politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
trump allowing Dems to lower the bar again...
3 debates was the standard.
And they were always outside the parties control.
Now it sounds like Dems get one and Republicans get one. Both will win the one hosted by their party and declare the other biased.
And it solidifies the two private parties and prevents anyone else from having a chance.
To be fair, though, three debates is excessive this time around. We know where these people stand. The debates are really a chance to assess their mental fitness, and two will be fine for that.
The non-partisan commission shot itself in the foot by not taking early voting into account in its scheduling. If we are going to have debates, it makes no sense to schedule them after voting starts in some states.
Oh ok...
So let's put the parties in charge.
Because Republicans aren't a complete shit show and the Dems didn't just schedule their convention so late that Biden won't make the deadline to get on the ballot in every state...
But I'd love a source for the non-partisian debates being scheduled after early voting starts.
I've never heard anything about that.
The article itself mentions that both campaigns have an issue with the debate commission scheduling after early voting. But let’s assume the AP is not a credible source and didn’t fact check this.
How long before the election does early voting begin? Looks like it’s 50 days in some instances:
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/early-in-person-voting
So let’s look at how well the commission did in 2020. Election Day was Nov. 3, 2020; 50 days prior was Sept. 14, 2020 and 27 days prior was Oct. 7, 2020.
Based on the schedule here: https://www.debates.org/debate-history/2020-debates/ there were three debates:
So, yeah, not a single one of those dates is before the absolute start of early voting, and two of them are on or after the average start.
Seems like a valid and factual complaint to me.
But you're acting like the nonpartisan commission picked the dates with no input from the parties...
That people who vote day 1 of early voting aren't sure of who they should vote for...
And that the parties should be in charge of it, despite the Dems deciding to not declare their candidate till after the deadline to get on some states ballots?
The ones that demanded a state violate their state law to move a primary, and when they wouldn't removed all their delegates...
You didn't prove anything about the "late" debates being the commissions decision, or why we should give control to an organization thats clearly terrible about scheduling ...
I didn’t set out to prove anything or argue any point other than the complaint about the debates being scheduled after early voting starts are rooted in fact.
In fact, the only thing I really did was provide relevant sources to indicate that, yes, the debate commission has a history of scheduling at times after early voting starts.
But giving control to the parties isnt an improvement...
They can't even schedule their own events to make sure their candidate gets on the ballot.
In this case, yes it is an improvement, we get 2 debates before early voting is a huge improvement over only 1. Yes, long term I agree with you that I'd rather a 3rd party host the events, but right now for this election it seems they need to get their crap together.
How many people do you think vote early but would be swayed by a debate?
If someone is voting Biden or trump during early voting, nothing is changing that.
The main benefit (at least for Dems) for debates is convincing possible voters to vote.
And again, it's not like the nonpartisan committee dictates when the debates are, and I'm pretty sure the ones Biden and trump skipped was the first wasn't it?
Like, I can't help but think of the trump voters that rationalize voting trump because politics isn't perfect. They're not wrong at identifying a problem, but their solution just makes things worse.