The 9 p.m. debate will include the 10 candidates with the highest average in national polls, as determined by Fox News. The 5 p.m. forum will now include all the rest.
According to a POLITICO analysis of the latest national polling, the prime-time participants today would be Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rick Perry.
The next three, who would currently be relegated to 5 p.m., are Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. They are followed by Fiorina, Pataki and Graham....
२९ जुलै, २०१५
"Fox News is opening its 5 p.m. debate to all the announced Republican candidates who fail to make the cut for the Aug. 6 prime-time event..."
"... removing a requirement that participants reach at least 1 percent in polling. The change amounts to an insurance policy for candidates who were in danger of being disqualified from the vital first debate based on low polls...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
To prep them for when they debate Putin, or Merkel, in an open forum, no doubt.
A Fox News debate for Fox News viewers based on polling numbers driven by Fox News and how much air time/coverage they give to any particular candidate, and how they frame the coverage.
The ones at 5 are the lucky ones. No Trump.
I am waiting for trump to say that, nah, he does not have time to waste on that debate foolishness.
I hope he does.
Since it's for soap opera women, it will be soap opera bits.
only Trump is capable of getting off a zinger in the time allowed.
I'm so grateful for this as there is no other outlet for these candidates to communicate to voters.
I have a fresh tape in the VCR ready to go.
How can anything with ten participants be called a debate?
The 5 PM slot will be great for candidates who want to appeal to older viewers, so long as it doesn't run up against a Law and Order rerun.
Maybe they could do a third tier debate, airing at 3 AM so they could appeal to the stoned college kid demographic.
Fox should host all of the GOP debates and I would want them to host the national debates too as this is the best chance to have "fair and balanced" debates. The MSM have shown themselves to be "unbalanced and unfair"...
"How can anything with ten participants be called a debate?"
It's more a joint press conference with pre-selected questions. Democracy!
How about a debate tournament? Seeded by poll numbers. Trump would debate Graham. Jeb! vs. Pataki, etc.
Winner would move to the next round of debates.
Affirmative action for Carly.
Hillary with Sanders as VP can't lose against the inept horde, who continue to attack each other instead of her.
God help save the Republic, for President Hillary will have no mercy on it.
The issue becomes how to spend your 9 or 10 minutes. Appearances will be critical, because they will have more time to look pretty than to actually speak.
It will be useful to see how they redirect the questions onto the topics they think are important. Given the time constraints, rambling non-answers are not an option. Clear and direct talk will be a must.
"Hillary with Sanders as VP can't lose against the inept horde, who continue to attack each other instead of her."
I've resigned myself to this. Only the GOP could have saved Hillary's chances, and they're proving they will do exactly that.
For all the mockery this is the best solution to the convoluted circumstance. Good job.
That "No person but a natural born Citizen is "ELIGIBLE" (i.e is able to be considered) for POTUS is a self executing Constitutional provision imposed on the states.
Rubio, Cruz, and Jindal are NATURALIZED by 8 US Code S. 1401. They are "naturalized after birth" (not within the womb or birth canal) by any means", according to 7FAM State Dept. regulations (naturalized by 8 US Code 1401 itself, which was enacted by Congress within its power to enact uniform rules of naturalization).
Jindal and Rubio would not have been considered even US Citizens at birth if born before 1898 (When Wong Kim Ark held that the children of legal resident aliens are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are US Citizens "as much as the natural born child of a citizen", quoting Binney's "Allegianae") --- See Wong Kim Ark @ 693.
Cruz would not have been considered a US Citizen if born before 1922 (When the Cable Act allowed women to pass US Citizenship to their children born in foreign countries of non US Citizen fathers).
If they would not have been even a citizen until 1898 or 1922, then they cannot be natural born Citizens today, since A2S1C5 has never been amended, and cannot be considered amended by Congressional Naturalization legislation.
Logic is the killer of lies, and Constitutional relativism.
Fox should have a lottery and seed 3 or 4 debates randomly from the results of the lottery, with no emphasis on where the candidate is in the polls today. It is up to the people to decide who rises in the polls, not up to Fox or anyone else to pre-emptively cull the herd.
But this is an improvement on the original decision. At least all candidates will be heard.
Another possibility is to do it bracket-style, like MOTUS.
Seriously, this is a HUGE opportunity for Trump to act presidential before an audience of people who are more likely to vote in primaries. A presidential look, plus some specifics on his agenda, could make a (I won't say HUGE) big difference to how he is perceived.
But, what do I know?
Boy is this dumb. Ignore. Let's see what happens in the first primaries; a few of the candidates will become relevant and the rest will drop out.
Candidates should decline to participate. I would hold it in their favor.
So if i want to hear Carly, Cruz, Walker, Bobby and Ben, and maybe Marco, I have to sit through two of these fiascos? No thanks.
Looking at my list, I am saddened by the lack of diversity among Republican candidates. LOL.
"Candidates should decline to participate. I would hold it in their favor."
They can't though, just as they can't skip the early primaries--every chance to get in front of possible donors can't be passed up.
The party should consider whether these are really the best way to vet candidates--I'm not against a form of public debate per se, but the way these are currently set up they really become more an audition for a future Fox TV show.
hombre said...
"So if i want to hear Carly, Cruz, Walker, Bobby and Ben, and maybe Marco, I have to sit through two of these fiascos? No thanks".
Yeah, well 3 of your "candidates", Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal, are not even eligible natural born Citizens.
A presidential look, plus some specifics on his agenda, could make a (I won't say HUGE) big difference to how he is perceived.
I agree. Not that he needs much help, leading the GOP hopefuls in general popularity and among Hispanics, but yes, Trump could emerge even stronger than he is now.
I think the debate could also be a negative for Trump but considering the small amount of time allotted to each candidate I believe the advantage goes toward the candidates who are effective giving short, pithy answers and that would be non other than … Trump.
The should seed them like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, and then break them into 2 even conferences (1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 17, 20) and (2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19) or something. That way, both debates would be more balanced, and hopefully interesting. With a fair mixture of serious and speculative candidates in each one. It would probably help the ratings, and give lots of pundit / audience fodder for their own debates about performances (real and imaginary).
Kristian Holvoet said...
The should seed them like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, and then break them into 2 even conferences (1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 17, 20) and (2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19) or something. That way, both debates would be more balanced, and hopefully interesting. With a fair mixture of serious and speculative candidates in each one. It would probably help the ratings, and give lots of pundit / audience fodder for their own debates about performances (real and imaginary).
7/29/15, 1:25 PM
I think that is a good idea but to make it fair, they would need to do them both at the same time, record one and broadcast one, then play the recorded one right after. That way no candidate gets an advantage to see the other groups answers/responses.
Randomly draw for who is in group A and who in group B. Same style and questions.
Why not just produce a reality show with the candidates? They can be required each week to participate in some group projects, where we get to see how well they work with others and who seems to "take charge" among the group. Seeing them interact and go through their daily lives while campaigning against each other would be far more revealing than a scripted debate. It could also humanize some of them.
Plus, think of the ratings! And no candidate would refuse to do it, for fear of not being able to get attention they so sorely need.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा