Romney to skip Trump debate

[Link]

Thank God.  I'm glad some sanity is finally showing up to this absurd Republican primary.

[Bull Moose Base]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2494

Trumps responds by mentioning how bad Romney is doing.

[Oakvale]

Guys, remember when Trump was leading the polls for the GOP nomination? Did that really happen?

[Jacobtm]

Guys, remember when Trump was leading the polls for the GOP nomination? Did that really happen?

They have progressively moved on to candidates who question Obama's citizenship less and less.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Way to jump on the bandwagon, Paul and Huntsman already declined the invite.

[redcommander]

He shouldn't have done this. He needs all the exposure he can get before Iowa.

[Stranger in a strange land]

He shouldn't have done this. He needs all the exposure he can get before Iowa.

Romney probably benefits from not attending this debate. A debate with Donald Trump as the moderator could very easily turn into a fiasco.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

This debate is likely to be an amazing Christmas gift to the Democratic Party.

Romney standing against this Trump ridiculousness may gain him some kudos points among those who view Trump as a laughable joke.  The conservatives who love Trump and his attacks against the President regarding his birth certificate/birthplace are probably much less likely to support Romney than the conservative alternative.

[The Mikado]

Honestly, this probably is the right decision.  Not that skipping won't hurt Romney, but the risk of something catastrophic happening on the Donald Trump debate outweighs the harm of skipping it.

Plus, it makes Gingrich look like an idiot if he ends up being the only person there (or if it's a Gingrich v. Bachmann debate).

[Meeker]

Honestly, this probably is the right decision.  Not that skipping won't hurt Romney, but the risk of something catastrophic happening on the Donald Trump debate outweighs the harm of skipping it.

Plus, it makes Gingrich look like an idiot if he ends up being the only person there (or if it's a Gingrich v. Bachmann debate).

Don't forget Santorum! He'll be there!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Honestly, this probably is the right decision.  Not that skipping won't hurt Romney, but the risk of something catastrophic happening on the Donald Trump debate outweighs the harm of skipping it.

Plus, it makes Gingrich look like an idiot if he ends up being the only person there (or if it's a Gingrich v. Bachmann debate).

Don't forget Santorum! He'll be there!

Santorum is always present when an asshole meets a prick.

[Bull Moose Base]

It's very smart especially in light of Paul and Huntsman bailing on it.  Now it'll be 1-3 conservatives attacking Newt viciously 1 week before Iowa.  I assume Bachmann will attend.  Perry is a big question mark.  He's desperate for any chance to redeem himself but also one more bad debate and he's finished for real.  I wonder if he skipped it, if they'd still have it.

[Politico]

Honestly, this probably is the right decision.  Not that skipping won't hurt Romney, but the risk of something catastrophic happening on the Donald Trump debate outweighs the harm of skipping it.

Plus, it makes Gingrich look like an idiot if he ends up being the only person there (or if it's a Gingrich v. Bachmann debate).

Don't forget Santorum! He'll be there!

Santorum is always present when an asshole meets a prick.

I hereby nominate this for post of the week.

[Beet]

I don't think skipping this debate is the right decision.

During the last Nigerian Presidential election, a friend of mine who'd witnessed the event said that the opposition candidate found the debate unfair somehow and boycotted the debate. The result was that Goodluck Jonathan had the stage entirely to himself and just spoke the entire time. It was basically an hour of unrefuted, free advertising, handed to him by his opponent. By skipping the debate, it may allow the candidate to score a few feel-good points against Donald Trump, but that isn't the point now. The point is to build up as much momentum as possible leading up to the Iowa caucus, and that means fighting tooth and nail for every bit of oxygen that you can get your lungs over.

A Gingrich-Bachmann-Santorum debate could be just the ticket for the shift in dynamics that I've been predicting. With only those three on the stage, Bachmann and Santorum will have the perfect opportunity to attack Gingrich as being to their left, and show themselves up as the true conservatives. They'll each be allotted a third of the speaking time! Gingrich will occupy the left-wing position the entire debate. Without Romney, it's not worth it for Gingrich to participate.

[Bull Moose Base]

I don't think skipping this debate is the right decision.

During the last Nigerian Presidential election, a friend of mine who'd witnessed the event said that the opposition candidate found the debate unfair somehow and boycotted the debate. The result was that Goodluck Jonathan had the stage entirely to himself and just spoke the entire time. It was basically an hour of unrefuted, free advertising, handed to him by his opponent. By skipping the debate, it may allow the candidate to score a few feel-good points against Donald Trump, but that isn't the point now. The point is to build up as much momentum as possible leading up to the Iowa caucus, and that means fighting tooth and nail for every bit of oxygen that you can get your lungs over.

A Gingrich-Bachmann-Santorum debate could be just the ticket for the shift in dynamics that I've been predicting. With only those three on the stage, Bachmann and Santorum will have the perfect opportunity to attack Gingrich as being to their left, and show themselves up as the true conservatives. They'll each be allotted a third of the speaking time! Gingrich will occupy the left-wing position the entire debate. Without Romney, it's not worth it for Gingrich to participate.

I thought this was a spam forum post when I started reading about your friend in Nigeria.

Gingrich is already in.  It'll look clumsy if he backs out now.  Why would Romney mind Santorum and if they agree Bachmann and Perry ripping and cutting into Gingrich's Iowan support?  Bachmann is hinting that she's leaning against this debate.  I've expected her to rally in Iowa but she may not have good enough strategists to pull it off.  Are she and Perry really in any position to pass on something because of the risk?

[Stranger in a strange land]

I don't think skipping this debate is the right decision.

During the last Nigerian Presidential election, a friend of mine who'd witnessed the event said that the opposition candidate found the debate unfair somehow and boycotted the debate. The result was that Goodluck Jonathan had the stage entirely to himself and just spoke the entire time. It was basically an hour of unrefuted, free advertising, handed to him by his opponent. By skipping the debate, it may allow the candidate to score a few feel-good points against Donald Trump, but that isn't the point now. The point is to build up as much momentum as possible leading up to the Iowa caucus, and that means fighting tooth and nail for every bit of oxygen that you can get your lungs over.

The Nigerian debate wasn't moderated by Donald Trump, and I have a feeling the moderator didn't use the forum to flaunt his hard-edged style and ask self-serving questions. Any event hosted by Trump is about Trump. Period, end of story. The man is a mediocre businessman, but he excels at self-promotion.

It's very smart especially in light of Paul and Huntsman bailing on it.  Now it'll be 1-3 conservatives attacking Newt viciously 1 week before Iowa.  I assume Bachmann will attend.  Perry is a big question mark.  He's desperate for any chance to redeem himself but also one more bad debate and he's finished for real.  I wonder if he skipped it, if they'd still have it.

I doubt Perry will show: he'd be well advised to take pretty much any excuse to skip a debate, seeing as his debate performances have taken him from front-runner to national joke.

[Beet]

Jonathan refused to participate in debates organized by prviate media pools and only accepted the debate run by Broadcasting Organization of Nigeria (BON), a government front association for state media. Obviously they were in his pocket. The point is, the opposition candidates had just as good reason to boycott the debate, as anyone has of boycotting Donald Trump.

Yet it was a mistake.

By shunning the debate, they deprive themselves of free air time at a critical moment when the number of people paying attention will be at its maximum.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I don't think skipping this debate is the right decision.

During the last Nigerian Presidential election, a friend of mine who'd witnessed the event said that the opposition candidate found the debate unfair somehow and boycotted the debate. The result was that Goodluck Jonathan had the stage entirely to himself and just spoke the entire time. It was basically an hour of unrefuted, free advertising, handed to him by his opponent. By skipping the debate, it may allow the candidate to score a few feel-good points against Donald Trump, but that isn't the point now. The point is to build up as much momentum as possible leading up to the Iowa caucus, and that means fighting tooth and nail for every bit of oxygen that you can get your lungs over.

A Gingrich-Bachmann-Santorum debate could be just the ticket for the shift in dynamics that I've been predicting. With only those three on the stage, Bachmann and Santorum will have the perfect opportunity to attack Gingrich as being to their left, and show themselves up as the true conservatives. They'll each be allotted a third of the speaking time! Gingrich will occupy the left-wing position the entire debate. Without Romney, it's not worth it for Gingrich to participate.

Gingrich is already committed. Too bad for him; it'll basically be two significantly less significant candidates (Except, ironically enough, in Iowa) hitting him on everything without him having a serious opponent to go after and with a moderator that isn't getting much respect.

Even worse would be if someone decided to hold a counter debate with Romney, Paul, and Huntsman (and maybe Perry if he's not going to see Trump) as it would utterly trash the legitimacy of the Trump debate.

[Simfan34]

A counter-debate? That sounds like a great idea.

According to the last Gallup poll, the Trump debate participants would have 46% of the vote. eanwhile, the counter-debate participants would have 38%.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With his hair, Newt has to show up at the Trump debate.  Otherwise he risks that the Donald might bleach his hair and pretend to be Newt.