On September 16, CNN will host the second major GOP Presidential Debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library hosted by Nancy Reagan. Similar to the debates on Fox, there will be a “prime-time” debate consisting of the “top 10” candidates and an “under-card” debate consisting of the remaining candidates who are polling above 1%. Seems clear enough.
According to realclearpolitics.com (an average of recent polls), the top seven are: Trump, Bush, Carson, Walker, Rubio, Cruz & Fiorina with Fiorina at 6.3%. Clearly, if you were to draw a line, this is the top tier candidates.
The next three are Paul, Kasich & Huckabee all at 4.3% and Christie is outside looking in at 3.3%.
The next tier begins with Perry (1.3%), Santorum, Jindal, Graham, & Pataki. However, only Perry & Santorum are at 1% or higher. The rest barely register making the under-card a group whose total support is less than 3.3% (lower Christie who is the first candidate above this group). In fact, if they all dropped out, the movement of support to the other candidates wouldn’t even be noticed in the polls.
But it is what it is. Or is it?
Then when you read the selection criteria of CNN, Fiorina is out of the “prime-time” debate and Christie is in. What the heck?
- How can the #7 person in the polls be out and a person with half her support be in (Christie)?
- More importantly, how can the person who has jumped the most in the polls since the last debate and arguably the winner of both debates (only Carson & Rubio can make a case if considering movement in the polls)?
CNN’s selection criteria includes debates which go back to July 15th (a month before the Fox debate) when Fiorina was registering 0% and 1% in the polls. Since the debate, she has been polled 5%, 5% and 9% beating Paul, Kasich, Huckabee, & Christie all scheduled to be in the next debate.
In fact, when you realize that the criteria includes three polls with Fiorina at 0% and one at 1% (all from July), mathematically Fiorina would have to poll in the top 4 (8-9%) from now until the poll deadline of September 10th to beat out one of the candidates polling at 3-4%.
Yes, I feel sorry for Rick Perry being designated to the “under-card” debate but hopefully it will give him a chance to shine and maybe bust into the top tier. In my mind, Rick Perry is the star in this group and has run a good campaign especially relative to those in his “tier.” Similarly, Chris Christie is statistically tied with Paul, Kasich, Huckabee and maybe doesn’t deserve to be bumped down as Fiorina bumps him to 11th place.
But, if Carly Fiorina is denied the “prime-time” stage, that is a travesty. Mrs. Reagan, how about giving Carly a “sponsor’s exemption?” Channel a bit of your husband!!
Historical background: In a 1980 Presidential primary debate moderated by a local New Hampshire paper because federal campaign law at the time prevented newspapers from paying for the venue, the Reagan campaign paid all the debate expenses (including the microphones). The paper wanted the debate to be limited to Reagan and Bush because they were the “favorites.” Reagan thought denying Howard Baker, John Anderson, Bob Dole et. al. a chance to participate was unfair and thus what you see on the attached YouTube video.
they (the mainstream media) wasted a lot of time and ammo damaging governor christie with the whole new jersey bridge-gate thing. it was relentless and nightly, for dreary week after week while they ignored some really big news stories. they have to put him in the top tier until their investment is recouped.
happily for them it’s also a chance to bury a candidate that shows what hypocrisy it is to consider hillary the only tough smart woman in the running.
fiorina is the only living proof we had that anyone was even paying attention while we had jeane kirkpatrick among us.
Ridiculous. I think these debates miss the whole point of debates anyway. All candidates should be given the same questions and a chance to answer the same questions. Maybe a debate format doesn’t work anymore. The Fox debate was a joke in a way anyhoo since the main one was out to get Trump, and it showed with the gotcha questions, and the other questions were targeted to certain candidates many times. Little was learned that wasn’t already known about the candidates stances and we didn’t get a chance to compare their answers because for the most part they never got the same questions.
And now this one is leaving out a candidate who is a truly worthy candidate. I suppose is done on purpose too as this debate will be run by the MSM who favors Hillary, and another woman is more of a threat than some others.
Maybe Trump can put on his own debate and pick who gets to participate. That would be fun!
Springer, the selection criteria was set months ago. Since nobody knew who it would exclude, its hard to claim this is MSM conspiracy. When you look at it in context, it appears to be a sincere attempt to take out anything subjective and maybe the effect of a one-day new story good or bad against a particular candidate (using multiple polls over a long time). However, now when we see it in practice, it also prevents the unknown underdog from coming out of nowhere.
Regarding picking on Trump, he was the leader going into he debate. It is unrealistic that he wouldn’t get hardballs thrown at him and a hardball for him would be different than others. And, I certainly don’t want a primary debate where leaders get softballs and not tested.
At the end of the day, three candidates had measurable improvement in support (Fiorina, Carson, and Rubio). And three candidates had measurable drop in support (Walker, Bush, and Perry). I know you like Trump but in the end, his support stayed the same. I leaned a lot about the candidates and with few exceptions, I was impressed with the field.
The selection criteria should be based on the polls closer to the time of the actual debate, such as Fox’s was. That is my point.
I don’t want softball questions, but I would like questions so that the average joe could compare the stances of the candidates on the different issues and not just gotcha questions targeted to specific candidates, and Trump wasn’t the only one who got these BTW. Yes, I like Trump. I also like Cruz, Rubio, and some of the others. I was disappointed though in the first debate.
Leaving out the candidate who has risen to an important and viable place in this race is not the best way to inform the voters, and to say that the selection criteria shouldn’t be changed to reflect the present rankings is wrong and does a disservice to the voters IMO. But maybe this will just serve to once again highlight Fiorina; I think more people will pay attention to the “lesser” debate this time around and maybe she will get more exposure by doing this.
And I still think that the MSM won’t do anything to help a woman candidate who is clearly outshining their favorite “son” in ideas, capability, and experience.
I agree this criteria is flawed. The problem is those were the rules set months ago. You and I both know if they were changing the rules to cut out someone we liked we would be livid. And, Christie would have a strong case for being treated unfairly as he is in according to the rules. The answer in my mind is give Carly a “sponsors exemption” and let the candidates around 1% in support try to hit a home run.
Enquirer, let me tell you a story about a personal encounter with Ambassador Kirkpatrick.
It was during a late night session of the Senate when I worked for Abdnor. He was borrowing a little cubbyhole Senior Senators had near the floor working on a speech. I was there only to make sure his coffee cup was full.
When I opened the door, Kirkpatrick saw the Senator was there and wanted to lobby him on something to do with the Middle East so she followed me in and sat down across from Abdnor and I just stood like a mouse in the corner.
Further background, remember Kirkpatrick’s almost Buckley like cadence and high intellectual manner of speaking.
So, she starts talking in her “non-Abdnor” manner of speaking and all of a sudden Abdnor says “Dang it (different word), knock off the formal crap and talk to me so I can understand you.”
She says “jimmy, (and goes right back to talking like a professor). Abdnor interrupts her again and says “I don’t have time for your lecture. Is this good for the Lebanese Christians?” She says it was. He says “I trust you so I’m with you” stands up and shakes her hand saying “Now I have to get ready to give a speech nobody is going to listen to.”
Now remember, I’m pretty sure Kirkpatrick never even noticed me in the room and I’m just a college intern so I’m sure she had no idea who I was and certainly had no reason to even bother with me. Sometime later, I’m siting on a bench outside the Chamber waiting for Abdnor, she sits down and says “I’m sorry but I didn’t get introduced to you. Senator Abdnor is the nicest Senator and if you work with him, I would like to know you.” She then with amazing grace asked about where I went to school, my family etc.
I need a LOVE button for this story. That’s great. College students today need more examples like that and respect for when they come across such examples of leadership and patriotism.
i am absolutely not surprised to hear about her intelligence and grace. SHE should have had a shot at being the first female president. i always believe that.
Yes, the criteria seems to be flawed. I thought the purpose of the debates was to give the candidates a chance to compete. The purpose of the competition is to allow movement up or down for the dandiates. Clearly Fiorina has moved up quite a bit. Leaving her out is a travesty.
Just thought of option #2:
Prime time Debate (7): Trump, Bush, Carson, Walker, Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina. They are the only candidates above 6%. By dropping down to 7 on the stage, it increases each candidates screen time by over 40%. This is good.
Undercard Debate (7): Paul, Huckabee, Kasich, Christie, Perry, Santorum and whoever is polling best of the rest (I hope it is Jindal as I think he has been overlooked because of the size and deserves a real look). This makes this debate relevant and realistically gives one of them a realistic chance to pull a Fiorina.
I think 8 candidates going through Iowa and/or New Hampshire is acceptable to shake out issues, six candidates through Super Tuesday and then all that will remain will be the toughest and most proven candidates.
Trip to DisneyWorld: Everyone else. The odds of Those polling under 1% breaking out is worse than the Twins play-off hopes this year. There comes a time when enough is enough.