re: Is the RNC trying to keep certain candidates off the debate stage?

Look at our last five Presidents. I think that shows having more candidates would be better for our country.

The Primary process in Iowa and New Hampshire are the places for lesser names to emerge from the pack. As long as the debates are after these, then it should be fair.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure the uniparty does not want everyone to get a shot.

---

Everyone has a shot. You can run for POTUS.

Why should the RNC give you a platform?

Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal say hi

quote:

---

He is young. He can steal it in 10 years after successfully filling a cabinet position or two.

---

I hate this line of thinking. Why penalize a potentially great candidate by making them “wait their turn” in the swamp. Not saying that candidate is Vivek but frick this idea that youth in a candidate is a bad thing or something that should be taken for granted.

We claim to hate long term politicians running but you’re literally saying the guy should be a long term politician before running.

Look at your state GOP and DEM criteria for running for offices. If the GOP or DEMs run the state government, good luck with an Independent being able to meet the criteria to run (they have to meet the same criteria as the party in charge even though they are not a part of that party - at least in my state that is the case). We need more states where Independents and/or other quality people being able to run for office, not career politicians. Stack on top of that that it is very hard to beat an incumbent.


"What does this sentence mean?"

Bingo, we have a winner. The current system favors the establishment elites.

"We claim to hate long term politicians running but you’re literally saying the guy should be a long term politician before running. "

This isn't to keep candidates off stage. This is an attempt to consolidate all non-Trump votes.

The wide open field last time is what got him the nomination. He kept his base and everyone else was splintered.

quote:

---

Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal say hi

---

What?

Those two people also had zero chance of ever gaining any national traction in a GOP primary.

What is your point supposed to be?

Early on, Walker was 1st in Iowa and 3rd in Hew Hampshire. He pretty much killed his candidacy on the debate stage. We need more candidates to debate to find the best candidates who are not there based on popularity. Don't know much about Burgam ... but he was a very successful businessman, understands tech and won two terms as a Gov. I'm glad he is in the race and I want to hear him on a debate stage. AND I want more like him on the stage. The GOP elites do not.

Jindal not as good of an example re debates, but at one point he was an up-and-comer name in the GOP ranks. His results as a Governor ruined his chances. He is a good example of us needing to hear from more people as some are just not that great. He is also a good example from the standpoint that he became an up-and-comer based his political positions not from results in office and should not have gotten on the stage. Another lessor known Governor might have filled that spot. That is why I prefer (early on) that if there are two debate stages they are random so the best candidates will rise to the top.