Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"..top New Hampshire Republicans who said the CNN and Fox formats are “unnecessarily narrow and risks eliminating potentially viable candidates based on unreliable national polling that is rarely predictive of primary election outcomes.”
Instead, they proposed:
1) staging two equal debates with seven or eight candidates apiece;
2) take the top six politicians in the polls and put three in each forum, then randomly assign the others."
Do you like it? They all get to participate. There are 2 debates. Three of the Top 6 candidates are randomly assigned to one debate, the other three are assigned to the other debate. Then the remaining candidates are randomly assigned to one of the two debates. They could draw the names out if a hat to add to the suspense (and Fox News ratings).
Seriously with the assorted sampling methodologies and varying margins of error, the current system can exclude people statistically tied with those that make it.
Not a bad idea at all. I want to hear what they all have to say,but I certainly don't think we would want all on the stage at the same time. I even think 10 is a bit too many: that idea would serve the purpose of exposing all canidates, giving them all a say and still limiting how many each debate will have.
"..top New Hampshire Republicans who said the CNN and Fox formats are “unnecessarily narrow and risks eliminating potentially viable candidates based on unreliable national polling that is rarely predictive of primary election outcomes.”
Instead, they proposed:
1) staging two equal debates with seven or eight candidates apiece;
2) take the top six politicians in the polls and put three in each forum, then randomly assign the others."
Do you like it? They all get to participate. There are 2 debates. Three of the Top 6 candidates are randomly assigned to one debate, the other three are assigned to the other debate. Then the remaining candidates are randomly assigned to one of the two debates. They could draw the names out if a hat to add to the suspense (and Fox News ratings).
Seriously with the assorted sampling methodologies and varying margins of error, the current system can exclude people statistically tied with those that make it.
Not a bad idea at all. I want to hear what they all have to say,but I certainly don't think we would want all on the stage at the same time. I even think 10 is a bit too many: that idea would serve the purpose of exposing all canidates, giving them all a say and still limiting how many each debate will have.
Plus, since there will be 3 of the Top 6 in each of the 2 debates, it won't make one of the debate groups feel like the kid's table at a holiday dinner. Too bad Fox News isn't listening to the New Hampshire Republicans. See, I think Fox News didn't want 2 debates because for some plausible reason they think their after-debate analysis of the Top 10 (according to them and the way they stack it) debate will be a bigger deal ratings-wise than a second debate with a low tier of candidates that will have people changing the channel. If they had considered the NH suggestion, they wouldn't 1) have that problem and 2) wouldn't have voters mad at them for thinking who is some news organization to think it's their job to winnow the field and treat the "don't make its" like marginalized trash based on polls with different methodologies and large margins of error so much so that candidates that make it and those that don't could be statistically tied.
The debates usually focus one one aspect, like foreign policy or domestic policy or fiscal policy. If the debates are equal, then there would necessarily be two debates on two different nights on one topic, like foreign policy.
Wouldn't the second debate on foreign policy (or any other subject) necessarily draw in lower ratings from the viewing public?
Don't they usually do themed later debates? I'm thinking if this first one was themed, we viewers and the candidates would know. Have you heard anything about a topic?
FOX August 6, 2015 9pm ET - Republican Primary Debate
Rules: Top 10 candidates in an average of 5 national polls
Candidates: To be determined
Notes: Fox News has added a candidate forum at 1pm ET the same day for candidates who don't make the debate cut
CNN September 16, 2015
Rules: Split field into Segment B (top 10 candidates) and Segment A (remaining candidates getting at least 1% in polls)
Don't they usually do themed later debates? I'm thinking if this first one was themed, we viewers and the candidates would know. Have you heard anything about a topic?
To be honest, I am probably mixing up the national presidential debates of 2012 between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney with the Republican presidential debates among the candidates running for the Republican nomination.
However, I can still imagine the debates comprised of the lower polling candidates pulling in less viewership than the debates featuring the A-Listers. I'd suggest to the debate organizers that if they go with debates that feature alternating candidates then they should provide a better mix wherein they rank all candidates by poll results (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n) and then alternate the debates between even pollers and odd pollers (e.g. 1, 3, 5, ..., n and 2, 4, 6, ..., n). This will give a more fair chance at national exposure to the candidates who are lower in the polls. Additionally, when the field gets narrowed down later in the campaign season, the pool of candidates will be small enough that all remaining could all participate in the same debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
