What Role (if any) will networks have in selecting GOP Debate Attendees?

[candycorn]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chris Christy should challenge Hillary

 

[TheOldSchool]

Ask if they believe in evolution, and whoever most creatively dodges the question wins.

 

[Statistikhengst]

CNN has set the bar at an aggregate of 10% in GOP nomination polling, if I recall. Anyone under that =

Or they can flip a coin....

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, I heartily support Ted Cruz starting a third party.

And people need to go support him at tedcruz.com !!!

 

[TheOldSchool]

CNN has set the bar at an aggregate of 10% in GOP nomination polling, if I recall. Anyone under that =

Or they can flip a coin....

I hope the major nutters vote so we get to watch the Santorum show

 

[Statistikhengst]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

You forgot John Kasich and Don Trump!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

CNN has set the bar at an aggregate of 10% in GOP nomination polling, if I recall. Anyone under that =

Or they can flip a coin....

I hope the major nutters vote so we get to watch the Santorum show

Eeew, what a frothy mix.

 

[Pogo]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

I don't get the last line. Why would they much rather have that?

As far as the thread question, they'd probably like to have a lot of say in what will sell, which is after all what they exist for, but a better question is who gets to set up the debates. They used to be sponsored by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but that organization got fed up of being dictated to by the two major party (singular intentional) who have a long history of collusion to control the dialogue and more importantly, to keep out competitors....

They issued this press release in 1988:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
​

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[9]

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. (Source: Wiki)​

It's been taken over by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) --- made up as a complete collusion by the two party;

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[9]
(Wiki)​

So... did everybody catch that? Presidential debates are put together by reps of the same two party who are involved IN the debate.

What a great plan, right? What could possibly go wrong with that. No conflict of interest there nosiree Bob.

We need to riot in the streets about this.

 

[candycorn]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

I don't get the last line. Why would they much rather have that?

As far as the thread question, they'd probably like to have a lot of say in what will sell, which is after all what they exist for, but a better question is who gets to set up the debates. They used to be sponsored by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but that organization got fed up of being dictated to by the two major party (singular intentional) who have a long history of collusion to control the dialogue and more importantly, to keep out competitors....

They issued this press release in 1988:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
​

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[9]

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. (Source: Wiki)​

It's been taken over by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) --- made up as a complete collusion by the two party;

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[9]
(Wiki)​

So... did everybody catch that? Presidential debates are put together by reps of the same two party who are involved IN the debate.

What a great plan, right? What could possibly go wrong with that. No conflict of interest there nosiree Bob.

We need to riot in the streets about this.

Christie is far more quotable than most candidates and will likely say something that will get airtime on the other networks with the CNN logo on the corner of the clip.

 

[candycorn]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

You forgot John Kasich and Don Trump!!!

So have most voters.

 

[eagle1462010]

All are running for President and all should get a shot at it...........If CNN wants a debate then all of them should have a voice whether we agree with them or not..................

Putting that many on one stage in a debate would be impractical..............half them up........draw straws for selection and have 2 or more debates..........one group on one debate...........other on another day or another stage at the same time....................

News should be fair and impartial to all..........but that will not be the case in the end.

 

[Pete7469]

Chris Christy should challenge Hillary

He would make a better democrook nominee than a RINO.

 

[candycorn]

All are running for President and all should get a shot at it...........If CNN wants a debate then all of them should have a voice whether we agree with them or not..................

Putting that many on one stage in a debate would be impractical..............half them up........draw straws for selection and have 2 or more debates..........one group on one debate...........other on another day or another stage at the same time....................

News should be fair and impartial to all..........but that will not be the case in the end.

I don't get it either...

With the big 3 networks there are entertainment divisions involved. CNN, Fox News etc.... do not have those concerns. It would be horrible TV but really, what would they rather be showing?

 

[Pogo]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

I don't get the last line. Why would they much rather have that?

As far as the thread question, they'd probably like to have a lot of say in what will sell, which is after all what they exist for, but a better question is who gets to set up the debates. They used to be sponsored by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but that organization got fed up of being dictated to by the two major party (singular intentional) who have a long history of collusion to control the dialogue and more importantly, to keep out competitors....

They issued this press release in 1988:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
​

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[9]

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. (Source: Wiki)​

It's been taken over by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) --- made up as a complete collusion by the two party;

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[9]
(Wiki)​

So... did everybody catch that? Presidential debates are put together by reps of the same two party who are involved IN the debate.

What a great plan, right? What could possibly go wrong with that. No conflict of interest there nosiree Bob.

We need to riot in the streets about this.

Christie is far more quotable than most candidates and will likely say something that will get airtime on the other networks with the CNN logo on the corner of the clip.

I've never noticed Chris Christie to be more quotable than anybody else.

 

[candycorn]

The number of those vying for the GOP nomination has gotten goofy. We're now up to 10 announced candidates with Christie, Bush, Jindal, and Scott Walker waiting in the wings. That will set the bar at a cartoonish 14 candidates.

I think what the debate organizers should have all serious candidates on the stage at the beginning of the debate and have the moderators announce at the end of the allotted time that the debate will continue on CSPAN or CNBC or whatever other network(s) wish to pick up the feed. The talk seems to be that the networks want smaller panels with fewer candidates and what sounds like a two-tiered system of those with greater recognition on one evening and a "kid's table" where lesser-knowns the next evening.

There are two problems with that. First, if you diss Ted Cruz, he may start a 3rd party. Nobody in the GOP likes him and he likes nobody in the GOP. Secondly, if you're CNN and you have a choice between Chris Christie and Lindsay Graham, you'd much rather have Christie for the purpose of television

Thoughts?

I don't get the last line. Why would they much rather have that?

As far as the thread question, they'd probably like to have a lot of say in what will sell, which is after all what they exist for, but a better question is who gets to set up the debates. They used to be sponsored by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but that organization got fed up of being dictated to by the two major party (singular intentional) who have a long history of collusion to control the dialogue and more importantly, to keep out competitors....

They issued this press release in 1988:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
​

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[9]

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. (Source: Wiki)​

It's been taken over by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) --- made up as a complete collusion by the two party;

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[9]
(Wiki)​

So... did everybody catch that? Presidential debates are put together by reps of the same two party who are involved IN the debate.

What a great plan, right? What could possibly go wrong with that. No conflict of interest there nosiree Bob.

We need to riot in the streets about this.

Christie is far more quotable than most candidates and will likely say something that will get airtime on the other networks with the CNN logo on the corner of the clip.

I've never noticed Chris Christie to be more quotable than anybody else.

Really?

 

[candycorn]

Now that Trump has entered the race and will probably have a higher percentage of support based solely on name recognition, he is likely to be on the "grown ups" stage. I wonder who gets pushed off by The Donald....

Remember, you also may need to make room for Christie, Jindal and Walker as well.

I love election season.

 

[bendog]

Now that Trump has entered the race and will probably have a higher percentage of support based solely on name recognition, he is likely to be on the "grown ups" stage. I wonder who gets pushed off by The Donald....

Remember, you also may need to make room for Christie, Jindal and Walker as well.

I love election season.

Will he yell "you're fired" at whomever he knocks off? (-0