Rick Santorum is not happy about Fox News' GOP debate rules

CBS News ^ | May 22, 2015 | Jake Miller

[conservative98]

Rick Santorum is not happy about the rules for the first 2016 Republican primary debate, hosted by Fox News, which will limit the number of candidates onstage based on their standing in the polls.

(snip)

Santorum is expected to announce his plans for 2016 on May 27 during a speech in his hometown of Butler, Pennsylvania.

[Norm Lenhart]

Or the men could be men and do it themselves.

[norwaypinesavage]

Typical Santorum attitude: Striving to be in the bottom.

[onyx]

Sweetest you, Clyde5445.

I’m glad he’s fuming.
:)

[tennmountainman]

Polls showing him losing his last senate race were pretty accurate.

He lost, just as the polls predicted he would.

[TomGuy]

Even with only 10 on the debate stage, they would be hard pressed to get more than about 6 minutes of speaking time for the evening.

Considering the lengthy editoralized questions asked by the moderators, plus 1 minute opening and 1 minute closing statements, that would eat up roughly half of the time. So, in a 90 minute debate, they would have only about 45 minutes of response time, divided by 10 participants would be 4.5 minutes total for each.

Of course, the mods will try to sneak in several ‘raise your hands if ...’ and short answer ‘yes or no’ questions.

[Clyde5445]

And to think I voted for him when I lived in Pa. (head to table) :) But he did win.

[wardaddy]

Dead weight

There are only 5 contenders now

In order of chances and cash and apparatus and Ailes in bag

Bush

Rubio

Cruz Walker Paul tie

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

I’ll buck the trend here. I want to see people like Santorum and Jindal in the debate. And as far as 2012, it was Gingrich who was far more responsible for Romney winning than it was Santorum.

[plain talk]

What if Cruz ends up polling as number 11? You are ok with it so long as it works in your favor?

I am. Rules should be consistently applied regardless of whose ox is gored. If Cruz can't get his poll numbers up high enough to even get in the Republican debates he has no business running for President. At some point you have to limit the number of candidates on a debating stage. Otherwise insufficient time is provided to each candidate.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Why are you here if you oppose making the GOP more conservative?

Do you still beat your wife?

I never said I oppose making the GOP more conservative. I don't agree that excluding some from the debates is the way to do that. The candidates with lower support may collectively represent a significant percentage of republican voters. Even if you hate the candidate, what about the people who support them? Won't you need their vote eventually? Why kick them to the curb and make them feel like their opinion does not matter right out of the gate?

[Unmarked Package]

I remember Rick Santorum’s demeanor and statements in the Republican debates for the 2012 election. I know we throw the term “whiner” at someone we don't favor, but whiner aptly fit Santorum in the debates. I recall he complained openly onstage that moderators neglected him in the questioning process, and when he did have an opportunity to speak he complained about not getting proper credit for accomplishments in his career in politics. If he whined about being ignored in the 2012 election, just imagine how insufferable he will be in the 2016 election debates.

[deport]

CNN doing a little different ..

snip
The CNN Republican primary debate on Sept. 16 will be divided into two parts
featuring two different sets of candidates: those who rank in the top 10 according
to public polling, and the remaining candidates who meet a minimum threshold
of 1 percent in public polling,

end snip

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/cnn-sets-criteria-for-second-gop-debate-207470.html?hp=l2_4

[Vermont Lt]

It’s not like the rules have not been published long in advance.

Plan accordingly and get your numbers up. If you cannot do that with this much lead time you have no business being on the stage.

[ansel12]

Either you have debates or you don’t, you don’t have them if you try to do it with 25 or 30 people, some think even more may run in the GOP.

The GOP is getting a lot of people like Santorum and Ben Carson who have no political futures, the GOP has to figure out some way to deal with this trend of people merely looking for publicity for their non-political aspirations as they seek work.

[bert]

the loser rick need not continue the effort.

He is not a viable candidate

[SamAdams76]

I say put them all in the debate and give them 9 seconds to answer each question. It will be fun.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You exaggerate with the 25 or 30 people. It might take 2 or more debates but all should get equal TV time early on. Later it may make more sense to pare it down. Now you will push away lots of voters as you push away the candidates.

I’m not saying it won’t be challenging. Imagine back when candidates had to literally “stump” in each location by riding a horse and having their audience travel into town.

In the age of technology this should be no big deal.

[arbitrary.squid]

Completely unfair to limit a debate to the top ten contenders!

At least the top 600 should have a voice.

[ansel12]

It isn’t an exaggeration at all, as it is, they are seeking to get it down to 10, from what could be dozens.

Your reasoning about pushing away voters because we eliminate fakes and phonies with no future in politics, like Santorum and Ben Carson, doesn’t make sense.

[some tech guy]

I’ve just checked out the real clear politics poll aggregation, and the list of candidates in order are:

1) Bush
2) Walker
3) Rubio
4) Paul
5) Huckleberry
6) Cruz
7) Carson
8) Christie
9) Perry
10) Santorum

missing the cut would be

11) Kasich
12) Fiorina
13) Jindal
14) Graham

That will probably change a bit before the dates, but it’s enough to give a good indication of who might be on the stage.