Posted on 05/22/2015 2:36:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a new press release, Fox News announced that the first Republican presidential debate will feature only candidates who average in the top 10 in the most recent polls, in a field where well over a dozen candidates are expected to run. (RELATED: Who Gets In The Primary Debates? A Serious Question For Republicans)
Fox News will host the first Republican presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio on August 6, in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party and Facebook. One of the requirements for debate participants is that they “must place in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by FOX News leading up to August 4th.”
Six Republicans have already announced their candidacy for president (Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee). Four other candidates (Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and George Pataki) plan to make announcements one way or the other in the near future, and six more have taken formal steps toward running for president (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker).
The end result is that as many as six candidates could be excluded from the first debate, assuming none drop out, there are no ties, and no dark horses emerge.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Are there ANY trustworthy polls?
Don’t think so!
“This is wrong.”
Agreed.
I can’t see doing this early in the game, because one of the “dark horse” candidates could end up being one of the first five later.
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.
The assumption is that these are legitimate candidates.
A good many of them are just spoilers (Graham in order to split SC for JBush)
Or
fincial opportunists (rand paul, Huckabee)
or
just plain useful idiots splitting votes (Jindal, Fiorina, carson etc.)
The only legit candidates are less than five. Three if one wants to be hardcore.
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.