Capping the GOP Debates at 12?

[Mac1958]

Whoa, I've been wondering about this. Imagine the drama of who gets in and who doesn't:

GOP candidates could be bumped from primary debates - Eli Stokols and Dylan Byers - POLITICO

“Our goal is to accommodate as many candidates as possible at the beginning,” said Steve Duprey, the New Hampshire committeeman who chairs the RNC’s 2016 debate committee. “I think there’s consensus to cap it between nine and 12. And we may not need more than that, depending on how the contest goes. Each of the media partners may have different criteria and they’re going to evolve.”

And here, Charlie Cook reports that at least 7 of the candidates can be considered to have a very plausible chance of winning the nomination:

The 2016 Republican Primary Will Be Impossible to Predict - NationalJournal.com

Tightening the focus a little more, a March Pew Research survey of Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents asked respondents whether there was a "good chance," "some chance," or "no chance" that they would vote for 10 different candidates. An astonishing seven different candidates had between 21 and 23 percent of respondents saying "good chance": Bush, Rubio, and Walker tied for first place with 23 percent, Huckabee and Cruz were next with 22 percent, and Paul and Carson followed at 21 percent. That's a very tight pack.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It all about the math.

If you have 20 candidates and 60 minutes they each get less than 3 minutes. That is barely enough time for a single question and follow up. No opening or closing statements allowed.

Expanding the debates into 90 minute or 2 hour marathons risks losing the viewers. There is only so much anyone can actually watch at a time unless you a FauxNoise addict.

The Networks aren't going to be catering to that demographic so they will only schedule whatever works for their prime time schedules.

Realistically the longest you could go is 90 minutes. If everyone on stage gets a minute for an opening and closing statement and you have 12 people on stage you have already lost at least 30 of your 90 minutes. That leaves you with 60 minutes which is 5 minutes per candidate for questions and answers.

Capping at 12 is simply being realistic.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Whoa, I've been wondering about this. Imagine the drama of who gets in and who doesn't:

GOP candidates could be bumped from primary debates - Eli Stokols and Dylan Byers - POLITICO

“Our goal is to accommodate as many candidates as possible at the beginning,” said Steve Duprey, the New Hampshire committeeman who chairs the RNC’s 2016 debate committee. “I think there’s consensus to cap it between nine and 12. And we may not need more than that, depending on how the contest goes. Each of the media partners may have different criteria and they’re going to evolve.”

And here, Charlie Cook reports that at least 7 of the candidates can be considered to have a very plausible chance of winning the nomination:

The 2016 Republican Primary Will Be Impossible to Predict - NationalJournal.com

Tightening the focus a little more, a March Pew Research survey of Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents asked respondents whether there was a "good chance," "some chance," or "no chance" that they would vote for 10 different candidates. An astonishing seven different candidates had between 21 and 23 percent of respondents saying "good chance": Bush, Rubio, and Walker tied for first place with 23 percent, Huckabee and Cruz were next with 22 percent, and Paul and Carson followed at 21 percent. That's a very tight pack.

Wise up, it's all just a game, nothing more. Regardless of who wins, it'll be "politics as usual". We'll still face the same problems, still not have solutions, and the "fat cats" of Washington will get fatter. Voters aren't going to change their habits or voting routine. So, really, what difference does it make? All of this campaign BS is nothing more than fodder for conversations and debates. In the end, we'll be right back at square one complaining, and blaming one party or the other. How long will it take folks to figure out the game?

 

[Mac1958]

Whoa, I've been wondering about this. Imagine the drama of who gets in and who doesn't:

GOP candidates could be bumped from primary debates - Eli Stokols and Dylan Byers - POLITICO

“Our goal is to accommodate as many candidates as possible at the beginning,” said Steve Duprey, the New Hampshire committeeman who chairs the RNC’s 2016 debate committee. “I think there’s consensus to cap it between nine and 12. And we may not need more than that, depending on how the contest goes. Each of the media partners may have different criteria and they’re going to evolve.”

And here, Charlie Cook reports that at least 7 of the candidates can be considered to have a very plausible chance of winning the nomination:

The 2016 Republican Primary Will Be Impossible to Predict - NationalJournal.com

Tightening the focus a little more, a March Pew Research survey of Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents asked respondents whether there was a "good chance," "some chance," or "no chance" that they would vote for 10 different candidates. An astonishing seven different candidates had between 21 and 23 percent of respondents saying "good chance": Bush, Rubio, and Walker tied for first place with 23 percent, Huckabee and Cruz were next with 22 percent, and Paul and Carson followed at 21 percent. That's a very tight pack.

Wise up, it's all just a game, nothing more. Regardless of who wins, it'll be "politics as usual". We'll still face the same problems, still not have solutions, and the "fat cats" of Washington will get fatter. Voters aren't going to change their habits or voting routine. So, really, what difference does it make? All of this campaign BS is nothing more than fodder for conversations and debates. In the end, we'll be right back at square one complaining, and blaming one party or the other. How long will it take folks to figure out the game?

That will certainly be true on a macro level as long as we turn a blind eye to the way money controls our politics.

It will still be interesting to watch how the drama here unfolds from a logistical standpoint.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There are now two announced candidates who have signaled their desire to repeal citizens united....thereby limiting the influence of money in political campaigns. They have stated that a litmus test for nominating Supreme Court justices will be the intention to reverse that decision.

Any guesses as to which "side" these two candidates are on?

 

[Derideo_Te]

There are now two announced candidates who have signaled their desire to repeal citizens united....thereby limiting the influence of money in political campaigns. They have stated that a litmus test for nominating Supreme Court justices will be the intention to reverse that decision.

Any guesses as to which "side" these two candidates are on?

The side of the We the People?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Whoa, I've been wondering about this. Imagine the drama of who gets in and who doesn't:

GOP candidates could be bumped from primary debates - Eli Stokols and Dylan Byers - POLITICO

“Our goal is to accommodate as many candidates as possible at the beginning,” said Steve Duprey, the New Hampshire committeeman who chairs the RNC’s 2016 debate committee. “I think there’s consensus to cap it between nine and 12. And we may not need more than that, depending on how the contest goes. Each of the media partners may have different criteria and they’re going to evolve.”

And here, Charlie Cook reports that at least 7 of the candidates can be considered to have a very plausible chance of winning the nomination:

The 2016 Republican Primary Will Be Impossible to Predict - NationalJournal.com

Tightening the focus a little more, a March Pew Research survey of Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents asked respondents whether there was a "good chance," "some chance," or "no chance" that they would vote for 10 different candidates. An astonishing seven different candidates had between 21 and 23 percent of respondents saying "good chance": Bush, Rubio, and Walker tied for first place with 23 percent, Huckabee and Cruz were next with 22 percent, and Paul and Carson followed at 21 percent. That's a very tight pack.

Wise up, it's all just a game, nothing more. Regardless of who wins, it'll be "politics as usual". We'll still face the same problems, still not have solutions, and the "fat cats" of Washington will get fatter. Voters aren't going to change their habits or voting routine. So, really, what difference does it make? All of this campaign BS is nothing more than fodder for conversations and debates. In the end, we'll be right back at square one complaining, and blaming one party or the other. How long will it take folks to figure out the game?

That will certainly be true on a macro level as long as we turn a blind eye to the way money controls our politics.

It will still be interesting to watch how the drama here unfolds from a logistical standpoint.

.

Drama or farce?

Some of it is going to be grandstanding because they don't have a serious chance so they are just trying to bring topics to the table.

I am not expecting the same kind of entertainment we had in 2012. Then again it is hard to predict what some of them will say given what has happened in the past.

There is going to be some kind of "vetting" by the RNC and maybe some horse trading behind the scenes promising cushy jobs to the whackier candidates to keep them out of the limelight.

 

[candycorn]

It's a lot of fun....

On January 19, Princess Phebus gave this quote on RWNJ radio:

"In a radio interview on the "Hugh Hewitt Show" Monday, the conservative host asked Priebus how the debates would work if there were 20 candidates vying to be heard.

“You can’t,” Priebus said. “You can’t do 20 people. … You have to have certain thresholds in place, so you have to be at 1 percent of the vote in Iowa, and that threshold can move like a slide rule based on the proximity to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries, just like it did before.”

Priebus said the thresholds would be determined in coordination between the RNC and the media outlet conducting the debate and that none of the minimum requirements had yet been set."

This sets up beautifully for the Democrats and liberals. Here is the calendar for the debates going into Iowa.

August 6, 2015
Republican Primary Debate
Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH

September 16, 2015
Reagan Library Republican Debate
Aired On: CNN and Salem Radio
Location: Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA

October, 2015 Republican Primary Debate
Aired On: CNBC
Location: Colorado

November, 2015 Republican Primary Debate
Aired On: Fox Business Network
Location: Wisconsin

December, 2015 Republican Primary Debate
Aired On: CNN
Location: Nevada

January, 2016 Republican Primary Debate
Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: Iowa
Sponsors: Fox News

Most of the candidates have zero chance of winning and they know this. However, their nutjob followers do not. The novelty of becoming a 3rd party nominee in this atmosphere is almost certainly too much to resist for egomaniacs like Cruz and maybe Paul. Look, the RWNJs gave about a million dollars to a baker in Indiana who basically lied to them; imagine how many will line up to give money over to Teddy Cruz....lotsa fun.

For what it's worth, Princess isn't blaming the 20 losers who are running and thus causing this rift to almost certainly widen...he's blaming the "liberal media" of course.

 

[william the wie]

Maybe I heard wrong but Walker as a farmbelt governor is the one to beat in Iowa and with that for momentum it looks like about 3 to 1 that Hillary will beat Walker by 2-4 EC votes in 11/16

 

[Nyvin]

It turns out Citizens United is working against the GOP in almost every way possible for the White House....Clinton is amassing tons and tons of cash, nullifying any competition she might have had. Meanwhile all the nutty conservative mega donors are keeping all the unelectable candidates in the running creating a mess for the GOP primary.

 

[JoshuaZ]

It all about the math.

If you have 20 candidates and 60 minutes they each get less than 3 minutes. That is barely enough time for a single question and follow up. No opening or closing statements allowed.

Expanding the debates into 90 minute or 2 hour marathons risks losing the viewers. There is only so much anyone can actually watch at a time unless you a FauxNoise addict.

The Networks aren't going to be catering to that demographic so they will only schedule whatever works for their prime time schedules.

Realistically the longest you could go is 90 minutes. If everyone on stage gets a minute for an opening and closing statement and you have 12 people on stage you have already lost at least 30 of your 90 minutes. That leaves you with 60 minutes which is 5 minutes per candidate for questions and answers.

Capping at 12 is simply being realistic.

Yeah. This is essentially accurate. Even the last Presidential primary with a lot fewer candidates they had trouble with the debates due to the number of candidates. Even 15 would be insane. There's just no reasonable way to do this.