On Debate Invites and Candidate Viability

For the past several days, there’s been a fuss in blogging circles over the apparent decision for FOX to exclude Ron Paul from a debate to be held on the 10th (as an apparent “make up” event for the unpopular Iowa Public TV event).

For a sample of what I’ve been encountering in my reading pile, consider this post at The Moderate Voice, including the nice roundup at the end.

One of my complaints about the debates held so far is that the stage has been too crowded. When your format limits you to 90-120 minutes of stage time, and there are 8-10 candidates vying for time on camera, you’re seemingly limited to soundbite answers rather than deep, insightful debate.

Early on in the process, it does make sense to have all the contenders on stage, because with that many candidates, anything can happen. However, at some point you probably do need to start pruning the invite list in order to permit longer-format discussion.

So, I have to admit, I’m not necessarily bothered with the apparent fact that FOX wants to trim the debate roster.

However, I do think the Ron Paul camp has reason to be bothered by the apparent snub. Specifically:

• I think it is somewhat arbitrary that the criteria for qualifying for the debate are being specified so close to debate night. An allowance could be made for the “last minute-ness” of the debate, I suppose, but in general if objective criteria are going to be specified as requirements to get an invite, those specifications should be laid out far in advance. Consider, for example, the COPD debates scheduled for this fall, where we already know that a 15% polling number is required to attend the main event.
   
• This early in the process, fundraising perhaps ought to be considered as part of any set of objective criteria. Money can buy advertising which can sway voters.
   
• Given the timing, shouldn’t the results of Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as polling in at least the remaining January primary states be considered a bit more heavily than polling from states that have, at least until now, mostly been on the sideline?
   
• And, I have to agree—given how abysmally Thompson has been doing, and given the structural biases of traditional polling, it probably is seemingly unfair to invite Thompson but exclude Paul. Personally, I don’t think either is a viable candidate…but if you’re going to give one the benefit of the doubt, you should grant the same courtesy to the other.