Is the RNC trying to keep certain candidates off the debate stage?

quote:

---

Is the RNC trying to keep certain candidates off the debate stage for August?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Why should they give ore favorable position on the stage based on polling?

---

Because only people with a viable campaign and realistic shot of getting votes in an election need to be on the debate stage.

quote:

---

On the fundraising side, the RNC will require debaters to have a minimum of 40,000 unique donors to their principal presidential campaign committee or exploratory committee and at least 200 unique donors per state in 20 states or more." "The RNC will require that all participants attain at least 1% in three national polls or 1% in two national polls and 1% in a state poll from one of four early nominating states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

---

These things do not set a high bar. No one who doesn’t meet this criteria has a chance at the nomination

I'll disagree on these two points:

1) The debate stage is important for lessor known candidates to make themselves known to the public. How many people know about the North Dakota Gov... probably not many. By placing them on the stage in a certain order on the FIRST debate, they are giving preference to those with the most name recognition. Do you think that pre-season college football polls are a good idea? No, because, to a large degree, it benefits the schools based on something they did last year (not relevant... what happens on the field is ... just like what happens on the debate stage). I view these as the essentially the same thing.

2) Using the North Dakota Gov again ... who in South Carolina knows who he is? Why should a South Carolina poll matter more than an Alabama or Louisiana or ... a North Dakota poll?

For the initial debates, I'd prefer they change the criteria. They also should state that if you want to be in future debates, if you are running, you have to participate in the first one.

Of course they are.

Vivek already made the cut.

I think he will crush the debates.

He is a superb communicator.

Wait until more people hear him.

He is capable of stealing the show.

Agree re politics and name recognition... and part of my point. Those tied to the donor class get an advantage over others. That is part of "our" problem. Both the GOP and DEM parties do NOT want potentially great candidates for the country.

The first debate is less than three months off.

-----

"Correct. Name recognition is the single most important thing in politics. The Governor of North Dakota has months to get himself into the news if he wants to run for President.

This process is not about fair. It’s about finding the Republican with the best chance of winning the general. "

quote:

---

He is capable of stealing the show.

---

You’re entitled to your opinion. But IMO he Will never gain any type of traction unless 4-5 people including both Trump and DeSantis die between now and the Iowa caucus.

There isn’t any room for that type of thing this cycle.

If Vivek wasn't already a Fox News contributor, he would not have the numbers on the polls. Bad way to let someone into the debates.

I'm fine with him being in the race.

Do you recall how Obama stole the show at the democrat convention that nominated Kerry?

Even though I knew I wouldn't like his policies I could tell that he had 'it'.

Vivek also has 'it'.

How do you know that Burgam or Vivek wouldn't / won't take off if on the debate stage? YOu don't know. We'll get better candidates if the two main parties lose some power. Your way puts the power in the hands of a smaller number of Elites. I say have more candidates and more debates early on and let "We the People" decide. After thinking about it... some regional debates may actually be a good idea that would allow some potentially great leaders to rise to the top.
.