Posted on 08/12/2015 7:13:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s still over a month until the next GOP debate, hosted by CNN and the Reagan Library and moderated by Jake Tapper, but we are getting word that the format may be strangely familiar to viewers of the recent spectacle. The hosts have begun sending out invitations already and giving what sound like confirmed details of how it will play out. The similarities are rather hard to ignore. (Yahoo News)
All but one of the 17 Republicans vying for the party’s presidential nomination have made the cut so far for the next debates hosted by CNN, the network said on Tuesday in a decision that could leave former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore on the sidelines.
CNN and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, which is co-hosting the Sept. 16 debates, said invitations have been sent by former first lady Nancy Reagan to 16 candidates who meet their criteria. All but Gilmore “have qualified thus far and have received invitations,” they said in a statement.
Earlier this year CNN said candidates must meet certain criteria, including an average of 1 percent of support in three recent national polls. CNN’s latest poll released showed Gilmore at the bottom of the pack with less than one percent.
So long story short, they’re going to average out the national polls, put the top ten in a prime time event and lump everyone else who makes it above one percent into an “undercard” debate. Sound familiar yet? As far as Gilmore being left out… what’s the point? If you have room for ten people at the main event, what’s the difference between having six or seven at the kids table? Besides, as we’ve discussed before, if you’re looking at a national poll with, let’s say… 400 respondents, we’re talking about the difference between four people picking you and three. That’s a rather subjective way to draw a line in the sand. And at this point I don’t think we’re waiting for any more Republicans with any real – if long shot – chance at victory jumping into the race. The Democrats may have to contend with Biden getting in, but they’re still sitting at four “real” candidates maximum, so they won’t have to worry about that.
The one thing that almost certainly will change for the GOP battle is the list of names who will be on the big stage. Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz and Rubio still all seem like locks (at least for now) but the lower end of the field has been shaken up considerably. Kasich has been rising (at least for now) so he’ll probably keep his spot. The big mover, though, is Carly Fiorina. Looking at the RCP average as of this morning, her numbers are still in the tank but that’s only because the widget only has one set of national figures to dump in since the debates. But the difference between that single data point and the last five is stark, with the former HP executive going from scores ranging from zero, one or two up to nine in less than a week.
If Carly moves up, somebody else will have to head for the side show. The smart money will still probably be on Christie, who sagged a bit further after the debate, but I have to wonder if Rand Paul isn’t getting nervous. He’d have to drop a fair distance to miss the cut, but he’s been showing a lot of weakness in public support. (He didn’t do himself any favors at the debate either, in my opinion.) Even if somebody drops out between now and September 6th (Rick Perry anyone?) that’s not going to change the prime time lineup.
Exit question for the crowd: You’ve had a fair amount of time now to digest what happened with the Fox format. How did that work for you? Is this at least “good enough” that CNN should basically run a carbon copy or do they need to mix things up with a serious change that is actually doable? I still think sixteen is too many for one stage, but so is ten, really. Should they at least make the show a half hour longer to give each candidate more time?
Being a total non-viewer of CNN, what do we know about Jake Tapper?
What are the chances they can ask as many stupid questions as Fox?
Will they also ignore Cruz for forty minutes?
Will they ask Trump what his favorite color is when he has women on their knees?
Hope to see a debate and not a debacle.
This is ridiculous. I want to see Trump, Cruz, Walker and pick someone to debate about foreign policy, economic policy and leave it at that.
Social issues needs to be taken off the table since it can only be played out as a gotcha.
So meeeeegyn kelly is gonna be on loan to cnn? What deep “question” will she have lined up the Donald this time? “How is that a man with your wealth continues to do the comb over thing? Didn’t you ever hear of Bosley Hair solutions?” /s
Well this shouldn’t surprise anyone. This whole debate process has turned into a reality show. Anything for ratings.
Debate The Moderators
prediction: any question to donald trump other than, “mr. trump, sir, could you please list for us some of the reasons that you are so awesome?” will be met with an insanely violent eruption from his virulent twitter feed. again.
watch. it will happen.
Why not do 4 or 5 at a time for 15 or 20 minute segments, same questions to each group. Then bring em out one at a time for a 1 or 2 minute wrap.
As Carson has apparently been “disinvited”, I’m not interested.
1. A question is taken from each candidate's campaign speeches and asked to that candidate in a neutral way. Example: What would you do about record high unemployment?
2. Candidate gets 1 minute to speak.
3. Each other candidate, chosen randomly each time (months drawn them a bag will do), gets 1 minute to rebut.
4. Original candidate gets final 30 seconds to close out the question.
That's 10 1/2 minutes, assuming 10 candidates. Add another minute or so for overages and call it 12 minutes. With each candidate drawing one question from their own campaigns and getting an equal opportunity to respond to the other candidates, that's 120 minutes for 10 candidates. Add another 30 minutes for breaks and you have a two and a half hour event. Each candidate gets 10 and a half minutes to speak across all issues.
No moderator interruptions or arguing back to the candidates. It's the candidates vetting each other's policy positions.
-PJ
DEBATE the moderators?
How about IGNORE the moderators?
Jake Tapper: Senator Cruz, have you stopped beating your wife?
Senator Cruz: Thanks for that question. There is no way we can “beat” ISIS if we continue playing Obama’s lazy version of “whack-a-mole” with them. Our satellites show us where ISIS parks its tanks each night. Why haven’t we bombed all of those tanks into scrap metal? We know where the oil pipelines used by ISIS are located. Why is ANY pipeline used by ISIS still functioning? I doubt that Hillary could be trusted to “get serious” with ISIS.
Jake Tapper: But... but...I asked..
Senator Cruz: Yes, Jake, good question! The key to “beating” Hillary — and to “beating” all the goose-stepping morons who worship her — is to simply tell the truth to the voters. Americans won’t elect a crook.
I don’t understand why, in this age of technology and communication, that we have to have a farcical series of theatrical, staged media spectacles to choose a Presidential nominee. Why not have each of the candidates prepare a manifesto for the public. It would be to their advantage to make it as clear, concise and factual as possible. Those who really cared about the issues could listen to video-taped preparations that dispense with the idiotic queries of some TV personality. There’s also no reason why questions couldn’t be directly answered in that format as well via the internet.
The only reasons I can think of that we continue these “gotcha” public performances is that some people (1) can’t read (2)can’t maintain focus for more than two minutes (3) are too lazy and spoiled by receiving their news and information in picture form and five second sound bytes to make any real effort to understand the issues. I suppose that in many ways it would be viewed as discrimination against the uneducated, illegals and vapid airheads who make their decisions based on hairstyle, dress and personal appearance. Those seem to be the very first things that decisions are based on today. Many people never get beyond them.
Besides, I’ve had it up to my ears with questions. Questions have been Fox News stock and trade. They ask the question and then give ten answers; win, win. I want to hear some answers without some media airhead running interference while the answers are being given and without some talking head telling me what they really said and what they really meant. As far as I’m concerned, they’re the equivalent of lying signers for the deaf.
But, such is the society we’ve become. The most important matters pertaining to the well being and survival of our country are being decided by a majority of functional illiterates. Maybe someday, we’ll be smart enough to make voting in elections subject to some kind of standard besides being inside the borders. That is, if we survive.
Jake Tapper is not bad. For a libtard. He was incredibly fair to Donald Trump over the weekend when Trump called in.
These debates are so tiresome.
The format remains unchanged.
Having 16 people in one debate is absurd.
We had 8 in 2012 and that was almost unmanageable.
We had 10 for Fox and we all know how that turned out.
Now we will have 16.
Might as well have the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir up there.
All the debates do is get soundbites for the opposition and raise the profile of the media types conducting them.
“Put the Social Issues FRONT and CENTER ... “
I humbly disagree. Regardless of what is said in the debate, it will not be presented that way to the public.
It’s no win.
2 comments:
Hugh Hewitt is the other mod. I have very high hopes that he will ask significant questions which matter. His entire reputation is based on being a tough & fair interviewer and he has LOTs of experience with doing so. If he were to pull an M. Kelly, it would seriously damage his brand. Frankly, if he doesn’t ask some significant questions that people care about, I would consider that a fail on his part.
Carly should be in the main ‘debate’ no matter what the polls show.
Yes I’m counting on Hewitt to be professional. I believe Jake Tapper will. Carly Fiorina does deserve to be in the debate.
That said, if it's CNN they'll make the assumption the 'debate' is one more way for them to get facetime and maybe some 'points'. I don't believe any of these people care about the American people wanting to know something about the people they're voting for.
I hope Tapper is aware that Dem War Rooms that will offer up questions for his consideration - AND they ALWAYS throw in some obvious self serving clunkers as a way of pushing the less obvious questions they REALLY want chosen. *This techniques is a round-about way of buttering up the 'moderator' so he's proud of himself for throwing out the 'extreme bias' stuff. Hopefully Tapper has a clue how journalists are played for fools by democrats.
Hopefully he's not a Crowley... a corrupt paid off umpire...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.