Posted on 05/18/2015 10:57:59 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Three months before the first official Republican presidential debate—and with as many as 19 potential GOP candidates—party leaders are struggling to figure out how many can plausibly fit on one stage.
Last week Politico reported a “behind-the-scenes” consensus at the Republican National Committee spring meeting that the first few debates should be capped at 12 candidates. But the confab concluded without any final decisions as to how the culling should occur.
Quantitative measures proposed so far include the candidates’ standing in state and national polls, the number of campaign events and campaign staff members, elective office experience, and fundraising. And while the party would never cop to engaging in affirmative action, some suspect that the formula will be tweaked in ways that ensure gender and racial diversity on the debate stage.
Yet somebody will have to be excluded, and the RNC is already sweating the likely backlash. Last year the RNC triumphantly seized control of the debates to make sure "grassroots conservatives have a greater voice in the presidential primary debate process," unlike in 2012 when “the liberal media interrogated our candidates on issues that were often not a priority to most Americans.” Reports now indicate the party is looking to pawn off final approval of the eligibility criteria onto the partnering media organizations in hopes of deflecting any blame.
The RNC should worry. Any sort of complicated, opaque, bureaucratic formula would not only arouse suspicion, but would also come across as (gasp) liberal. Republican debate rules should be rooted in conservatism: Simple, clear and unflinchingly firm. Reward winners. Don’t coddle losers.
How do you accomplish that? Boil it down to the one objective measure that really matters before the first vote is cast: money. Here’s the only criterion the RNC needs: Only let on stage the top 12 fundraisers.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
12 is still too many. In a two hour debate each candidate would get only 10 minutes to express themselves.
The GOP-E would just love that.
It will be a real freak show.
All this GOP outreach program needs is a Chinese and Muslim
candidate.
I agree and just sent another another couple of shekels to TED CRUZ.
If crazy haired donald wants to self fund in order to get on the first staged debate, that's OK with me.
Our guy will make the top twelve in terms of dollars and if he doesn't, we will know that there aren't enough of us to matter.
Then I'll spend my money on ammo.
Let the people decide. Every $100 donated during a certain time period would be a vote for that candidate being included and would go to their campaign. But only in $100 increments from verified voters.
On that basis, Rick Santorum, who won the Iowa caucus in 2012 wouldn’t even have been invited.
Otherwise, using the amount of money raised as a measure of who gets to participate in debates will turn out to be just another scam rigged in favor of the GOPe.
What would you propose?
Oh right, let polls and the establishment decide who is on stage... what could go wrong?
12 is too many but the first criteria should be announced candidates, the second should be poll standings and the third should be an ability to raise money. The GOP-E will probably do whatever it takes to stop before Senator Cruz is selected even if the number of debaters is one or if the debates have to be cancelled.
SIMPLE. Get a policritter to define his position on all the so called “issues...” Frankly on the republican side, it should only be about the constitution....period. In any event, if they are all claiming to be republican and they don’t measure up in a clear declaration of their position, then out the door.
It is either that simple, or it’s not and we are lost.
.02, YMMV
KYPD
“What would you propose?”
Final 4 format. Winners of their bracket is determined by donations of $100. This will eliminate liberals. In addition, donations must be matched up with registered Republicans.
Keep narrowing it down until 4 are left. then 2 debates. One on economic issues and one on international issues.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS TO THE FOLLOWING--
1. Who will immediately take action on reversing unconstitutional executive orders, including illegally issued acceleration to resident status for illegals?
2. Who will put all our resources into securing the border?
3. Who will scrap the tax code and make fair tax a priority?
4. Who will hold Washington bureaucrats legally and criminally accountable for violating the rights of American citizens?
5. Who will stop Iran from further development of a nuclear program?
Thank you. The rest of you are dismissed. Now let's get down to business.
Saying that money should be the criteria rather than votes is one of the things wrong with the Republican Party today.
Better, chuck the whole idea of “debates.” One, they are not debates. Two, they serve to showcase the one or two candidates the leftist interlocutors are interested in. Three, only leftist interlocutors need apply. What possible good can come from debates for which the DNC chooses the interlocutors? If there were no more than three candidates then the Reagan or Cruz among them can spar successfully with the competition and with the leftist interlocutor.
Also anybody that has not actually announced that they are running should not be allowed on the debate stage.
I have a solution:
Winner-take-all cage match. 12 men enter, one man leaves. Welcome to Thunderdome!
I think there should be no more than six on a stage and there should be another six on another stage, and so on until all the candidates are particiopating. These debates should be done simultaneously with the same questions for each panel, and aired consectuvively over 3 nights.
After that first debate, those candidates who receive the most individual contributions whould continue to the next round, narrowing the field to six.
It seems fair to give them all one chance to be heard by the public. Their performance and voter response in contributions will then determine their inclusion or exclusion in the rest of the debate series.
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.