTer?"
He used to obsess over time and place. Typical BriWi opening:
"Tonight, on this very night, here in Washington this evening, right here in the Nation's Capitol on tonight of all nights..."
Used to drive me up the wall...
:-)
Over on Twitter, Walsh is still refusing to address the repetitiveness issue...
-CW
"Is Donald Trump the new face of the Republican Party?"
Why not? He would do various things very quickly. I don't think that's as good as Day One, but Trump isn't going to make any promises he can't keep.
Ya'all enjoy attacking Trump the person..
But not ONE of you... Not ONE SINGLE PERSON can attack the factual accuracy of Trump's statements..
Funny how that is, eh?? :D
By playing Trumps game, by allowing him to misdirect ya'all, his arguments are slipped in past your shields and play havoc with your EPS Conduits... Your Structural Integrity Fields are weakened and you wonder why your consoles are exploding all over the ship...
In short, ya'all are bamboozled by the passionate delivery and completely are unprepared for the fact that what Trump states is dead on ballz accurate...
Hmmmmmm Sounds like someone else we know.. :D
Michale
Tell ya what..
Let's ask Jamiel Shaw if Donald Trump is wrong..
Let's ask Kathleen Steinle if Donald Trump is wrong..
Oh wait.. We can't...
Michale
“Trump’s comments are not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive.” - Marco Rubio
"we have a broken legal immigration system and an illegal immigration problem that isn’t just composed by the way of a porous border with Mexico.” - Marco Rubio
Ahhh...
So, since MARCO RUBIO says that Trump's comments are inaccurate, THAT must make it so, eh?? :D
In other words, you'll slam and attack any Republican unless they say what you want to hear..
THEN, you'll quote them and treat their words as gospel..
Gotcha... {{wink}} {{wink}} :D
But hay... I'll be yer huckleberry...
Which of Trumps comments were "inaccurate"??
Michale
The parents and siblings of Kathleen Steinle don't think that Trump's comments are "inaccurate"...
The parents of Jamiel Shaw, including Sgt Anita Shaw, US ARMY, don't think Trump's comments are "inaccurate"..
How would you debate them on the "merits" of your position??
Prove to them that you are right and they are wrong...
Michale
Dear Huckleberry Troll,
"since MARCO RUBIO says that Trump's comments are inaccurate, THAT must make it so"
Ooh, another strawman!
"Which of Trumps comments were "inaccurate"?"
Maybe you could read what else Marco (or JEB or . . .) had to say about The Donald's comments, but I really don't care if you remain ignorant on the subject. Liberty!
Dear Huckleberry Troll,
Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..
Your concession is appreciated albeit irrelevant...
:D
I am asking YOU, sonny jim..
Which comments of Trumps are inaccurate..
I am sure you have more than 2 brain-cells to rub together and don't need Marco Rubio as your sock-puppet..
Don't prove me wrong...
Michale
Maybe you could read what else Marco (or JEB or . . .) had to say about The Donald's comments, but I really don't care if you remain ignorant on the subject.
I *AM* surprised to hear you concede that Marco or Jeb actually have worthwhile things to say..
Maybe there IS hope for you... :D
Michale
"Try and cross brains with Spock, he'll cut you to pieces every time."
-Hikaru Sulu, STAR TREK TOS, The Corbomite Maneuver
:D
Michale
Interesting..
Hillary Clinton, Barbra "Call Me Senator" Boxer and DiFi are all jumping on the Donald Trump bandwagon and condemning San Francisco as a "sanctuary city".. :D
The Donald is looking downright prescient... :D
Michale
Chris,
It sounds like this Walsh fellow doesn't like to admit when he is wrong.
He's probably just now grappling with the fact that he has met more than his match - an editor's editor, if you will. Heh.
Hmmmmmm Sounds like someone else we know.. :D
Shocking. Positively shocking. But, distressingly so, nevertheless.
It sounds like this Walsh fellow doesn't like to admit when he is wrong.
He's probably just now grappling with the fact that he has met more than his match - an editor's editor, if you will. Heh.
Well said..
heh, indeed... :D
Michale
Shocking. Positively shocking. But, distressingly so, nevertheless.
I speak merely of the tactic of allowing the opposing debater to concentrate on the minutia and irrelevant and thereby exposing the ineptness of dealing with the facts of the main issue...
The simple fact that Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein have now jumped on the Trump bandwagon certainly illustrates the effectiveness of the strategy...
Michale
How, pray tell, have they jumped on his bandwagon?
How, pray tell, have they jumped on his bandwagon?
By condemning San Francisco's Sanctuary City policies..
I could link the info, but I know how much you hate links.. :D
Michale
By condemning San Francisco's Sanctuary City policies..
Policies that directly lead to the shooting death of an innocent woman...
Google Kathleen Steinle...
Michale
Correct me if I'm wrong, Michale but, weren't those sanctuary city policies promulgated by the law enforcement community?
You don't think I follow the news or what!? :)
Correct me if I'm wrong, Michale but, weren't those sanctuary city policies promulgated by the law enforcement community?
By the San Francisco Law Enforcement Community... Yes they were..
And the SF SO is wrong as wrong can be...
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/Ross-Mirkarimi-brian-kusler-Flickr-CC-Cropped-640x480.jpg
It's what happens when you make a violent cop-hating hippie a county Sheriff...
It gives me no pleasure to condemn a Law Enforcement official...
And I only do so because the evidence is overwhelming that this clown doesn't deserve to wear the badge...
Kathleen Steinle would be alive today if not for the actions of this arsehole....
Michale
You don't think I follow the news or what!? :)
Touche'... You got me on that one.. :D
Michale
But regardless of all that.. Trump was condemning this action several days ago...
And now Clinton, Boxer and Feinstein have joined in..
Makes Trump look pretty good....
That's all I am saying...
Michale
Let's be fair to Mr. Trump. Each of the ten candidates has an equal opportunity to dominate the stage (the decapodia?). The fear among some factions in the GOP (and the elation in others) is that Trump is going to be much better at this than his rivals. I agree with this assessment. The early debates,with a massive field, favor skilled bomb throwers. Like past masters, Newt, or The Pizza Guy with the nine-ninety-nine special.
All the more so if the moderator " just happens" to offer up the right T-ball question to knock out of the park. Great TV theater, but probably not smart politics - if your ultimate goal is to select a candidate who can win.
If the GOP really wants to win the '16 Presidential Election, they would be smart to take the outmoded primary TV debate concept to a nice quiet spot in the political backyard and shoot it. They want discipline, not chaos.
Which brings up the question: who really controls the structure of the GOP(?) primary debate scheduling and rules? Did the GOP bid out the debates, or did the networks offer up free air time, take it or leave it. Who is buying, and who selling? Or is it more like trading? How the Hell did this crazy circus come to pass? What keeps in going?
If the GOP really wants to win the '16 Presidential Election, they would be smart to take the outmoded primary TV debate concept to a nice quiet spot in the political backyard and shoot it. They want discipline, not chaos.
Yer just saying that because Debates aren't part of the Queen's Coronation... :D
Michale
Which brings up the question: who really controls the structure of the GOP(?) primary debate scheduling and rules? Did the GOP bid out the debates, or did the networks offer up free air time, take it or leave it. Who is buying, and who selling? Or is it more like trading? How the Hell did this crazy circus come to pass? What keeps in going?
The same thing that keeps it going when the Democrats actually have a primary....
Michale...
M-29',30
I don't see this as an R or D thing. A mass press conference masquerading as a debate cheapens politics and the news media. I know, how is that possible?
What's genuinely puzzling to me is how networks, political parties, or
TV can gain anything from the ritual. Individual candidates can't make happen, especially the mavericks with the most to gain. With low viewership and no clear benefits to most participants and spectators, why does the practice persist? Is it just pure habit?
I've always thought the debates were great fun.
And, sometimes, I even learn a thing or two ... if not substantively speaking, then in terms of the character of the candidates.
The media, by the way, is largely a lost cause and completely beside the point.
I don't see this as an R or D thing.
I'll remind you of that if there is a Dem debate.. :D
What's genuinely puzzling to me is how networks, political parties, or
TV can gain anything from the ritual. Individual candidates can't make happen, especially the mavericks with the most to gain. With low viewership and no clear benefits to most participants and spectators, why does the practice persist? Is it just pure habit?
Just think back to the Romney/Obama debates and all will be made clear... :D
Michale
I was going thru a rough personal patch when the Obama/Romney debates occurred. So I wasn't able to fully explore the ramifications of the debates themselves at the time they were happening...
But, from what I recall, there was a great deal of meaning placed on those debates....
First from the Right and then from the Left....
Michale
M-33
"Just think back to the Romney/Obama debates and all will be made clear"
These were interesting, but they were one on one confrontations between party nominees for president, with time for rebuttal and follow up questions. I don't see how this is possible with 10 participants battling for a few minutes of air time. Especially when the basic positions of the numerous candidates aren't particularly well fleshed out in the minds of the viewing audience. (Probably because the more plausible candidates are still trying figure out which platitudes will score in a well aimed, one minute burst).
The early primary press conferences morph into something closer to genuine debates as weaker candidates drop out, but the culling process seems mostly a factor of which candidates lose the early primaries and run out of money. I can't believe the few minutes of early on air primary debate time are much of a factor, compared to hours and hours of basic retail politics. Rick Perry style implosions during a primary "debate" are the exception, not the rule. Candidates who hit a home run during a primary get a big poll bounce, but it fades in two weeks.
If you want interesting primary debates,organize a bracket system with one on one contests. Maybe even regional brackets, with one on one campaigning. Now that would be interesting.
These were interesting, but they were one on one confrontations between party nominees for president, with time for rebuttal and follow up questions. I don't see how this is possible with 10 participants battling for a few minutes of air time.
Point conceded...
Michale
Dear Charlie Sheen,
"I am asking YOU"
Unlike you, I have no reading comprehension issue. On the other hand, I am unmoved by your compulsive trollish neediness. I may have mentioned before that I couldn’t care less what you post. That includes your questions. If one of my comments appears to you as if it is directed at you, you should probably assume that I’m really just riffing on the counter-factual nature of the Rush Hannity talking points that you’re mindlessly parroting. It doesn’t mean that I want to engage with your strawmen. I said what I wanted to say.
"Not ONE SINGLE PERSON can attack the factual accuracy of Trump's statements"
"Which comments of Trumps are inaccurate"
Really, work on that reading comprehension. I have made no attacks on Trump's factual "inaccuracies". That was Rubio (and Bush, Perry, Graham, etc) who did, in fact, attack Trump as "inaccurate". On the other hand, I have given The Donald's performance art rave "reviews". I have no interest at all in defending Rick Perry's attacks on Trump.
"In other words, you'll slam and attack any Republican unless they say what you want to hear..THEN, you'll quote them and treat their words as gospel."
"I *AM* surprised to hear you concede that Marco or Jeb actually have worthwhile things to say."
LOL! You should be surprised because I didn't say anything like that. Ugh. Reading comprehension again.
Winning!
Was any reason given for preferring "ax" over "axe", or "bandanna" over "bandana"? Particularly the latter, given that no living person has voluntarily spelled it that way.
If you say that a killer killed someone, that sort of sounds as though the person was already a killer before they committed the particular homicide in question.
I wonder whether "middle America" was supposed to have been an erroneous rendering of "Central America".
Grammer ... Noooooooo! You know grammar is my Kryptonite, CW!
Middle America sounds like where the hobbits live.
And can you be a "suspect" that "murders"? Aren't you a killer? Or an alleged murderer?
Ok, I got a kick out of trying to re-write the sentence for a second then I realized it would be best to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
-David
Ok, I got a kick out of trying to re-write the sentence for a second then I realized it would be best to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That's what I did and thought!
Besides, this poor Walsh fellow has enough to deal with in the name of CW. :)
Roll out!
Roll out with your American dream and its recruits
I've been ready
Roll out!
Roll out with your circus freaks and hula hoops
I've been ready
Ready as this audience that's coming here to dream
Loving every second, every moment, every scream
I've been waiting so long to sing my song and I've been waiting so long for this thing to come
I've been thinking so long I was the only one
And I can stand here strong and thin
And I can laugh when this thing begins
God, I feel so strong
I feel so strong
Rolf Kempf
And can you be a "suspect" that "murders"? Aren't you a killer? Or an alleged murderer?
A killer doesn't necessarily a murderer make...
Murderer is a legal classification.. Killer is a statement of fact.. At least, with those who have killed..
Michale
Oooo that crazy Donald Trump is at it again!!!
"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.
Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes.
Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.
Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."
Oh... Wait.....
That was Harry Reid who said that..
My bust... :^D
Pointing out Partisan Hypocrisy is such an easy thing to do... :D
Michale
CW - 4
Brian Williams gets suspended/demoted the one time he doesn't obsess enough about time and place! I guess Fate has a sense of humor....or irony....or cruelty.
Roll out!
Roll out with your American dream and its recruits
I've been ready
Roll out!
Roll out with your circus freaks and hula hoops
I've been ready
Ready as this audience that's coming here to dream
Loving every second, every moment, every scream
I've been waiting so long to sing my song and I've been waiting so long for this thing to come
I've been thinking so long I was the only one
And I can stand here strong and thin
And I can laugh when this thing begins
God, I feel so strong
I feel so strong
I get it!!!
I finally understand what JFC is trying to say!!!
He is saying RRIRRIRLIIAAGI!!!!
It all makes sense now!! :D
Michale