Liberal Media is at it again . . .

[turtlespeed 226]

Big Surprise.

Can we say, "Equal time for all candidates?"

I didn't think so.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

A silly and childish move by the RNC. If you can name ANYONE who has publicly stated they're running in 2016 you might have a point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

quade

A silly and childish move by the RNC. If you can name ANYONE who has publicly stated they're running in 2016 you might have a point.

Are you saying that if this is aired, she should have to abstain from running in 16?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

No. I'm saying the RNC is making an assumption that Hilary is running even though she hasn't declared. The election rules are pretty clear as to what can and can't be done by, for or on behalf of anyone before or after they declare they are running. It's well defined in the election rules and this falls WELL outside of that.

The RNC is trying to "play the refs" and they sound like a losing team while doing it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

"Republican Party officials believe the 20 GOP primary debates during the 2012 cycle hurt their party and Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee."

That's a 10-4.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

A silly and childish move by the RNC. If you can name ANYONE who has publicly stated they're running in 2016 you might have a point.

it's a pretty valid suspicion on their end, though one would want to see the script or final result before concluding outright intent. If she is presented as an American Margaret Thatcher, then we know the fix is on. If we get something that resembles the Sarah Palin redux, then it's networks capitalizing on a polarizing figure.

But frankly, I cannot imagine many things I'd be less interested in watching for several nights.

[quade 4]

kelpdiver

***A silly and childish move by the RNC. If you can name ANYONE who has publicly stated they're running in 2016 you might have a point.

it's a pretty valid suspicion on their end, though one would want to see the script or final result before concluding outright intent. If she is presented as an American Margaret Thatcher, then we know the fix is on. If we get something that resembles the Sarah Palin redux, then it's networks capitalizing on a polarizing figure.

But frankly, I cannot imagine many things I'd be less interested in watching for several nights.

It doesn't matter. She hasn't declared! There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says any company can't produce a story about somebody's life and air it if they haven't declared and especially YEARS before any election cycle has even begun.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

It doesn't matter. She hasn't declared! There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says any company can't produce a story about somebody's life and air it if they haven't declared and especially YEARS before any election cycle has even begun.

And there's no rule that say the GOP can't choose to boycott these networks, either. Surely you're not going to take a literal stance of legal/rules versus illegal/outside the rules in politics.

And it's already evident in Iowa that the 2016 cycle has started, though it is a slow slumber until the 2014 elections.

Hillary has serious electability issues. Putting up a feel good promotion in 2013 to gauge reaction is an intelligent strategy to decide whether or not to ramp up public appearances in 2014, or finally retire.

[lawrocket 3]

Quade is right. The rules don't apply because she hasn't declared. It's open season. And a stroke of genius to use network television ratings as a trial ballon/polling source to provide data.

Hillary Clinton now has an exploratory committee that consists of an NBC miniseries (by the way - Diane Lane is smokin'). Ratings will show how interested. Polls can be done to ask what was liked and disliked. It starts out with a tailor-made public image and a campaign can adjust the messages according to it.

NBC may seek equal time and do a miniseries based on Chris Christie and starring Chaz Bono as the Governor. Thus giving equal time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NewGuy2005 53]

lawrocket

NBC may seek equal time and do a miniseries based on Chris Christie and starring Chaz Bono as the Governor. Thus giving equal time.

Now, that is funny!!

[quade 4]

lawrocket

NBC may seek equal time and do a miniseries based on Chris Christie and starring Chaz Bono as the Governor. Thus giving equal time.

As always, be careful what you wish for.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[devildog 0]

turtlespeed

Big Surprise.

Can we say, "Equal time for all candidates?"

I didn't think so.

Where was their outrage when they shafted Ron Paul with a whopping 90 seconds of time?

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[LyraM45 0]

quade

A silly and childish move by the RNC. If you can name ANYONE who has publicly stated they're running in 2016 you might have a point.

Agreed. Maybe I'm biased because I have doubts she's even going to run. The lady looks tired and just might be done with everything!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[regulator 0]

Lets hope so. If anything she could get nancy pelosi to run with her just for the ability of making her look prettier.

If that's possible.

[quade 4]

LyraM45

***A silly and childish move by the RNC. If you can name ANYONE who has publicly stated they're running in 2016 you might have a point.

Agreed. Maybe I'm biased because I have doubts she's even going to run. The lady looks tired and just might be done with everything!

The smartest move the Democrats can make right now is let the RNC continue to piss its pants over the prospect of Hillary running; neither confirm nor deny. Because the RNC really is losing what's left of their collective minds trying to figure out anyone who could possibly and successfully run against her. Let the RNC waste its time and effort over that conundrum.

That said, I believe you're correct. I think she's done with the nonsense.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on Wendy Davis.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Meanwhile, keep an eye on Wendy Davis.

seems a bit early to lead the ticket. Let her be governor first. Probably too early to back the ticket as well, but a candidate that is trailing and wants to make it interesting could do worse than her as the VP nominee.

[quade 4]

kelpdiver

***
Meanwhile, keep an eye on Wendy Davis.

seems a bit early to lead the ticket. Let her be governor first. Probably too early to back the ticket as well, but a candidate that is trailing and wants to make it interesting could do worse than her as the VP nominee.

Wouldn't be the first time the strategy has been used. I'm not suggesting she's a front runner or even interested at this point, but she could be a force to be reckoned with if she plays the right cards over the next couple of years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

******
Meanwhile, keep an eye on Wendy Davis.

seems a bit early to lead the ticket. Let her be governor first. Probably too early to back the ticket as well, but a candidate that is trailing and wants to make it interesting could do worse than her as the VP nominee.

Wouldn't be the first time the strategy has been used. I'm not suggesting she's a front runner or even interested at this point, but she could be a force to be reckoned with if she plays the right cards over the next couple of years.

Why do you say that?

[kelpdiver 2]

Gravitymaster

***
Wouldn't be the first time the strategy has been used. I'm not suggesting she's a front runner or even interested at this point, but she could be a force to be reckoned with if she plays the right cards over the next couple of years.

Why do you say that?

She showed herself to be an up and comer - and as a leader in battle, something that has been lacking in DC for quite a while for both parties. On the Democrat side, both Clinton and Obama were showcased before they became nominees. Doesn't seem to be the GOP's way, but even they're trying - with Rubio for example.

I wouldn't expect her to be that prominent without going another notch up in elected office, and there's no guarantee she'll make it. Gavin Newsome was a looker as mayor of SF and as a front runner on gay marriage, but went on to torpedo himself with sexual scandals that even in SF detracted from his electability.

Now if you're pro-life and can't stand defenders of abortion rights, sure, you're not going to like her. But you're in the minority.

[LyraM45 0]

Kind of off topic, but I found it interesting in the article that it said Republicans don't want to air debates because they think that hurt them during this past election.

So..... if you can't put up good candidates who can debate without looking stupid or batshit crazy, then you should just limit them or stop them all together?

That'll be sure to win over the moderates and independents

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kelpdiver 2]

they said they didn't want to air 20 debates, but would rather do half as many. Really entirely different than what you suggest.

And it was endless and pointless. At each debate, whoever was deemed the front runner was attacked by the rest like a pack of dogs. Everyone got to enjoy a brief period at the top (and Newt twice!) before it all fell back to the early frontrunner Romney, in large part because a tremendous amount of dirt was thrown at everyone.

And moderate/independents got weary - there are only so many of these dog n pony shows you can watch before you say 'no mas.' Esp with fake format debates where the candidates can ignore the questions. We only saw one well moderated debate in the entire 2012 cycle and it was the VP one.

[LyraM45 0]

OK... then I meant they don't want to air all of their debates. Sorry for the confusion.

I think what you're saying goes both ways, though. Don't the democrats do the same thing with the dirt slinging in their primaries? Why would one group have a huge problem and not the other?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kelpdiver 2]

LyraM45

OK... then I meant they don't want to air all of their debates. Sorry for the confusion.

I think what you're saying goes both ways, though. Don't the democrats do the same thing with the dirt slinging in their primaries? Why would one group have a huge problem and not the other?

in the last election, the Democrats didn't have primaries, effectively. Obama ran essentially unopposed, which is one of the greatest advantages of an incumbent President. In 2008, this was not the case and the main candidates fought pretty late into the process. It didn't hurt so much because anyone could beat the GOP that year.

[NorrinRadd 0]

turtlespeed

Big Surprise.

Can we say, "Equal time for all candidates?"

I didn't think so.

Waitaminit.. you tellin me the MEDIA is partisan? Say it aint so!

Mainstream media sucks. It is all just propaganda machines.. whether it be pro liberal, pro conservative, or pro corporate.

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[weekender 0]

turtlespeed

Big Surprise.

Can we say, "Equal time for all candidates?"

I didn't think so.

Just putting it out there. could this be more about driving revenues than bias? the heads of NBC are in the business of increasing the bottom line. that is done through add sales. Hillary brings in viewers, viewers bring in ad sales and that increases the top and thus bottom line, earnings.

Maybe it is the capitalist in me but i am willing to bet the decision is more about money than bias. If you could point out a Republican women that would drive as many viewers as Hillary then i would consider this about bias. CMCSK is in the subscriber and advertizing business, not the news business. Maybe its just me but i've met execs at NBC and their parent, they are business people and only talk about thr top and bottom line, like the rest of us. my 2cents.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante