This is on the media's midweek podcast, I'm for Gladstone.

So according to the New York Times, Sienna Pol released this week, 54% of Republican

voters said that if the election were held today, they'd vote for Donald Trump.

Ron DeSantis trails by 37% points and the others in the field are in single digits.

Despite, or because of his solid lead, Trump is unclear.

As to whether he'll show his face at the first Republican debate, said Frogger's 23rd,

as he told Maria Bartoromo on Fox.

We have a lead of 50 and 60 points in some cases, and so you're leading people by 50 and

60 points and you're saying, why would you be doing a debate?

It's actually not fair.

Why would you let somebody that's at zero, or one or two or three, I don't be popping

you with questions.

Trump's debate snubbing is just the latest example of the GOP resistance to a long standing

political norm.

Last year, Rona McDaniel, chairman of the Republican National Committee, wrote a letter

to the Commission on Presidential Debates, the independent bipartisan organization that

has convened general elections since the 80s.

In her letter, she said that the RNC would boycott the upcoming presidential debates,

unless the Commission were willing to meet its demands.

Between those demands and the possible absence of the front runner, the question is, what

if anything would be lost if the presidential debates didn't happen?

I spoke to Alex Shefford, senior editor of the New Republic last year, after he wrote

...