Fox And CNN Establish GOP Debate Criteria
[guest post by Dana]
With the Republican presidential debates on the horizon, Fox and CNN have established individual criteria that will determine which of the 19 contenders will have a place on the stage.
Fox will accept the top 10 contenders, based on their poll numbers, for the first debate in Cleveland Aug. 6. Entrants must have formally registered for a presidential campaign with the Federal Election Commission and have paid all necessary federal and state filing fees.
CNN announced a two-tier system for its Sept. 16 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The top 10 candidates will debate in one group, and the remaining candidates will face off in another. Each candidate must poll at 1 percent or higher. CNN requires debate participants to have at least one paid campaign staffer in two of the early voting states and have visited two of those states at least once.
Based on Fox’s criteria and RealClearPolitics’ current numbers, Carly Fiorina and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal would be cut. This is unfortunate given that they are the diversity the party desperately needs to reach women and minority voters. (Fiorina has been tearing it up lately as she travels the country relentlessly attacking Hillary and Obama. Whether she’s running for president or vice-president, it would be a shame to not see her in action on the debate stage. Her fearlessness is something the other candidates should take serious notice of…)
And unbelievably, if outside survey numbers hold and Donald Trump throws his name in the ring, he would actually secure a spot. Over Jindal and Fiorina.
Fox, acknowledging the problem of excluding some candidates, threw a bone to the Republicans by “pledging to provide additional coverage and airtime on the day of the debate for candidates who do not place in the top 10”.
The Republican National Committee supports Fox’s plan to limit candidates.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 5/20/2015 @ 10:17 pmmy plan is to, as usual, ignore CNN & Fox, as the useless MFM scum that they are.
redc1c4 (589173) — 5/20/2015 @ 11:15 pm19? Is there some sort of formal list somewhere?
scrubone (c3104f) — 5/20/2015 @ 11:46 pmStupid. Just do 3 “debates” with the top 6 broken up into groups of 2 and the remaining 13 placed in the 3 groups by lots. Then allow 5 topics, known in advance, and have them actually debate the issues.
njrob (d36337) — 5/21/2015 @ 12:07 amThere’s something wrong with these plans.
A LOT wrong with them.
But then Primary elections aren’t about fairness or informing the public anymore.
They’re about donations and bargaining and making an appearance of being popular.
So that no one suspects that they are rigged to go a certain way. That way determined
by those who have the power and the connections.
After what happened in 2014 and the realization that we didn’t change anything by
our votes, I’m not sanguine that any of those who claim the loudest to be reformers
will get to the final spot.
And surely the one who is finally elected will be someone everyone will be unhappy with.
jakee308 (49ccc6) — 5/21/2015 @ 12:39 amput all of the bozos on and ask if any of them is willing to take the point into ramadi?
all bozos (4288bc) — 5/21/2015 @ 1:09 amYou people that watch fux news have been out fuxed.
mg (31009b) — 5/21/2015 @ 2:37 amTeam R should focus more on getting rid of Iowa’s absurd warping of their nomination process
debates what let the fapfapoulos media brand Team R as the party of Bushfilth entitlement and Huckabee backasswardness are inherently an albatross
there’s no way to put lipstick on this piggy pig pig
happyfeet (831175) — 5/21/2015 @ 3:02 amIn a season where the GOP finally has some real talent, finally has what we have been clamoring and waiting for, to limit the number of candidates in the debates is real absurd. We finally have some serious contenders, we should be able to see and hear from them.
Re-work the onstage format but don’t limit the number of candidates that get an opportunity to debate. The basis being poll numbers at the time of the debates doesn’t seem right. Too bad the RNC signed off on this.
Dana (86e864) — 5/21/2015 @ 5:58 amreal = really
Dana (86e864) — 5/21/2015 @ 6:02 amI am not down with even having an R debate as early as August due to my ongoing concern that presidential candidates absolutely turn off and wear out the very people they are trying to attract. Normal voters are utterly sick of politicians, politics, the media spin, ads, multiple debates where nobody usually says anything relevant, and all the attendant donation preening, by the time the actual election rolls around more than a year later. I rarely agree with the narrative imagery that comes out of the Dem camp’s PR dept. But their calling this current R “field” a Clown Car as they are doing is spot on. Not that the candidates are necessarily clowns themselves– but that because they seem unwilling to be able to responsibly self-curate we are all left with the actual mental image of 10-20 of them frenetically and comically trying to position themselves into a space only big enough for three or four.
As long as they’re doing the stupid too -early debates I do not fault either the RNC or the networks for trying to put some sort of a cap on this madness. They didn’t cause this. The ego driven third tier candidates did. I have never seen anything like this. I do not know or have an answer to what metrics or criteria they should use to limit the number of candidates in a debate. I do know that the candidates themselves are as much at fault as anyone. I sure hope Carly makes the cut though, because her voice is way more important for people to hear than Donald Trump or Lindsey Graham or John Kasich for example, but this is not an all-inclusive list by any means.
elissa (832b72) — 5/21/2015 @ 6:33 amI’m not sure how anyone could expect to have a meaningful debate with, say, 15 candidates on the stage. I don’t figure you could have more than a two hour debate, which would be 90 minutes of air time after commercials. But let’s use the full 120 minutes for argument’s sake. Each candidate gets a 2 minute opening statement, for each question you need to allot 1 minute for the moderator to present the question then recognize each candidate for their response, and 1.5 minutes for each candidate’s response (we want a real debate, not a soundbite driven gotcha exercise, right?). Do the math. That means that you only get to ask 3.8 questions (round up to 4), and there is no opportunity for candidates to respond to each other’s answers. Doesn’t sound like a meaningful debate to me, just sounds like a series of campaign commercials, which we really don’t need more of.
prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 5/21/2015 @ 7:05 amit’s a waste of good lipstick and it annoys the pig
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/21/2015 @ 7:20 amThe good candidates will find ways to make this work for them. Americans like to see people compete, and to pick winners and losers. Thus, the pundits and the media will decide that some candidates will “win” and some will “lose” each debate. Frankly, candidates like Jindal and Fiorina might get more attention and better press as the top candidates in the second debate, than getting lost as the 9th and 10th place candidates in the first debate.
DRJ (e80d46) — 5/21/2015 @ 7:25 amThis crap is happening waaaaaaay too soon.
JD (f36f05) — 5/21/2015 @ 7:29 amThe tail continues to wag the dog. If a televised campaign appearance consists of more than two candidates and a moderator it’s not a debate it’s a moderated joint interview pitting candidates against the press and one another. A responsible political party wouldn’t stage or support these pseudo-debates. A responsible political party would stage and support candidate forums while allowing candidates to choose for themselves whether the front-runners have anything to gain from a separate Lincoln-Douglas style event but there is not responsible political party anymore. Instead we’re about to be subjected to another season of political survivor co-produced by the republican party and the MSM. No wonder a Joker like Trump wants in.
crazy (cde091) — 5/21/2015 @ 8:29 ami don’t see myself watching a second-stringer debate
that’s just way too cspan for my active on-the-go lifestyle
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/21/2015 @ 8:37 amAnd unbelievably, if outside survey numbers hold and Donald Trump throws his name in the ring, he would actually secure a spot.
There are low-information voters in the GOP, too.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:14 am“Carly Fiorina and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal would be cut. This is unfortunate given that they are the diversity the party desperately needs to reach women and minority voters.”
Really Dana? Carly and Bobby are it? The future hinges on Carbob?Either they participate or the GOP really is just a bunch of old white men as the liberals like to claim? Really?
Mark Johnson (aa1dda) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:16 amyou sound incredulous
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:26 amThe 2012 debates sorted the field fairly well. If there was a problem, it was that the field had little depth — only two or three candidates were qualified to be president and it showed.
Were there too many debates? Not clear. It took a while to test the not-Romneys and the only reasonable alternative (Gingrich) took a while to come to the fore — and did so primarily because of the many debates. The press hated him. Without debates, the media has control of who gets attention and they are NOT our friends.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:35 amJD@15, yes. Let’s ask Rick Perry if he feels (if he’d known then what he knows now) that early Nov. 9, 2011 debate where he froze was good for his candidacy. Did people who had heard very good things about him but were seeing him in action for the first time on a national stage in that debate really get a true feel for him either as a successful governor or as a presidential candidate? IDK, but I’d guess not, and he never recovered from the impression he left that night. Would he have performed differently and more competently and more confidently in a debate six months later after more campaign seasoning and more experience talking to voters and editorial boards across the country? I’m guessing yes.
elissa (832b72) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:58 amSeriously, Donald Trump? Is this what we’ve come to?
Gazzer (d3f7b0) — 5/21/2015 @ 11:10 amMark Johnson,
I don’t believe I said it all hinges on “Carbob”. Rather, I was pointing out that having some diversity couldn’t hurt and frankly, could help reach women and minorities . That does not infer it’s include them or we lose the election.
Further, who would you think could more effectively express conservative principals in smart time-limited answers: “Carbob” or Trump. Whose face would lend itself to party seriousness rather than something gimmicky?
Also, I really want to see Fiorina in action. Especially with Hillary as her presence would from the get-go cripple Hillary’s ‘vote for me I’m a woman’ platform…
Dana (f1eb7d) — 5/21/2015 @ 11:10 amElissa @ 11 said it much better:
Dana (f1eb7d) — 5/21/2015 @ 11:36 amI think we saw the real Rick Perry. In pain and medicated, and that was unfortunate for him, but I don’t think he’s the brightest guy in the field.
DRJ (e80d46) — 5/21/2015 @ 11:39 amHe may be the most determined, though. He’s like W in that regard.
DRJ (e80d46) — 5/21/2015 @ 11:40 amWhat’s to prevent two or three candidates from organizing their own debate? They could charge a hefty admission, and videotape the whole thing with a youtube release the next day. If the networks wish to cover it, tell them they can download it from youtube like everyone else, otherwise get in line and see if you can buy a ticket, but no lights, cameras or interviews within the building. The moderator could be an up and coming Congress critter with the right sort of outlook compatible with the parties debating. Attendance would be a measure of their viability.
Cruz vs Carson … topics: rule of law, education, parental rights, militarization of the police, illegal immigration, global warming, UN, terrorism, economic growth, Federal Reserve and QE, Federal over-reach, CO2 pollutant or essential fertilizer, states’ rights, giving Iran the bomb, and so forth. Let each candidate provide ten such topics prior to the debate, and then randomly select three or four. And select three or four topics that both candidates submitted, let us hear what they think is their strength.
Six or seven candidates could arrange frequent debates across the country, and each gathering ought to be self-supporting including massive security.
These debates are for us, not for the LHMFM.
bobathome (77a327) — 5/21/2015 @ 12:01 pmLets here these super patriotic chicken hawks explain how they will drive isis out of iraq syria yemen libya and win the war in afganistan by doing something other then calling Obama names. If all these bozos jumped off the empire state building who would win? answer the american people!
all bozos (8ccf81) — 5/21/2015 @ 12:44 pmPerry is on one of his multiple personality genocidal kicks again.
JD (68654e) — 5/21/2015 @ 1:53 pmThe candidates have to do some debates to prove they can but after that, I think their time is better spent appearing in primary states, planning/preparing campaign strategy and advertising, and (especially) meeting with big donors. Running for President is basically about asking people to give you money.
DRJ (e80d46) — 5/21/2015 @ 2:17 pmis perry, any less clueless than these folk,
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/freddie-gray-case-prosecutor-doubles-down-on-wrong-law/
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/21/2015 @ 3:05 pmthe troll, not the candidate.
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/21/2015 @ 3:05 pmI think they should try to have Chris Wallace excluded. Last time, in the very first debate, he tried to get Bachmann and Pawlenty to fight, and strangely they obliged. That kind of set the tone for the entire debate.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 5/21/2015 @ 6:16 pmInstead of debates this early, how about hourlong one on one interviews on Fox (can’t think of another network that could even claim impartiality) that will let voters have a chance to listen to, and evaluate, each candidate on his/her own merits. That way all 19 will get their turn.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/21/2015 @ 6:32 pmEven ten candidates on stage at once is a bit much. We will need a spreadsheet to keep track of it all.
not a bad notion, but clearly they have already taken sides, the Medici was the favorite, although his rollout was bumpy, like the APC in Aliens, so they’ll need a proxy
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/21/2015 @ 6:34 pmYou will notice I did not actually say they were impartial.
A possible alternative…a consortium of bloggers with result posted to a dedicated UTube channel.
kishnevi (adea75) — 5/21/2015 @ 7:54 pmbaby steps;
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/public-outcry-forces-fec-democrats-to-junk-bid-to-regulate-internet-drudge/article/2564832
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/21/2015 @ 8:47 pmThe modern “debate” format is neither a debate nor an informative way to get to know candidates. The questions are designed to make the questioner famous or influential by inducing gaffes. And the short answers don’t give any sensible person time to enunciate a rational position. But they aren’t supposed to. They are supposed to cause mistakes, which then become the only news out of the “debate.”
Estragon (ada867) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:25 pm#39 Estragon (ada867) — 5/21/2015 @ 10:25 pm
You win the Internets. Very well stated and right on the money. I would prefer the one on one interviews of all the candidates as suggested earlier. And stop giving biased “news media” an opportunity to torpedo and sabotage the Republican candidates. They have already all shown their true colors and biases.
Easy Target (d7a02c) — 5/22/2015 @ 5:21 pmI seriously doubt i will have either a TV or cable/sat by 2016. For that matter the laptop died months ago.
“And naked shall he return.”
DNF (208255) — 5/22/2015 @ 7:28 pmJay Costs thinks everyone should be included in the debates, especially in the beginning:
Dana (86e864) — 5/23/2015 @ 11:29 ami agree with jay but 1% is way way way too low
it should be twice that
happyfeet (831175) — 5/23/2015 @ 11:32 amStupid. Have multiple debates, with all comers included. Let’s hear from the field.
mojo (a3d457) — 5/24/2015 @ 5:18 pmTEN candidates?
Yeah, that’s gonna be a serious debate.
“Mr. Blah-de-blah, you have 15 seconds for a rebuttal…”
Assuming a 2 hour debate, with ZERO intermediate time, that’s 120 minutes, or 12 minutes of talk time per candidate. Assuming only four questions, each one will get all of 3 minutes per question.
Assuming, instead, twelve questions, each candidate will get all of a single minute to say “jack” and “shit”.
And that’s only if there’s no other time sinks to suck up time, which there will be.
Having ANY debates before the candidates get narrowed down substantially is a complete and total waste of time.
You want to know which candidates represent which positions, I’m sure there are web sites — like, say, Town Hall at a guess — that will summarize them for you nicely.
AND not waste two hours of your time….
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 5/25/2015 @ 10:28 pm