Page 12 - Network Debate News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Debates. they think it allows underfunded candidates, candidates that don't have the financial backing that front runners would have to make their case and speak out. one way that the rnc thinks it can impose discipline is to limits the number of debates and also pushing to more friendly moderators. moderators that are less likely to push. the core issue really is limiting the damage that can be done. there's no reason to have, they think, primary season debates that allow these candidates to make statements they may have to answer for in the fall. >> overall, david, does this vote mean anythi...

Deciding. you're facing that right now. it's an obvious situation. >> yeah. >> the big question will be, will candidates in the heat of the primary season in 2016 really turn down an opportunity to appear on nbc or msnbc or cnbc if they were hosting a debate. >> right. >> and will they buck the party and say, look, i would much rather have the opportunity to have a few million viewers across the country than not. on the flip side, euz would rather be on the campaign trail than the debate stage. >> seeing that the rnc never approved your sponsored network debate, what do you think they are tryi...

>> a network that spends millions of dollars to spotlight hillary clinton is a network with an obvious bias, and that's a network that won't be hosting a single republican primary debate. [ applause ] >> republican officials move forward with its nbc/cnn debate boycott, but does it really mean anything, seeing as though rnc has never approved or sponsored a network debate? we're going to get the first read after this. it guides you to a number that will change your

Governor dean, thank you for being with me. >> you're very welcome. it is hard to do this. if it were so easy, they wouldn't have had 27 debates and made themselves look like idiots in the last cycle. they don't want to do that again. you can be really tell the networks what to do. not only because it is a violation of the first amendment,ial though it doesn't seem to bother the other side here. but because you can't control your own candidates. >> of course! i mean, try to imagine what would happen. let's say for the sake of argument that rand paul decided to do x, y, z, and cheryl did not li...