Winnowing the Field for the Debate
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There are nine candidates running for President as Republicans who are participating in the debates. Several of them, I believe, have no chance of winning. While they have not dropped out, it's abundantly obvious that they aren't getting traction. Frankly, I'm tired of debates where the top candidates only have 30 to 60 seconds to talk because of all the other candidates.
So, legitimately and not just because you don't like candidate X, which candidates should stop getting debate invites? You can pick more than one.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Debates According to Fred — Comments (8) »
Winnowing the Field for the Debate 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Yeah, but doesn't Huckabee get a pass? It's been widely asserted on the left and right that he's had stellar debate performances and was able to pull close to Romney in Ames.
To me the debates don't matter much because I don't think they're influencing a whole lot of voters. And I think Huckabee's performance at Ames was deceptive, because he's got a depth/breadth ratio problem like Ron Paul's. The FairTax people love him to death, but there's no proportionate long tail of support for Huckabee that gradually tails off.
Beyond the FairTaxers he's indistinguishable from Brownback and Tancredo, and the FairTaxers support isn't going to scale, so Huckabee doesn't have a shot.
If we're going to leave people in because they debate well, Id' rather we invite a guy like Newt :-)
Ron Paul should be running as a libertarian...but he's a bit too extreme even for most libertarians in foreign policy and trade policy (in the sense that most libertarians support practical free trade as opposed to some pie-in-the-sky version that he wants, causing him to vote as protectionist as the worst D), so he'd probably lose there too.
“I am telling people loosen your ties, fire up the coffee pots, get ready for the weekend, ... We've got a lot of work to do.”
- John Bolton
NAFTA is thousands of pages of bureaucratic BS. Free trade means, no tariffs. Ron Paul is right on the subject.
None of those three have any compelling reason to claim any chance of the nomination. They need to go, and now.
Huckabee, who I still think should be taking a Senate run, has performed well enough in both previous debates and straw polls that he should be allowed to remain a bit longer.
He Who Shall Not Be Named should be allowed to remain in the debates for a few of reasons. First, he draws a sharp contrast with the other candidates. Second, his fundraising is on par with the other credible candidates. Third, the nut job fringe supporters scream conspiracy enough without him being excluded from anything.
One Caveat for him, and the others. Anyone participating in a REPUBLICAN primary debate should have to declare that they will support the nominee of the party, period. Anyone that wants to reserve the right to run as a fringe third party candidate, or withhold an endorsement of the party's nominee, should be shown the door.
and I pretty much agree with the reasoning you gave so now I won't have to type it all out myself :)
It's not even that I overly dislike Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter. There just isn't enough time in the debates to have any real substance with the stage so crowded.
I think candidates should have to demonstrate either 5% in the national polls or 10% in one of the pre-Nov.5th primaries in order to be included after Tuesday's debate. There are really only 3 candidates with a chance to win, but at least limiting it to the top 5 would help a lot.
Brownback, Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter should go. I personally like Hunter a lot on everything but trade, so I wouldn't mind him staying in, but I can't see any fair standard getting rid of the other 3 and keeping him in.
This way we'll be left with Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee, the only candidates with any kind of broad support.
How about using objective criteria, instead of personal opinion?
Polls: Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul are the only candidates who consistently poll above 1%. Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo have almost no support in the polls.
Fundraising: Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul, and McCain have shown fundraising prowess. Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter have shown no ability to raise enough money to compete.
Straw Polls: Paul, Thompson, and Romney have dominated the Republican straw polls around the country. Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback have struggled to get anyone out to support them. (See the straw polls section at RonPaul2008 dot com if you doubt me.)
Volunteers: Paul has 52,000 signed up in local meetup groups, but winnowing the debates to one candidate would be boring, even for Ron Paul supporters. Romney, Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo have shown some semblance of grassroots enthusiasm, so you could leave out McCain, Giuliani, Brownback, and Huckabee on this one.
Crowds: Ron Paul consistently draws crowds of 1000-1500 to hear his pro-freedom, limited government message. The other guys deserve an audience, too, so why not leave the debates open to everyone?
My opinion overall? No one has this locked up, and support for the four front-runners (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson) is very soft. Paul or Huckabee could still claim the nomination with a late surge. Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Keyes, and Cox should pack it in.
Actually, you're wrong on the straw poll front. Hunter has won the Arizona and Texas polls, whereas Paul, Huckabee, Tancredo, etc. have no victories or substantial finishes. Hunter, then, by your requirements, should get a pass.
Sorry, meant to leave Paul out of the victories category, he has won straw polls. My mistake.
Christian, not Christianist
Anyone who isn't profoundly underwhelmed by our choice of candidates is either a)living in a dreamworld or b)looking forward to a Hillary presidency.
Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is a good idea as a third party candidate either doesn't care that Hillary will then get to pick three or four SCOTUS judges or hasn't thought it out.
His libertarian independence is admirable, and a breath of fresh air, but theres no way the Christianist Right primary voters will give him even one vote. If anything , and im sorry to say this, hes the posterboy for a 3rd party candidacy.
Agreed. But much of the damage has already been done. Pretending things are just fine when they arent doesnt strike me as a classically conservative mindset.
If he wants to compete for the Republican nomination, fine. He's in. Let him debate, as I said above. If he intends to be a third party candidate, he needs to get off the Republican stage NOW.
This is a Republican Primary. Either he's a Republican, or he's not. He, and every other candidate, needs to answer the question of whether they will support the party's nominee, and forswear any attempt at a third party run. Anyone who will not, the exit is to the left.
Christianist Right primary voters
So I'm going to give you the opportunity to apologize for it.
------------
And with all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
For what exactly? Im going to guess you mean the word "Christianist". Sorry its a perfectly apt term for anyone who votes for candidates based on THEIR idea of what a "Good Christian" is. If you think its a good idea to once again choose a president because he says he loves Jesus, and you think this reflects what Washington, Jefferson, Madison et al had in mind, then good luck to you (and to us all). Not to mention Lincoln. Oh and I think Andrew Sullivan coined the phrase "Christianist" so go bother him.
We don't care who coined the phrase, we care who uses it here. And citing Andrew Sullivan for support of your position is going to earn you zero points around here.
So, blam.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
Your candidate must poll at 5% in at least one national or early state poll. That should give us the big five.
I haven't seen a state or national poll that has brownback, hunter, paul, or tancredo at 5% or more.
Now I'm talking SCIENTIFIC POLL not paid for straw poll.
Alan Keyes just jumped into the race just to get some more name recognition. I enjoy listening to him, but at the same time he has 0 chance, and I appreciate that you did not include him on the list, as he could not even make that cut. Same with John Cox. Thanks for that as well.
Maybe on the next poll, and all future polls, we can only include the few people (Fred, Guiliani, Mitt, and McCain) that have a chance. In this way, we are already helping to winnow the field.
Ron Paul is actually winning a poll without it being stuffed by his followers?
Disinvite anyone not named Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or McCain.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters