Are you suggesting that Carson is a lock because he’s a black guy or because of his Zondervan connections? Because he doesn’t have any actual political experience that would make him relevant. He’s never even run for office, before. He’s not a serious candidate.
Which wouldn’t keep him out of this debate, I suppose, if there weren’t already a zillion other actual politicians with better name recognition. And many of them are evangelical, too.
Personally, I don’t think they need a black guy, since they have Jindal (yeah, I know and you know), and anyway, we all know that they’re not going to vote for a black guy to succeed the current black guy.
So what is it that you like so much about Carson’s chances?
He’s usually been polling in the top five or so candidates. So that alone basically makes him a lock for the debates. I suspect largely because there’s a dearth of evangelical candidates, with Jindal going nowhere due to his issues in LA and Santorum being Catholic, and arguably maybe a little too religious even for the religious right, the evangelical vote is basically left to be split between Carson and Huckabee.
Agree he won’t get anywhere near the nomination, but he’ll certainly be in the debates.
Neither. Carson’s a lock because he’s consistently polled well, at least by the standards of the 2016 GOP field.
Remember, we’re talking about who’s going to make the cut for a debate that’s just a few weeks away. And the criterion is, who’s in the top 10 in polling average, for the last 5 major national polls before the debate?
He’s consistently polled around 10%, give or take a few. Since the beginning of May, his worst poll on RCP has had him at 7%, and the best one at 13%. You can’t get ten other candidates beating that, so unless his polls do quite a nosedive in the next few weeks, he’s in. And his numbers have been quite steady, so there’s no reason to expect a nosedive.
I expect this to matter by the time the actual primaries and caucuses start. But that’s a long way off. People aren’t going to suddenly respond to polls differently on this account in midsummer of the year before the primaries.
At least one? Really, that’s your standard? Conduct enough polls, and you’ll find dozens of candidates who place first in at least one of them. Is it reasonable to let dozens of people into the debate? If not, then “at least one poll” is a lousy standard.
How much of a hole, if any, would a candidate be if they didn’t make the first or first two debates? It really seems like it could be a make-or-break thing for a fledgling candidacy.
Ah, well, see, I guess I don’t really think the poll numbers will have anything to do with who gets on the stage. I think the organizers will pick whoever the RNC wants them to pick, and there’s no reason at all to waste a spot on someone with no actual qualifications and, most importantly, no real connections with GOP. Looking back over your choices up thread, for example, I don’t think there’s any way long time Republican operatives like Perry, Graham or Jindal get left out. Graham and Jindal are doing dismal in the polls, I’ll grant, but they have long term relationships with the RNC and proven campaign organizations. I think that will tip the bill in their favor.
But that’s why we have horseraces (and SDMB polls!)
They’ve already said they’ll take the leaders of five national polls in the two weeks before the debate. Since they haven’t said which polls, and the bottom eight or so candidates are all more or less tied, they still have enough leeway to basically pick and choose which of the bottom rung candidates get in.
But the top six or so candidates (which includes Carson) have been pretty consistent across polls, so there isn’t really any way to exclude them except by totally reneging on the methodology they said they’d follow.
I think that’s why its so interesting. Its hard to see a candidate recovering from being shut out of the “big kids” debates (the “lesser” candidates will still get their own debate, but if anything, that kinda seems worse than having no debate at all). So starting the campaign with low polling numbers, even though the election is a good ways off, seems like it could be a quick death sentence to a fledgling campaign.
Plus for the more established politicians, I imagine it’d be pretty embarrassing to get locked out of the debate while people like Trump and Carson get in.
It’s always possible that you’ll be proven right on this, but as Simplicio says, Fox has made a repeated commitment to doing it this way, and it would be one hell of a renege if they went well beyond the wiggle room that the choice of polls Simplicio mentions gives them.
Ah, there’s your misunderstanding. Does anyone really think Roger Ailes takes orders from the RNC? Hell, at this point, in our brave new post-Citizens United world, the RNC’s got an absolutely pathetic lack of clout.
The GOP base is rather fond of Carson. A lot of Republicans would be looking for someone to hang in effigy if he got left out.
Again, the RNC just doesn’t have much clout here. And who is FOX going to drop, anyway, in order to squeeze Graham and Jindal in?
Looking over your choices, your list essentially says they’ll drop Carson, Trump, and Huckabee, despite their polling, in order to get Jindal, Graham, and Kasich on the stage.
I would cheerfully bet even money that the entire Carson, Trump, Huckabee trio will be in the debate. 3 out of 3, I win; 2 or fewer, I lose, regardless of why. If Trump’s poll standings drop as suddenly as they rose and he gets sent down to the kiddie table, that would be my loss, even though it’s not germane to our difference of opinion.
I’d cheerfully make a separate bet about Jindal, Graham, and Kasich. I figure one of them might get lucky and get enough of a bump to get the #10 spot at the big kids’ table. But I’ll happily bet even money that at most one of them makes it.
(I’m not going to propose any bets about Perry. We both think he’ll probably be there, but we’ve got different reasons for that. Pass me a bottle, Mr. Jones.)
Roger Ailes has been carrying water for the GOP establishment decades. He and Lee Atwater were part of GHWB’s election committee that won him the presidency. He advised GWB following 9/11 about how to communicate with US public. I’m mystified why anyone thinks it will be different in the matter of this one debate.
Not only do I expect Fox to fudge the choices with some talk of internal polls, I don’t even really blame. Who the GOP picks for their candidate is not a purely democratic choice and I would’t blame GOP executives for exerting some executive control over the process.
Well, I’ve already swapped Trump in and Kasich out, in my choice. Trump is time bomb, and in truth, they probably should just detonate him now, but I expect they’ll want his star power on that stage. Besides, he gives the other candidates a chance to demonstrate some balls by denouncing him.
I won’t bet anything but bragging rights, however, I think Huckabee’s the longest shot of that first trio and Kasich is out in that second. (McNair! More rum!)
What, Huck’s only a 95% certainty to make it, and the other two are 98%?
I’d say Trump’s the only one of that first trio with a non-negligible chance of being sent to the kiddie table, and of the second group, Kasich probably has the best chance of getting to the grownup table.
And the same reason in both cases: Carson’s, Huckabee’s, Graham’s, and Jindal’s levels of support (or lack of it) have all been pretty steady. Something could change that in the next few weeks, but it would take something new. It won’t just happen on its own.
Trump, OTOH, hasn’t been in the mix long enough to know if the level of support he’s currently getting will last. Maybe it will, and chances are good his support will hold up well enough to keep him in the first debate, but he’s the only one of the leaders whose skyrocket could come to earth simply because people are taking a second look in the next few weeks.
Kasich is the reverse of that. Odds are that nobody’s gonna care that he’s running, but since nobody’s really thought about him yet, maybe 4-5% of the GOP electorate (all he needs to get to the grownup table) will realize they like him, now that he’s adding his name to the mix.
Also, does this seem like a statement from a guy who thinks FOX may unskew the polls to get him on the stage?
Gotta admit, I’m amused by his realization that the “money doesn’t just shout, it drowns out everything else” era that *Citizens United *set off may have turned and bitten him on the ass.
But back on topic, if FOX and the RNC are going to collaborate to ensure Graham’s presence at the Big Kids’ table, they clearly haven’t let Graham in on the secret.
Hey, how about a promotion/relegation format to spur interest? The winner of the second-tier debate (as determined by viewer vote) gets bumped to the top level for the second round, while the worst loser in the main event is ejected.
Fox is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, it wants to promote the Republican brand and have the debate serve as group pile-on against Hillary. On the other hand, they want to get a huge audience and promote themselves. Having Trump participate will draw huge ratings. However, the only sound bites to be aired between debates will be the ones featuring Trump. It’s going to make the party sound even smaller, pettier, and more racist than it already is, no easy task that is. So does Fox ditch Trump to help the party or do they keep him to help themselves?
I think they are only interested in helping the party to the extent they can remain where conservatives go for their news. If they ditch Trump, I think they piss off those conservatives. So they have to keep Trump.
Not sure if this has been brought up or not but Fox is now saying that in addition to the Top Ten polling rule, candidates must have all paperwork filed w/ the FEC. They say this isn’t a new rule and that they’re just clarifying things, but it seems like they’re looking for a way to keep Trump off the stage. The only thing is, many other top tier candidates still have to file that same paperwork in time, without any available extensions as many were apt to take advantage of.
New Monmouth poll. This may be late enough to be among the five polls used to determine who makes the cut.
Jeb Bush 15%
Donald Trump 13%
Ted Cruz 9%
Mike Huckabee 7%
Scott Walker 7%
Ben Carson 6%
Rand Paul 6%
Marco Rubio 6%
Chris Christie 2%
Bobby Jindal 2%
Rick Perry 2%
Rick Santorum 2%
Carly Fiorina 1%
John Kasich 1%
Lindsey Graham <1%
George Pataki <1%
Jim Gilmore 0%
I think the top eight are definitely in which leaves only two spots up for grabs. If I had to guess I’d go with Perry and Christie based on other polling.
Trump’s rise in the polls has now been documented by three or four major polls, so it isn’t a momentary thing or just a polling fluke.
Whatever recent poll it was that had Christie up near the leaders - well, that turned out to be a polling fluke.
Cruz got quite a good number in this poll, way better than the last several polls. I’m inclined to believe that that’s a fluke as well until confirmed by subsequent polls.
Otherwise, it’s pretty much the same as it’s been for awhile, and it’ll definitely take an average of multiple polls to separate the last two candidates at the grownups’ table from those that get stuck at the kiddie table.
I’m starting to think even FOX will despair of unskewing Fiorina.
