Which station should broadcast the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and the RNC?

Question

An equal opportunity question: what tv stations would be most appropriate to televize the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and the Republican National Convention (RNC)?

Which one is more likely to resemble a circus?

Which one will be the most surreal?

Which one will have the most unintentionally funny speeches?

If there were ever a debate between Condaleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, who would win?

Who is the best candidate for either side who is not running?

I consider the answer by Espreses brilliant.... and a little scary. It's like I wrote it. I hope this is not an indication I have schizophrenia, and my other personality has created its own profile!

You know, we're the only two people who use email address as our Yahoo name. Well, maybe great minds think alike. :))

Answer 1

Lots of questions, so I will take each one separately.

I think they both need to be broadcast on a cable station, as too many people are addicted to the dramas and comedies on the regular networks and the bigger cable stations. I would think that either Fox News or MSNBC would be good choices. I don't think they need to have analysts giving the play-by-play like you find with sporting events. I think, actually, that the ideal situation is to have less intervention and interpretation from the network which carries it, and more of just letting people make up their own minds. I personally prefer Fox, despite the fact that everyone seems to think they are biased. When you come right down to it, both of them are biased.

I think that the RNC is most likely to resemble a circus, simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many people seeking the Republican nomination. Realistically, the Dems only have three contenders, and one of them is so far behind in the polls they don't count. I will leave you to take that as you wish. I think the Reps are going to have a lot more people jockeying for positions just because it is such a large field.

Actually, having watched documentaries on the conventions for both parties last time, I think the whole concept of a party convention is surreal. They really remind me of a weird religious revival, of the type that used to travel and set up a tent in small towns, and then move on after the weekend was over. I think both will be pretty surreal, but I think the Reps will present the better show in that respect, as there are so many tiny, weird issues for various candidates to contend with. Romney will be busy trying to keep people's minds off the fact that he is Mormon. (He really should handle it the way JFK handled being Catholic: "I won't let it interfere with my presidency if you don't let it interfere with your vote".) Giuliani will be trying to keep the more conservative people from thinking about the fact that he is a divorced Catholic who is technically (by Catholic doctrine) living in sin. McCain will just be busy trying to get people to pay attention to him. Thompson will be acting like an elder statesman, and trying to stay calm, and keep the people who are so pro-Fred from acting up. Then there are all the lesser known guys, like Huckabee and Brownback and Paul et al. I think the simple fact that there are so many of them is what is going to make it so surreal.

On the flip side, you will have the Dems looking at two strong candidates who are minorities, with a woman and a black man. That's going to be pretty surreal, as well, simply because it's such a change from white anglo saxon protestant men in dark suits and red power ties. The other thing that will be surreal is that all three of the big Dem candidates really need to court the liberal religious folks. I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of praying and testifying about personal beliefs and relationships with God. Personally, I think religion is playing too large a part in this election for every single candidate--it should be a non-issue. But it will be weird to be treated to face-to-camera talks about such personal issues.

Funny speeches will abound! They always do. I definitely have my preferences, and I definitely know where my sympathies lie, but the truth of the matter is that when people are in a situation like that, flubs fly. I haven't made up my mind yet on just who will most likely win the award for best stupid speech that makes them look silly, but I am quite sure that someone, or maybe more than one, will oblige us.

I dislike Rice. I only sort of like Clinton. I think people make a mistake when they say Clinton is stupid, because she isn't. But Rice has a lot more freedom about what she says in a debate because she's not running for office. That means that she doesn't need to weigh her words quite as carefully, and can go for broke in a debate. Clinton, on the other hand, has to be a lot more careful. Both are smart, but they are smart about different things. I hate to admit it, but I think Rice would win a debate. Clinton just has too much to lose if she takes a misstep, so her debating is really...sucky. A fistfight, however, is another question. Clinton would win in a heartbeat. Rice is an excellent pianist, and it is ingrained in their minds to take good care of their hands, so she would not be throwing punches well. Clinton would just clobber her. In all truth, I would rather see them have a bare-knuckles match than a debate.

I think the very best candidate for either side who is not running is Colin Powell. He could trade on his warnings about the situation in Iraq, which I think is a big issue which is on everyone's mind. And to tell you the truth, I have so much confidence in the man, and in his personal integrity, that he could run on the Socialist ticket and I would probably still vote for him. (Naturally, my electoral vote would go elsewhere--I live in a red state--but you get my point.)

In all of this, I do know of one person who will emerge smelling like a rose and rolling in money. A friend from high school has an uncle who has a printing business in Denver. The majority of his contracts are in the form of printing t-shirts, bags, hats, etc... for various conventions which come to Denver and other places here in the West, including Las Vegas. He has a contract for the DNC. Beginning 1 January 2008, the only work done in his shop will be for that event. He is currently trying to clear up all the other contracts he has so he can get ready to move into high gear next year. My friend said that they have already done the artwork for much of the work, and that they will have the artwork ready for all contingencies once the official nominees are selected. As soon as the official candidate and running mate are chosen, his shop will begin cranking out goodies with their names on them. He has bid for these types of contracts before, but never won one. My friend asked him how much money he stands to make, and his uncle's only reply was that after next summer, he should have enough money that if he closed shop for good, he could still live very well for the rest of his life, and so could his employees. It sounds like a profitable business. I wish him the best.

Answer 2

The conventions should be broadcast on the major networks, so that the maximum number of voters can see them if they want.

Political conventions are always circuses. They were even more circus-like years ago when the candidates were actually picked at the convention, and delegates would yell, wheel and deal and "demonstrate" frequently by jumping up and down with their signs.

The Republican is probably going to be the most surreal because the Republicans employ a lot of of public relations and media people. Whenever the President gives a speech, for example, he has an interesting background such as group of soldiers in camo standing on bleachers, a perfectly framed helicopter, or a line of starched and draped flags propped along the White House portico.

Democrats will have a lot of props and flash, but the Republicans' higher production values will give their convention the most surreal and other-worldly aura.

Wow, you have a lot of questions -- I'll stop at 3 of 7

Answer 3

The Democratic National committee seems to be able to do whatever it wants to do. The wishes of the democratic voters do not seem to have much influence on the DNC. And that's the party which claims to be the people's party. Someone can nominate Al Gore at the convention and, if the convention has been deadlocked re. Obama and Billary, Gore can be placed into the mix and the delegates could nominate him. MEMO TO CAPTAIN: When Hillary ran for her senate seat in 2004 she promised to fulfill that term. " I am running for the Senate, not any other office."

Answer 4

FOX would be the best as they are fair and balanced. Less likely to have the moderator taking sides. Condi would beat Hillary in any debate on any subject. Think about it. Condi a brilliant accomplished self made woman vs Hillary who I can't for the life of me think of one thing she has done other than marry Bill

Answer 5

Here is the answer:

ALL broadcast networks. The U.S. allow the networks to use american airwaves. In return, ALL broadcast networks should show both conventions. And all debates. And every state of the union...etc.

The government even gave them thier broadcasting beacons.
Its the least they could do.

Answer 6

It should be a major non-cable network.
ABC seems by far the most fair and civilized.

Secretary Rice would win a debate against Hillary because she is smarter. Plus, good guys always win in the end.

Answer 7

The DNC convention should be broadcast by AL Jazeera.

Jack

Answer 8

the station with the lowest ratings, nobody will watch it anyway.