If you can't crack the top ten why should you be allowed to be on the debate. I could decide to run for President. Should I be included?
Polling is irrelevant before they have a chance to be heard. I could even see limiting later debates, but not the first one unless they mean to have another debate for the rest of the contenders.
If you run, you should be included.
As far as I'm concerned 10 is extremely generous and still includes several vanity candidates who know perfectly well they stand no chance of winning a single state primary or caucus, never mind being nominated.
A "debate" with 10 candidates winds up giving each a few minutes of air time, just enough for a few sound bites without substance and a lot of time wasted on "I agree with what so and so said..." type of discussion.
What if you're the best candidate, but you don't get a chance to get your message heard because Jebby and the rest of the RINOs had more money than you, more name recognition, and thus got on the early top 10 according to the results of Polls done by the MSM.
Shouldn't you get a chance to be on the first debate, at least, and not automatically marginalized?
If you can’t crack the top ten why should you be allowed to be on the debate. I could decide to run for President. Should I be included?
YES!
Because a good performance in the debate might result in you cracking the top ten.
I have a great idea: if FOX (or whoever) is serious about the electoral process, as opposed to making it some kind of "pop" production, then why not allow as many GOP candidates as possible, and create a format which permits that, and then maybe winnow things down from there in subsequent debates? In other words, if the Dark Horses can't gain any traction, THEN box t hem out. But not automatically from the beginning.
Even if it's "bookish", "dry" or "boring", at least then all the candidates can try to present their positions on the various important issues.
Then, those viewers who are serious enough to actually watch the debate can pass along their impressions to their friends, family and peers.
The modern debate format seems as if it's intentionally structured to preclude even the possibility of a "Dark Horse" candidate.
Methinks the bigwigs are terrified that a Dark Horse might emerge, and none of them would want anything like that, now would they? Too much potential loss of control.
If the most important thing is ratings, "gotcha" moments, and "image", then the debates aren't worth watching anyway.