Not participating only seems to help Trump’s polling numbers.
Desantis already has a separate event scheduled with Newsom.
Ramaswamy has done a thousand podcasts and will certainly continue that strategy.

Going on Rogan gets candidates multiples of viewers compared to these events, and Rogan lets them talk for more than 1 minute.

“No one can look good in these debates; they are debasing experiences.”

“[1] Agreed, which is why Trump was right to avoid them [2] (I don’t buy into the conspiracy theory.) [3] Trump does not need to participate in these debates. He served four years as president. We know his positions, personality, and what he would do as president. …, [4] but it is no mystery why he is leading in the polls. Republicans saw what he did as president, and for the most part, liked it.”

• 100% agree with all 4 points.

• I’ll add that sometimes ‘A cigar is just a cigar’ (see “At this point, I’m beginning to think that this is all by design. Trump and McDaniel struck a deal: he’d help her reelection bid; she’d set up some of the worst debates in GOP primary history and he’d avoid them.” )

• Can not find a single example in the history of Republican Presidential primary debates were the RNC chair was blamed for the quality of the candidates ^^ that were running for President; which is the pool from which debaters are selected – and which is the key reason why these are seen as “some of the worst debates in GOP primary history”.

^^ = that is not to say they have not been blamed for qualifying rules, formats, moderators, etc. – but other primary debates have had better candidates (see 2016 competitiveness).

• Lastly, while the less competitive/ weaker candidates (see 40+ behind Trump) were (fill in the blank) – Trump was working on expanding the Republican voting base among non-traditional Republican voters – something Trump has continually done since he first ran in 2016 (see most legitimate votes in USA history).

• Last lastly, even if they tried, not sure how many of the other primary candidates in the debate last night could expand the Republican voting base among non-traditional Republican voters (and “not sure” is me being polite).

Trump has no problem debasing himself, and he doesn’t need a debate to help him in that endeavor. When he did things like accuse Ted Cruz’s father of somehow being implicated in the JFK assassination, he debased himself.

But I realized early on that this cycle there would be no reason for him to participate in debates. He is way ahead, so why open himself up to all the risks that they entail?

As usual, there were some good moments, but most of it was not helpful in separating the policy ideas of the candidates. Nikki Haley did distinguish herself as quite an argumentative shrew who really hates Vivek Ramaswamy.

But to give Nikki her due, she had a good moment on our healthcare system when she pointed out that lack of transparency on price and treatments is a major problem that needs to be solved. However, none of the candidates had a solution to that problem that I could discern.

I thought DeSantis did a credible job and landed some blows on DJT’s record.

Vivek was a bit humbler, but he still rambles on when the time bell rings. He’s just very verbose.
I like many of his ideas but wonder if he can deliver on even a fraction of them.

IMO, mostly a waste of time.

Agreed, which is why Trump was right to avoid them (I don’t buy into the conspiracy theory.)

Trump does not need to participate in these debates. He served four years as president. We know his positions, personality, and what he would do as president. I will not be voting for him in the primary, but it is no mystery why he is leading in the polls. Republicans saw what he did as president, and for the most part, liked it.

It might be a little hard to understand at first, so here’s some other examples to help you:

Gas stations run ads at the pump. They make money primarily from people buying gas, but also a little from running ads.

Windows 10 and 11 run ads when you use them. They make money primarily from the software but also a little from running ads.

Paid streaming services run ads. They make money primarily from the subscription but also a little from running ads.

Fox News runs ads. They make money primarily from the subscriptions but also a little from running ads.

Hope that clears it up!

In your rush for “well akshually” did you forget that magazines and newspapers are supported by subscribers too? And are they are running ads just to amuse themselves? Or is it impossible to do both?

Fox News put ads on because they are paid to, of course. Whether anyone watches the ads is the advertisers’ problem, and may not necessarily even be the intention of whoever paid for the advertising (a la the Obamas’ speaking fees).

It’s one stream of revenue, but cable subscribers are the main revenue stream.