Patterico's Pontifications

1/11/2016

Fox’s Outrageous Debate Decision

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:08 pm

Unbelievable:

Republican presidential candidates Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina have been cut from the next mainstage debate on Thursday.

According to a newly-announced lineup by debate host Fox Business Network, only seven candidates will appear in the main debate: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich.

This is an outrage. Not that Paul and Fiorina have been cut; I don’t care much about that. The outrage is that John Kasich is still in.

I honestly don’t think I can stomach watching this twitchy self-righteous squish-head interrupt his way through another debate. I really don’t. I’m serious.

It becomes more curious when you look at ABC’s characterization of the state of polling. Look at Kasich’s standing as it relates to the folks who got tossed out:

Full averages, according to an ABC News analysis, are below:

National: Trump: 35.0 Cruz: 19.6 Rubio: 11.0 Carson: 9.4 Christie: 4.0 Bush: 3.6 Paul: 2.8 Fiorina: 2.2 Kasich: 1.8 Huckabee: 1.2 Santorum: 0.5 Gilmore: 0.3

Iowa: Cruz: 27.8 percent Trump: 26.4 Rubio: 14.0 Carson: 9.4 Bush: 4.8 Paul: 4.2 Christie: 3.2 Fiorina: 2.0 Huckabee: 1.8 Kasich: 1.4 Santorum: 0.6 Gilmore: 0.1

New Hampshire: Trump: 29.6 percent Rubio: 12.8 Cruz: 11.6 Christie: 9.6 Kasich: 9.0 Bush: 8.0 Carson: 4.4 Fiorina: 4.0 Paul: 3.8 Huckabee: 0.6 Santorum: 0.2 Gilmore: 0.2

Kasich ranks under Paul and Fiorina nationally and in Iowa. So he outranks them in the insane state of New Hampshire . . . who cares?

Get that guy off the stage!

47 Responses to “Fox’s Outrageous Debate Decision”

  1. Amen. But even Fox loves that he lashes out at everyone else in his peculiarly inane manner.

    JD (274546)

  2. That’s ridiculous. There is no reason for Kasich, Huckabee, Santorum or Gilmore to be included any longer in any thing. That’s just eating up valuable debate time.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  3. they can drop the Jersey Whale & Jeb! too…

    redc1c4 (296407)

  4. I had the same reaction. Get your $&%! together New Hampshire!

    Dejectedhead (ba8561)

  5. Apparently there’s some favoritism shown to a former employee.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. Since Ted Cruz was mentioned …
    there was something nagging at me about the question of Ted Cruz being a “natural born citizen”. I finally got the bump I needed and found what I needed.
    President Chester Author.
    He was not elected President but Vice-President. He took over when Pres Garfield was assassinated. There was a charge that he was not a “natural born citizen” based on the false premise that he was born in Ireland. What is interesting is that that was the sole basis. He was not challenged on being ineligible due to his father being Irish. Just like Pres Obama.

    I would not be so dismissive of the challenge to Ted Cruz’es eligibility. The qualification in the Constitution specifically adds “natural born” for PotUS but not for any other office. This could get quite interesting. His father’s citizenship is a non-factor, his country of birth – well does it really matter? If a person was born on an Indian Reservation, would that disqualify? Was the term “natural born” just a way of weeding dual interests?

    seeRpea (21eebc)

  7. Speaking of Ted Cruz and “natural born” citizens. Is there any possible way to get the SCOTUS to hear the case prior to an election? If Ted Cruz won the election and then the SCOTUS heard the case, would the election results get thrown out?

    Dejectedhead (ba8561)

  8. SeeRpea–

    The actual claim was that Chester was born in Canada, as his sister had been. But his mother was literally a grand-daughter of the Revolution, so her citizenship was never in question. Dad was Irish. If you used a both-parents rule for citizenship for foreign births, then that would have been a problem. But, as with all of this noise, it’s mostly lies and innuendo.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  9. Luckily I cannot get Fox Business Channel, so I could not watch if I wanted to.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. I want to hear someone say “STFU, Jonnie!” to Kasich. Preferably Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS8X2Qp_6aA

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. seeRpea, I think the allegation against Chester Arthur was that he was born in southern Canada, although as you know he claimed to have been born in northern Vermont.

    I imagine that the ‘natural born citizen’ application was intended to eliminate the potential conflict of interest that European countries created for themselves when Prince So-And-So of England married a Dutch Princess or a cousin of the Spanish King. And at the time of the 1780s, there were a few European countries still vying for a piece of the New World pie.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  12. Fox wants an establishment guy. They’re just increasing the odds.

    Dana (86e864)

  13. I think Reince Priebus and the RNC made a big error in judgment in the debate process by opting for a “main event” debate and an “undercard” debate.
    When there’s too many people on the “main event” stage, nobody gets enough time to speak. And ironically, it’s in the undercard debate where each of the candidates gets more time to speak. It’s just basic math—doesn’t Priebus want the “major” candidates to have more time to speak?
    Priebus should have just had the debates split into an equal number of debaters by drawing ping-pong balls with the candidates’ names.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  14. should have used the dolphins from the south park episode,

    narciso (732bc0)

  15. The debates have accomplished the winnowing of the candidates. There was simply no interest in Pataki, Bush has shown that he is a weenie, and Kasich has proven to be an unlikable boor.

    dunce (32e46c)

  16. Rand Paul is refusing to particpate in an undercard debate because he says is a top-tier candidate.

    Dana (86e864)

  17. He can go quietly or he can go stamping his feet.

    Either way, he’s gone.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  18. Is there any possible way to get the SCOTUS to hear the case prior to an election?

    No. Courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions, or hear anything that isn’t a live case.

    Beside which, the Ds have just got through establishing the precedent that the NBC clause is not justiciable. That remains the case when the candidate in question is R.

    If Ted Cruz won the election and then the SCOTUS heard the case, would the election results get thrown out?

    No. It’s not justiciable. The electors have a duty not to vote for an ineligible candidate, so it’s up to them to decide what they think NBC means. Congress has to count the votes, so it can decide what it thinks NBC means. Once the electors have voted and Congress has certified the result whoever wins is president, even if she is definitely known to be a 34-year-old Slovenian.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  19. What a toss up for the most petulant, kasich or fox news?

    mg (31009b)

  20. They need a couple of dems on the stage to even things out.

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  21. Equally puzzling is why is Jim Gilmore included at all. This will be his first appearance. I suppose that if you assume his earlier polling was at 0.0% and if you base the decision on the direction of change of his current polling number (0.2%), he might be one of the few who have improved with time. That’s about all that I can see.

    Maybe this is to preserve his self-esteem. Sort of like giving trophies to everyone.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  22. I would trade Kasich for Fiorina. Actually I’d trade him for Harold Stassen.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. Gilmore was in the first undercard debate.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. Ah, right you are Kevin. Sorry I missed that. Here’s a brief segment from his appearance. I can’t imagine why I didn’t remember that.

    So there’s even some drama to his story … after an early stumble he’s staging a comeback?

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  25. I think Reince Priebus and the RNC made a big error in judgment in the debate process by opting for a “main event” debate and an “undercard” debate.

    Yeah, I would blame the RNC first. They should have had the guts to say to Fox, “We’ll set the terms and rules for the debate, you are only there to broadcast it.” But letting the networks call the shots is a recipe for disaster, even for the Democrats too. Note how the DNC fought off any attempts to move their debates away from dates that conflicted with the World Series or NFL football.

    JVW (d60453)

  26. @22 BobStewart: Jim Gilmore hasn’t been invited to participate in the upcoming debate. If I understand correctly, his polling average is listed in the ABC News analysis for reference purposes only. To get into the undercard debate, he would have had to reach 1% in any of the qualifying polls, and he hasn’t even done that recently.

    Joshua K. (6ed2bf)

  27. So, if there is an undercard debate, it will be Fiorina vs Santorum. I would hope that Fiorina declines, if only so that Santorum doesn’t get the TV time. Never debate with an idiot…

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. Never debate with an idiot…
    Why is boosh, kasich, rubio and christie on stage?
    Throw fox in with those pant loads and you end up in loserville.

    mg (31009b)

  29. I expected only 6 to be at the main debate. That John Kasich is there is a bit of a surprise (but he is polling well, and above Christie, in New Hampshire)

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  30. Above Christie, that is, in the (latest) New Hampshire Monmouth poll: (and also in the ARG poll)

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Republican Presidential Primary Monmouth

    Trump 32,
    Kasich 14,
    Cruz 14,
    Rubio 12,
    Christie 8,
    Fiorina 5,
    Bush 4,
    Paul 4,
    Carson 3,
    Huckabee 1
    Santorum 0

    Total: 97%

    New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary ARG

    Trump 25,
    Rubio 14,
    Kasich 14,
    Christie 10,
    Cruz 9,
    Bush 8,
    Paul 4,
    Fiorina 3,
    Carson 2,
    Santorum 1,
    Huckabee 1

    Total: 91%

    I think ABC rigged the criteria so as to make sure that Jeb Bush was in, and Kasich came in on his coattails, because Bush is doing very poorly.

    They probably did not want to leave Bush out, because that could be tantamount to sentencing his campaign to death, and they didn’t want to be the ones to do it. Bush raised the most money and was once the leader, and not a single vote has yet been cast.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  31. Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/11/2016 @ 7:07 pm

    If you used a both-parents rule for citizenship for foreign births, then that would have been a problem.

    They didn’t then. A woman took on the citizenship of her husband.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  32. 7. Dejectedhead (ba8561) — 1/11/2016 @ 6:39 pm

    Is there any possible way to get the SCOTUS to hear the case prior to an election?

    The Supreme Court would say that’s a political question. They wouldn’t hear it unless they absolutely had to. It is up to Congress to decide, att the tim when they count the electrsl votes.

    If Ted Cruz won the election and then the SCOTUS heard the case, would the election results get thrown out?

    No, the Republican candidate for Vice President would become president. The Twentieth amenbdment, Section 3 applies.

    The votes of the Republican electors would not be thrown out – they would still be needed for a majority. The House could opt to select the Democratic nominee (possibly the only remaining candidate)

    It is not clear what happens if there is a tie for 3rd place, I just realized. – several faithless electors could have cast 1 vote for somebody else, with nobody getting 2 or more.

    A majority of state delegations is needed, which de facto is about 57% of the House. (some states will be divided)

    At any time, even two yeasr into the term, Congress could decide to accept the votes, and ted Cuz would then replace his vice president as president. I imagine he’d be unofficially acting as president in any case. This would be a very bad precedent – a candidate could be challenged even if there wasn’t a tinge of legitimacy toward his “disqualification.”

    The Constitution really doesn’t provide as to what to do if a vice president is also disqualified. Y There could be attempts to disqualify the appointment of Electors, but if not, the Senate is supposed to pick betwene the to 2 finishers – what if there is only 1 and the rest are considered to be the same as blank ballots?

    The plans would have to be known, and if there was thought to be a real problem, Congress would pass a law. It is also hard to see enough members of Congress trying to steal an election or change an election result unless the public really wanted it to happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

  33. Yeah, I look at John Kasich–who has failed to light any fires of enthusiasm, and say, “Adios Muchacho–don’t let the screen door slap your backside on the way out.”

    Comanche Voter (1d5c8b)

  34. I really like Carly. Don’t know why she can’t get more support.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  35. I agree with you. Kasich is despicable and such an idiot!

    Bob (b6cdbb)

  36. Totally agree but the real outrage is that a political party allows the national media organizations to control these so-called debates. Instead we continue to be subjected to yet another ratings driven profit driven network TV program.

    crazy (cde091)

  37. @28 Kevin: It’s not just Fiorina and Santorum in the undercard. Huckabee will be there too. (And Rand Paul could be there if he changes his mind and decides to participate.)

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  38. It’s all about pushing the establishment view. Watch, all those excess candidate will spend their time attacking Cruz and Trump.

    Mike Giles (3dc5b9)

  39. Actually, one more debate might drive John “Huntsman Wannabe” Kasich’s favorability numbers down into the underwater range along with the Dithering Dynastic Dunce’s (with all of the other significant candidates at +20 or more just to drive home how pathetic that is), so at least we’ll get *something* out of it.

    M. Scott Eiland (1edade)

  40. Kasich was a good candidate in 2000.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  41. Dejectedhead, *procedurally* it would be very difficult, and I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court would say “this is a political question” and decline to take the case.

    The *best* procedure for getting this resolved, incidentally, would be for a secretary of state to refuse to place someone’s name on the ballot on the grounds that they’re not a natural born citizen. *That* case would result in courts scrambling to hear *something* prior to the election, and quite possibly to issuing an injunction requiring placement on the ballot pending the outcome of the case.

    Milhouse, do you have a citation to a court decision to back up the claim that it’s nonjusticiable? I mean, I think the courts wouldn’t hear it unless it were the scenario I just outlined, but I wouldn’t claim it to be fact, just suspicion – unless there’s an opinion on point.

    aphrael (ff6401)

  42. I really like Carly. Don’t know why she can’t get more support.

    There’s another anti-establishment candidate coming from the private sector who is sucking all the air out of the room. Without him, I think Carly would be a top three candidate.

    JVW (d60453)

  43. What JVW said.

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  44. My concerns with Carly is she worked for old man boosh in the cia.
    Non starting point in my empty mind.

    mg (31009b)

  45. Cheer up. After the last debate, a focus group apparently wanted Kasich dead. Maybe if he’s still there this time, they will actually take him out on live television.

    Tonestaple (39740c)

  46. ala Howard Beale at the end of Network,

    narciso (732bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2157 secs.