Because Fox has been vague about the criteria, it’s unclear which polls will be included. Does “standard methodological techniques” mean the polls must be conducted by live telephone interviewers? Automated phone polls wouldn’t help cull the field, since they can only ask about 10 candidates in the first place. But most think Fox is precluding polls conducted via the web from being a part of the average.Wait a minute! If Fox hasn't pre-revealed its methodology, it's reserving the power to choose who it wants in the top 10 first and identify the methodology later.
Will the network only use its own surveys and those from the other national news organizations (such as the ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls)? Or will that also include polls from academic institutions with a national footprint?
The schools with major polling arms aren’t even clear whether their surveys will be a part of the average. “[The Fox criteria] in no way affects our poll,” said Quinnipiac University pollster Doug Schwartz. “This recognition is nice, but we were not consulted nor did we ask to be included.”There are so many variations and so many different factors that might go into a decision about which one to use. As noted above, Fox could look at the different lists of 10 that different methodologies produce. It could pick the list of 10 it likes for reasons that have nothing to do with what's the better methodology. For example, it might think it's good to include the one woman and the one black person and to exclude the blustery billionaire. Does Fox care more about ratings or more about shaping the election?
More importantly: Whether the polls Fox includes will have loose or tight voter screens. That is, will the polls included only be those conducted among the most likely and committed primary voters and caucusgoers, or will they also include polls of broader, Republican-leaning Americans?
ADDED: As long as we're talking about polls, here's my poll:
Posts
64 comments:
Look back to 2008 when Fox excluded Ron Paul from their NH debate.
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/01/04/18639/fox-bans-paul/
They will find a way to exclude Trump if that's what they want.
If Fox announced which polls they would use in advance, might that perhaps influence someone at those polls to shade their results?
Divide the field in two non-randomly. Figure out which two groupings would make the best television. Then have two series of debates. Ten people is too much at one time, anyway.
I could care what Fox does. They will make the GOP look bad while supposedly trying to do otherwise.
Have three debates. Any given candidate can only attend two. Problem solved.
Fox is a business.
Ratings judgment.
Placing names in a hat is the modern form of pension award as well.
Fox cares about ratings first and foremost, just like every other media outlet.
But doesn't the RNC have something to say about the debates? Or is this entirely in Fox's hands?
The smartest way to handle the "too many candidates" issue is to simply break them up into smaller groups for the debates--there will be enough debates to ensure every candidate gets to debate several times, each time with a different group of opponents. Using polls is far too arbitrary, as many are within each others' margin of error and the numbers fluctuate constantly. This is not like previous cycles where you might have four or five candidates with solid numbers, and the remainder way down in low single digits. This time, most of them poll very close to each other and most are in single digits.
Break them up into smaller groups for the debates. There's no need to get everyone on stage together every time.
I thought one criteria was that the polls were to be national polls, not state polls.
"They will find a way to exclude Trump if that's what they want."
I can see the RNC wanting to exclude that fraud, but Fox? Fox would love the ratings that come with a famous loudmouth trashing the GOP nominees on live TV. Clinton wants this too.
Does anyone doubt that if the Clinton Foundation books ever got opened, we'd see that Trump was a major donor? I'm betting this whole candidacy of his is intended to sabotage the Republicans.
Break it into three debates. Take the best national poll possible. Go down the list counting 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, etc. Put all the ones together, all the twos etc. That way a mix of high polling and middle polling and low polling in each debate.
If you haven't filed the required paperwork, including financial paperwork, you're fired (and out).
14 GOP candidates is simply too many. Yes, each one is preferable to Hillary. But in the aggregate, it is too much. 6 or so should simply drop out now to winnow the field. By limiting the debate to 10, Fox is doing the GOP a favor.
"Fox is a business."
A business with short and long term interests. I think the calculation here is very hard to make, even if you lock into the proposition that Fox is a business.
That is, ratings for this one debate is of X value in the overall search for ratings.
Does Fox do better when a Democrat is President? I'm guessing yes.
And the question isn't what will work best for Fox but what Fox thinks is best.
From my perspective, Fox is unwatchable. From my current distance, not having watched Fox much since the Clinton presidency, it's just blowhards yelling at each other, with unpleasant men and glossily made-up women.
I don't expect Fox to move back into a zone that would get me as a viewer, and I'll watch the debate whatever it is. But if Trump bumps Kasich, for example, that will be really stupid.
"By limiting the debate to 10, Fox is doing the GOP a favor."
Let's say Fox wrecks Cruz, the candidate most likely to boost himself in the debate format. Is that a favor?
I don't see how you could possibly exclude Trump. Someone from the RNC, however, could coach him to turn his guns on Hillary rather than his fellow Republicans. I mean it's possible........Perhaps, after choosing the top five in the polls, Fx could be allowed to choose some candidates for reasons of diversity or to plug their Fox show that will come subsequent to the election.
I don't remember you analyzing the means, methods and motives of any other network debates. Am I wrong? If not, any special reason for the scrutiny?
As the polls stand now, the 5 in line to be bumped are Santorum, Fiorina, Kasich, Jindal, and Graham and the 2 on the cusp are Perry and Christie. But will it be better to be #11 than #10 on the Fox list? Trump, for one, would be better off bumped than included.
AA: "Let's say Fox wrecks Cruz, the candidate most likely to boost himself in the debate format. Is that a favor?"
Answer: Yes. Your premise is faulty. True, Cruz is likely the best debater, because of his experience arguing cases in the Texas Supreme Court and even SCOTUS. But all of the candidates think they will get the biggest boost from the debate. That is the problem. Many are mere creatures of the media. Unlike Walker, who accomplished something in Wisc, what has Santorum accomplished? Ditto Cason. Ditto Trump. Nice folks, Yes. But not serious about actually governing the country.
If you can't break into the Top 10, you should bow out gracefully.
As noted above, Fox's criteria should include weeding out non-serious contenders using the standard of "declared, with proper FEC paperwork," and eliminating anyone who has not done the necessary work to be on the ballot in each state (I've heard also they may use early primary states) and has an organization in place already for caucus states. THAT and sorting via national poling should help winnow the selection. And if they cannot get to ten using ONLY openly-declared criteria, then randomly shuffle into two groups.
Brando, Trump gave $100K to the Clinton Crime Family Fund in 2012 and he contributed to Hilary!'s campaign in 2008. That disqualifies him in my book. As does his past very public (what isn't with Donald?) "I'm quitting the stupid GOP" threats. Maybe he and Christy can have a separate nor-east semi-republican debate against each other and we let one blowhard into the real debates?
Most people are just watching for the Swimsuit Competition, anyway.
Salt and pepper with any Gov. Christie-in-a-swimsuit joke you please.
I am Laslo.
Bay Area said If you can't break into the Top 10, you should bow out gracefully.
If they were capable of such magnanimity and grace they wouldn't be in the race!
Hillary and Bill were at Trump's wedding, for Heaven's sake!!
If Trump were running as a stalking horse for Hillary, how would it look different?
Laslo's aside reminds me. Didn't Christie very publicly start a weight-loss regimen about two years ago...maybe even have surgery? I recall hearing he wanted to slim down for his run, and if so, his campaign is off to an awkward start, especially with that recent baseball uniform photo.
My choice is: "It doesn't matter who's in the GOP debates, because the party has no chance whatsoever in 2016."
"From my perspective, Fox is unwatchable. From my current distance, not having watched Fox much since the Clinton presidency, it's just blowhards yelling at each other, with unpleasant men and glossily made-up women."
Do tell us who you find watchable.
As for Fox, they will do as you say, what they perceive is in their interest which is the correct thing to do from a business point of view. If I were in charge at Fox that would be making sure that the polling be done among the most likely primary or caucus voters as those are the Republican party base and most likely to be the more likely Fox viewers.
You really need a "I WILL ACCEPT ANYTHING THAT KEEPS TRUMP OFF THE STAGE" option.
Here you go, Brando.
Trump money.
Calling Trump a Republican is a stretch.
Link didn't work. Try this:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/
"I don't remember you analyzing the means, methods and motives of any other network debates. Am I wrong? If not, any special reason for the scrutiny?"
I don't remember if I've blogged about particular exclusions in the past, but there is clearly a reason for scrutiny here, because the field is so large and important, serious candidates that we've been caring about are going to be excluded, and because Trump, who has no reasonable hope of becoming President, could displace important candidates like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and (I can't remember his first name) Kasich. Also, the female candidate and maybe the black candidate are likely to be excluded. The field needs to be thinned, but thinning by Fox News is a very questionable proposition and thinning by early polls is too much about who got in early and who's already very famous.
I think I could make a list of 10 "special reasons" for my scrutiny.
Trump loves himself some Hillary
Trump in the debates is going to be a beautiful thing. Hope he makes the cut!
Brando, Trump gave $100K to the Clinton Crime Family Fund in 2012 and he contributed to Hilary!'s campaign in 2008. That disqualifies him in my book. As does his past very public (what isn't with Donald?) "I'm quitting the stupid GOP" threats. Maybe he and Christy can have a separate nor-east semi-republican debate against each other and we let one blowhard into the real debates?
7/7/15, 8:45 AM
Mike Trump is a real estate developer in NYC. If you don't take care of the local politicians and their masters you have a business problem. Its not personal, just business. As for his saying I'm quitting the GOP as a lifelong Republican frankly I feel that way except that there is no alternative. He does have a point as for the most part, what Republican president or presidential candidate hasn't run on or acted as a better and more competent administrator of the welfare state? Even the great Reagan the only president I voted for instead just merely voting against the other guy didn't rollback the welfare state. Using your measure every GOP candidate is disqualified. I would like to see Trump in the debate since his shtick will force the other candidates to go to the right of him.
From my perspective, Fox is unwatchable. From my current distance, not having watched Fox much since the Clinton presidency...
Oh, ha ha, that was only fourteen ???? years ago?
You sound like you got your current opinion from reading what the NYT says about Fox. Or Zero.
Is Bret Baier a blowhard? Jesse Waters? Gretchen Carlson? Howard Kurtz? Laura Ingaham? Mara Liassen? Juan Williams? Dana Perino? Martha MacCallum? Judith Miller? Uma Pemaraju? Kirsten Powers? Greta Van Sustern?
All regulars. All unwatchable?
From my perspective, Fox is unwatchable. From my current distance, not having watched Fox much since the Clinton presidency, it's just blowhards yelling at each other, with unpleasant men and glossily made-up women.
Then you should watch the Greg Gutfeld show and Red Eye with Tom Shillue. Total change of pace.
They should invite everyone and have a five-hour debate. It should be a test of stamina.
garage mahal said...
Trump in the debates is going to be a beautiful thing. Hope he makes the cut!
7/7/15, 9:05 AM
Why yes indeed! I'm also waiting to enjoy the debate between Hillary the corrupt grifter and fascist and Sanders the communist.
Too bad those two won't be debating Trump. That I would pay to watch on pay per view.
Too bad those two won't be debating Trump
No, but Trump *will* be debating Republicans, and it is going to be glorious. Who will be the first Republican to ask Trump if his investigators in Hawaii have found anything yet on Obama's birth certificate? Who will be the first to defend Mexicans?
If the RNC had any balls, they would do the trimming themselves.
The only reasonable answer at this stage is more than one debate - as many as it takes - with 4-6 candidates in each, assigned by lot. Then mix them up for the next round. The field will be self-thinning as we go along.
Cable news has so much time to fill. They each should run presidential debates every night for a week.
Ann Althouse said...
and maybe the black candidate are likely to be excluded.
No tokenism here.
I think they should put the candidates on a tropical island & let them them vote the losers off until it's down to ten.
Just think of the viewing excitement when Ben Carson has to perform emergency neurosurgery on Rick Santorum using only surgical instruments made from sharpened oyster shells & coconut husks.
Jeb will be in Fox' Top Ten.
The Ten will be selected through strict application of the Ailes Method.
As a heads up, Bernie Sanders said that cervical cancer is caused by a lack of orgasms.
Haven't seen that mentioned a lot. Wonder why.
As noted above, Fox's criteria should include weeding out non-serious contenders using the standard of "declared, with proper FEC paperwork," and eliminating anyone who has not done the necessary work to be on the ballot in each state (I've heard also they may use early primary states) and has an organization in place already for caucus states. THAT and sorting via national poling should help winnow the selection. And if they cannot get to ten using ONLY openly-declared criteria, then randomly shuffle into two groups.
That sounds like an eminently fair and logical way of sorting out the non-serious from the serious candidates. If you’re running for President for real (as opposed to just looking for national media attention) then you need to do the work to make sure you’re on the ballot in each of the States and have an organization in place to run your ground game.
Maybe they should poll people disproportionately from states that actually vote Republican. All I know is Ted Cruz better be in it, or the motherfucker is going to burn.
They should have one debate with the governors and former governors, one debate with the senators and former senators, and one debate with those who've never been elected to anything before.
They should have one debate with the governors and former governors, one debate with the senators and former senators, and one debate with those who've never been elected to anything before.
So the breakdown would be something like this:
Governors Debate: Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich and George Pataki.
Senators Debate: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum
Others: Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiona.
You're right about the wiggle room inherent in FoxNews approach. They can pretty much cherry pick the polls to get the result they want.
Unfortunately for us, the problem isn't the number of candidates on the stage, it is the goofy questions that will be asked in the course of the so-called debate.
How will Fox determine...?
Dunno. But my first thought was a mind-link between Presidential candidate debates and the Miss Universe contest - over-hyped and controlled events which tell us little of import.
"Hillary and Bill were at Trump's wedding, for Heaven's sake!!"
All of them ???
OMG!
Fox has painted itself into a corner on the debates. The only fair thing to do is to have more than one. Maybe a round robin elimination.
No tokenism here.
Fuck off. Seriously.
The Democrats are running 3 white guys and a white woman.
I'm not even a Republican but the idea of tokenism for Carson is ridiculous. It's the same thing leveled at Cain, J.C. Watts, or any minority Republican who strays far from the field of minority groupthink required by the Democratic party.
EMD said...
Fuck off. Seriously.
Moron. It wasn't simply that Althouse couldn't be bothered to make the effort to remember the guys name but she referred to him as the 'black' candidate, not the neurosurgeon or the doctor or some other descriptive, just the generic 'black'. Clearly Althouse sees him as a token. If you you have an issue with that direct it to the correct person. Moron.
ARM, I don't think you are being honest about your comment. Democrats immediately are contemptuous of black and other minority conservatives. They (and you) consider it "false consciousness.' The hatred directed at Clarence Thomas is simply amazing. You should read his book.
"ARM, I don't think you are being honest about your comment. Democrats immediately are contemptuous of black and other minority conservatives."
No freaking kidding. If there is not a minority repub candidate, it's evidence of their racism. If there is a minority repub candidate, ditto.
Magnificent goods from you, man. I've consider your stuff previous to and you are just extremely excellent. I actually like what you've received right here, really like what you're stating and the way in which wherein you are saying it. You make it entertaining and you continue to care for to keep it sensible.
bv treatment over the counter info
AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said...
and maybe the black candidate are likely to be excluded.
No tokenism here.
You're right. Ben Carson is actually qualified. Unlike the token you put in the White House.
Alright, here is my solution. Make the debates into a tournament. We could call it the GOP Nationals. Start with two days of round-robin rounds, judged by a three person panel, that would rank each candidate, then move on to the elimination rounds, whittling down the field, until we where left with one person standing. Everyone likes tournaments. We might even be able to start office pools.
Michael K said...
ARM, I don't think you are being honest about your comment.
I don't think you are being honest about what Althouse wrote, you are deflecting into ad hominem. I simply pointed out that Althouse views Carson as a token. Take it up with Althouse, but it is clearly a more broadly held view.
Alito is also a target for intense criticism, is that because he is Italian? Everything else you said is deflection.
"Fox has painted itself into a corner on the debates. The only fair thing to do is to have more than one. Maybe a round robin elimination."
I'm not sure how "elimination" would happen--anyone dropping in the polls after the early debates does not make it to the next level? That would have the same problems as relying on the polls would now. On the other hand, simply having a series of debates with smaller numbers of participants would give everyone a chance for exposure without creating a several hour debate where we see twenty people answering the same question.
As the primaries get under way, and fundraising numbers come in, I'm sure we'll see a lot of these people drop out as the money dries up. But for this early stage, it's the only reasonable and fair solution.
"Alito is also a target for intense criticism, is that because he is Italian?"
Alito and Scalia are both Italians, and while they certainly get criticized from the Left a lot, I have yet to hear anyone complaining that they sold out Italian-Americans or aren't "authentically" Italian Americans. Clarence Thomas however has had his race brought into the Left's criticism of him repeatedly.
Did Bush Sr. pick Thomas for the Court in part due to his being black? I don't deny that--any president replacing Thurgood Marshall would have been hard pressed to replace him with a white Justice, and Thomas had solid conservative credentials at that time (and proved to maintain them since). But this is no different from admitting that Barack Obama was nominated by Democrats in part due to his being black--if you think the exact same person but a white version would have won their hearts in 2008 you're kidding yourself.
Rusty said...
Unlike the token you put in the White House.
This is what racialism looks like. After beating the Clintons once and the Republicans twice, easily, you stil cannot accept that he is an outstanding politician in his own right. Currently he is the most successful Democrat president since LBJ. If Hillary is elected he will be the most successful since FDR.
Post a Comment