Which candidate gets cut out of the next debates first?

[Agorism]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Looks like Romney, Perry, Paul and Bachmann are safe.

Not sure about the rest though.

[Bruno]

Would be great if Bachmann just dropped out now.

[TheDriver]

Ron might as well be excluded, as they basically excluded him anyway, then, when he had chances, he didn't perform well, imo. His performance has demotivated my donation I had planned, that's for sure. He needs to take the debates more seriously and practice!

[Havax]

Ron might as well be excluded, as they basically excluded him anyway, then, when he had chances, he didn't perform well, imo. His performance has demotivated my donation I had planned, that's for sure. He needs to take the debates more seriously and practice!

Oh shut up. I just rewatched it and I think Ron did well. MSNBC is the one to blame giving him bullshit questions. There are a ton of debates to come and a LONG way before the first primaries.

[Bruno]

His performance has demotivated my donation I had planned, that's for sure.

It didn't demotivate me, just the opposite. I donated $100 last night.

[LibertyEsq]

I don't think anyone will be forced out of debates until december, and when that happens it'll likely be Huntsman and Santorum.

[TheDriver]

It didn't demotivate me, just the opposite. I donated $100 last night.

Right. I don't disagree with his stances, I just don't think they'll win an election phrased the way he phrases them. Anyone donating to this campaign is donating for educational purposes, because after last night, I'm convinced: he doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. Mainly because he doesn't care about putting the work needed into winning [debate preparation].

[Sean]

I don't think anyone will be forced out of debates until december, and when that happens it'll likely be Huntsman and Santorum.

It would be nice if Huntsman and Santorum fall out soon. I can't believe the amount of time they gave Huntsman compared to those way above him in the polls.

[Bruno]

Right. I don't disagree with his stances, I just don't think they'll win an election phrased the way he phrases them. Anyone donating to this campaign is donating for educational purposes, because after last night, I'm convinced: he doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. Mainly because he doesn't care about putting the work needed into winning [debate preparation].

Even with the best performance in presidiential debating history he still has a huge uphill battle. We all know this.

[Johnnymac]

Ron might as well be excluded, as they basically excluded him anyway, then, when he had chances, he didn't perform well, imo. His performance has demotivated my donation I had planned, that's for sure. He needs to take the debates more seriously and practice!

are you fucking kidding me(pardon my French) for the amount of questions Ron was asked (because they were to busy asking and re asking questions with parry and rumney) he had good solid answers for everyone I think He did great for what he was handed

[TheDriver]

Even with the best performance in presidiential debating history he still has a huge uphill battle. We all know this.

Right. And they said Rand Paul had zero chance when he started. Rand's campaign was able to rise in the polls due to the message he presented. He, and his aids, made it palatable to the average voter. Ron isn't doing that. Rand knew you couldn't win the GOP/Neocon nomination being against "the fence." If Ron doesn't know that, he shouldn't be running. The whole point of "they may use it to keep us in" is silly, as the national police already keep the average citizen from moving without proper i.d. and their oversight. The economy is dying, our Republic is crumbling, and he wastes time on the border issue. Ron, as well as his supporters, should realize the economy controls immigration, not a fence. But there is no reason to risk political capital over immigration in a GOP primary, imo. This is a political fight. You fight fire with fire--that means playing politics.

[Johnnymac]

Right. I don't disagree with his stances, I just don't think they'll win an election phrased the way he phrases them. Anyone donating to this campaign is donating for educational purposes, because after last night, I'm convinced: he doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. Mainly because he doesn't care about putting the work needed into winning [debate preparation].

Debate preP??? He only made a six figure buy for that perry ad so that he might actually be able to debate with the guy and guess what it worked! The only people that need debate prep are rumney and perry against Ron Paul shots

[TheDriver]

are you fucking kidding me(pardon my French) for the amount of questions Ron was asked (because they were to busy asking and re asking questions with parry and rumney) he had good solid answers for everyone I think He did great for what he was handed

No, I'm not kidding.

For example: Since he was given limited time, he shouldn't have played their game, as he should have turned any question given to him to the economy/jobs. He was skipped on that question, and it's his own fault he didn't address it, when given any question.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I don't disagree with his stances, I just don't think they'll win an election phrased the way he phrases them. Anyone donating to this campaign is donating for educational purposes....Mainly because he doesn't care about putting the work needed into winning [debate preparation].

Exactly right.

It's blasphemy, but just about every debate features Paul stepping in it: heroin, Iran, fence. This is not the sign of a good debater. There is a reason there has never been a big post-debate polling surge (in the real polls, not online/text.)

The most bizarre thing about it is that Paul apparently refuses to take debate preparation, even though Tom Woods has offered.


Which candidate gets cut out of the next debates first?

How about Huntsman? Why the hell is Huntsman even allowed on stage when his polling numbers are worse than those of Gary Johnson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312513-Doubles-John-Huntsman)?

[RonPaul101.com]

I swear the establishment finiancially supports deadwood like Huntsman, Santorum, Gignrich, etc. so that their getting debate time to speak takes away from time Ron Paul would get if there were only 3 or 4 debators. Just watch the way Romney, Gingrich and such throw each other softballs all night.

[TheDriver]

even though Tom Woods has offered.

I love Woods, but Paul needs someone who knows how to appeal to Neo/cons, and/or the kind of GOP voter Ron doesn't appeal to, to coach him, imo. I'm afraid Tom Woods would fill Ron's head with great arguments, but we wouldn't have time to make them. We need one liners, first, then a plan to go elsewhere. The one liners are designed to appeal to the average voter, not make a philosophical/hypothetical argument. Being right doesn't win elections, packaging does.

[TheDriver]

I swear the establishment finiancially supports deadwood like Huntsman, Santorum, Gignrich, etc. so that their getting debate time to speak takes away from time Ron Paul would get if there were only 3 or 4 debators. Just watch the way Romney, Gingrich and such throw each other softballs all night.

MSNBC was throwing to Huntsman "underhanded." I mean, those were some pretty pitches/set-ups. Looked like t-ball practice for him.

[RonPaul101.com]

Exactly right.

It's blasphemy, but just about every debate features Paul stepping in it: heroin, Iran, fence. This is not the sign of a good debater. There is a reason there has never been a big post-debate polling surge (in the real polls, not online/text.)

The most bizarre thing about it is that Paul apparently refuses to take debate preparation, even though Tom Woods has offered.

Exactly, he needs to reherse and then stick to the game plan, while using his biggest selling points of the economy and ending the wars. Just say what you want its your time up there. Remember last night when Perry was asked about income differences between blacks and whites in America? He in no way at all answered that question, he just entered more talking points.

This approach would help the moderator bias of last night at prior debates. Perry get asked about jobs, Romney gets asked about spending, and Ron gets asked about a FEMA case or some little ad-hoc question that doesn't matter to anyone watching. Because of that Ron needs to just take his time and use it as a nationally televised commercial opportunity unless they ask a serious question that matters.

[Join The Paul Side]

Exactly right.

It's blasphemy, but just about every debate features Paul stepping in it: heroin, Iran, fence. This is not the sign of a good debater. There is a reason there has never been a big post-debate polling surge (in the real polls, not online/text.)

The most bizarre thing about it is that Paul apparently refuses to take debate preparation, even though Tom Woods has offered.

I agree that debate prep wouldn't be a bad thing if Ron has time for it. I don't see how it could hurt any for him to have more polished answers.

I too am also tired of seeing him step in dog shit in and have to shake off his shoes when he gets hit with bullshit questions. But he usually does a fine job of cleaning up the crap the moderators throw at him.

[JamesButabi]

Oh shut up. I just rewatched it and I think Ron did well. MSNBC is the one to blame giving him bullshit questions. There are a ton of debates to come and a LONG way before the first primaries.

While there are a ton of debates left (thankfully), TheDriver has a point that needs to be acknowledge. Ron needs to sway people at these debates that weren't already supporters. These debates are probably the most important media appearances of the campaign. He needs to take a deep breath, slow down, and address the answers concisely. In my opinion that was his poorest debate performance in a while. It hurt me inside that the Perry question wasn't knocked out of the park. That was forseeable and they set it up as a softball. Had he just rehashed Benton's open letter it would have been a grand slam. The school lunch question was ridiculous and he fumbled around that tiny issue instead of addressing it and moving to the bigger picture. Border question was a mess. He had the talking points (AC in tents, taking away the incentives) yet jumbled them together incoherently so the average person would not know what that was. Then the fence comment.

Still alot of love for Ron. Still giving him my 100%. Looking forward to the upcoming debate which will be here before you know it.

[mconder]

Why in the world are they still polling Pailin?

[Gage]

Attendance for the CNN debate on Monday is already confirmed, and it will be the same as it was for this debate, given that no one drops out or something. I guess the door is still open for the Fox debate though on September 22.

[tfurrh]

It didn't demotivate me, just the opposite. I donated $100 last night.

Right on man! You know, a guy in my office watched last night. He hasn't been interested until now. He knew I was a Ron Paul supporter, and came in saying, 'Man they were so unfair to Ron Paul last night. My wife and I really want to know more about why that is.' I started laying it on him. He asked about RP's comment on the fences, and wound up seeing that RP made a good point. This guy's 49, his wife is 52.

People are waking up. I say RP did great.

[musicmax]

Right. I don't disagree with his stances, I just don't think they'll win an election phrased the way he phrases them. Anyone donating to this campaign is donating for educational purposes, because after last night, I'm convinced: he doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. Mainly because he doesn't care about putting the work needed into winning [debate preparation].

+rep

[Paul4Prez]

Objectively, it should be Santorum. He has neither the poll numbers nor the fundraising to be considered a contender. Huntsman would probably be the next to go -- not sure why they keep pushing him over Gary Johnson, when both poll about the same. I guess Huntsman has more money. Gingrich will probably drop out at some point, once he gets promised some advisory post by a front runner.

[matt0611]

Hopefully Santorum and/or Huntsman.

Just hate Santorum and I'm getting tired of listening to Huntsman. Lol you believe in science and can speak chinese lololol congrats Huntsman.

[ForLiberty2012]

They decide based on polling and money raised. Everyone besides Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are on the chopping block before Ron Paul is. He's there to stay this year!

Its gonna be Huntsman, Santorum, Cain, then Gingy

[pauladin]

santorum will probably be the first to be banished from the debates. i bet that cain and gingrich will drop out before the iowa caucus. santorum probably has the nerve to stay in. that guy's like a turd that won't flush.

[notsure]

They decide based on polling and money raised. Everyone besides Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are on the chopping block before Ron Paul is. He's there to stay this year!

Its gonna be Huntsman, Santorum, Cain, then Gingy

Santorum, Cain, Huntsman; yea. But do you think Gingrich will hang in there for that long? What's Newt even doing anyway? Is he trying to get his own FOX show or something?
I'm still not sure how the Huntsman or Cain card will be played, but I think 1 of these 2 could change thegame up a little bit. Bachmann isn't a threat, i think she's just laying groundwork for her future political aspirations. But I'm almost 100% sure that they will leave out McCotter from the next debate.
So far though this is Ron's race to lose. Ron outclasses his opponents in every way.

[dusman]

Right. I don't disagree with his stances, I just don't think they'll win an election phrased the way he phrases them. Anyone donating to this campaign is donating for educational purposes, because after last night, I'm convinced: he doesn't have a chance in hell at winning. Mainly because he doesn't care about putting the work needed into winning [debate preparation].

It seems to be working to me. I haven't seen much negativity toward his debate performance aside that from pessimistic Ron Paul supporters. Relax and keep the focus.

Our individual efforts are far more important than any individual debate performance.

[ericams2786]

Considering that Paul's support (at least in an anecdotal sense) seems to be increasing (comments I'm seeing, surge in likes on Facebook, overwhelming win in the MSNBC post-debate poll (hell every post-debate poll) - but come on 120,000+ votes), I wouldn't worry too much about his performance in the last debate. I mean between that photo of Perry trying to intimidate Paul, Paul being blatantly and obviously ignored, and the fact that Perry is likely to fall quite a bit in the polling due to being partially vetted on national TV (and appearing to be rather sub-par in the intelligence category), I think Paul had a net positive from the debate, even though he had stupid questions and didn't have a strong performance. I think he will do much better at the CNN/Tea Party debate tomorrow.

[Ronpauljones]

Ron might as well be excluded, as they basically excluded him anyway, then, when he had chances, he didn't perform well, imo. His performance has demotivated my donation I had planned, that's for sure. He needs to take the debates more seriously and practice!

You are an idiot.

[bolidew]

We probably need everyone to stay in the race. IMO the only way for Paul to win is this being an at least 5 way race until after super Tuesday and then a brokered convention!

[low preference guy]

You are an idiot.

This is probably the most blatant violation of forum guidelines that I've seen. And I say this even when I don't agree with TheDriver.

[KramerDSP]

TheDriver, I don't disagree with you, except on one thing. Ron does terrible if he has to rehearse it. That's why the Perry softball answer came off as so awkward. I have never seen him look at his notes like I did at that moment in time. Either he was very uncomfortable going on the attack (his body language didn't suggest any wariness on his part, however) or he was trying to say it in a such a way that he got flustered trying to get it out right.

I think Ron does best when he feels insulted or when someone calls him out. He needs to be fed a steady diet of "Ron Paul's greatest hits" over two hours while strapped in a chair until the debate starts. Then he'll be raring to go!

[kylejack]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Looks like Romney, Perry, Paul and Bachmann are safe.

Not sure about the rest though.
They don't really winnow the field too much in the party debates, because people want to see all these voices. Last time it was Hunter and Keyes that got hit the hardest, but also a little of Ron Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_ debates,_2008#Attendance

[PaulConventionWV]

This is probably the most blatant violation of forum guidelines that I've seen. And I say this even when I don't agree with TheDriver.

While I tend not to care much about forum guidelines as a principle, but follow them anyway because I don't have a choice, I really think people are going overboard in criticizing Ron Paul for his "debate prep." The first problem is that some people feel the need to classify this as an "educational campaign" because they don't think he has a chance. This is not a foregone conclusion. Rather, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People need to be careful about their attitude toward the campaign because it affects your willingness and urgency to go out and campaign for the guy as a grassroots action.

Some people even openly state that it keeps them from donating. I really don't understand this strategy. No campaign is perfect. No candidate is perfect. That said, the campaign is really the best vehicle we have to spread this message and to further the cause of getting Ron Paul elected. Why someone would knowingly defeat this purpose by withholding funds from the campaign is beyond me. If not now, when will it be the right opportunity to throw your full support behind a campaign? Are you waiting for some perfect campaign or candidate? None exist. We all knew the odds were against us from the beginning, so why would you base your willingness to provide funds on the chances of Ron Paul winning?

There is simply no excuse for not doing your part and donating to the campaign. I don't care what kind of percceived wrongs or mistakes the campaign or Ron Paul supposedly commit. I donate because I support the message, not necessarily the strategy. To me, that is a secondary concern, not a deciding factor in whether or not I support a campaign that is clearly working to get Ron Paul elected. Your donation should be a given. To treat any one issue as if it is so important that it is a cause for you to not support the campaign is selfish and overly dramatic. If you starve the campaign but support some other grassroots activity, how effective do you think that will be? Withholding funds only hinders Ron Paul's ability to get out there, travel and speak, which is of the utmost importance. If you support some grassroots cause with funds and yet hinder Ron Paul's ability to advertise, travel, speak, and hold official campaign events, then I'm sorry, but you've been a hindrance to the cause of liberty. No perceived campaign or candidate wrongdoing should be bad enough to warrant not allowing the campaign to function when you have funds to give. I am piss poor and I still give what I can. I can barely feed myself. There is absolutely no excuse to anybody who has funds to give for withholding them from the campaign because of some little pet peeve of yours or some perceived better strategy. That's why you donate because you support the message, not necessarily the strategy. Back in the good old days, I thought that was why anyone would donate to a campaign. Apparently, I was wrong about stingy, selfish Ron Paul supporters.

Please, people. Give what you can. Don't make excuses.

[LBennett76]

I think people also need to keep in mind that Dr. Paul is a DOCTOR. He went to medical school. The man did not go to law school or business school and take bunches of debate classes. He was too busy learning how to save lives. These other guys are more polished. Notice how Romney and Perry can throw punches at each other with big shit-eating grins on their faces and keep them there? Not our good Dr. Paul. You can tell when he's upset or fired up. He speaks with conviction, the conviction of a person who believes in what they're saying and sees the peril the country is in. The other guys are just putting on a show with a bunch of empty rhetoric. Debate-wise they're better suited, but I would choose a person who is angry about the economy and jobs and the war like the people of the country are.
I know quite a few people personally who watched the debate and they thought Ron Paul rocked it. They saw the others as just plain ole fakes.

[Chainspell]

Herman Cain

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?314918-Herman-Cain-s-shameless-9-11-advertisement

[CMoore]

You are an idiot.

"Troll." The word you are looking for is "troll".

[libertybrewcity]

I think they'll keep it how it is until someone drops out. The only way a candidate will drop out from here until the Iowa caucuses will be because of money. I could see that happening to Santorum and Gingrich. Cain and Huntsman probably have enough money to self fund for a while at least.

[Sunstruck-Eden]

I think people also need to keep in mind that Dr. Paul is a DOCTOR. He went to medical school. The man did not go to law school or business school and take bunches of debate classes. He was too busy learning how to save lives. These other guys are more polished. Notice how Romney and Perry can throw punches at each other with big shit-eating grins on their faces and keep them there? Not our good Dr. Paul. You can tell when he's upset or fired up. He speaks with conviction, the conviction of a person who believes in what they're saying and sees the peril the country is in. The other guys are just putting on a show with a bunch of empty rhetoric. Debate-wise they're better suited, but I would choose a person who is angry about the economy and jobs and the war like the people of the country are.
I know quite a few people personally who watched the debate and they thought Ron Paul rocked it. They saw the others as just plain ole fakes.

Right on the mark. I love Ron's passion. It's what drew me into his policies and campaign to begin with. He's a GENUINE human individual, not some mannequin that recites what their prep team tells them to and then flip flop on all their issues without so much as a blink. Perry, Romney, Bachman, Santorum, (and possibly Huntsman and Gringrich) are all robots. I almsot feel like they don't think at all these debates. They only remember what they were told to say. I actually like Cain, he seems genuine and lays out his plans for all to see (instead of alluding to them like the others), but that video tribute today was rather surreal and poorly executed.

Also, to Driver: to not give money to a campagin because you don't think Ron's electable, tells me you're not in it to really win it, and should not be on this forum to incite negativity in the rest of us. We strongly believe that Ron can win and we advocate his policies to help people discover the truth about this country so that we can pave the way for Ron's presidency.

[lx43]

I hope they keep all of them in there, the more neocons we have during the primaries the more the vote is split in Pauls favor.

[anaconda]

Would be great if Bachmann just dropped out now.

She polls frequently over 10%. Why in God's name should she drop out?

[anaconda]

santorum will probably be the first to be banished from the debates. i bet that cain and gingrich will drop out before the iowa caucus. santorum probably has the nerve to stay in. that guy's like a turd that won't flush.

It doesn't cost these guys to be in the debates (just airfare and a hotel?). So why not just keep showing up to the debates if they'll let you? I think Santorum is there to make war seem patriotic. I fear he may actually be on a moral crusade, too. Which means he will continue to utilize the debate exposure without any intention of winning office.

[Tinnuhana]

I really like [Herman Cain] except for his foreign policy views. LOL

[Ronpauljones]

While I tend not to care much about forum guidelines as a principle, but follow them anyway because I don't have a choice, I really think people are going overboard in criticizing Ron Paul for his "debate prep." The first problem is that some people feel the need to classify this as an "educational campaign" because they don't think he has a chance. This is not a foregone conclusion. Rather, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People need to be careful about their attitude toward the campaign because it affects your willingness and urgency to go out and campaign for the guy as a grassroots action.

Some people even openly state that it keeps them from donating. I really don't understand this strategy. No campaign is perfect. No candidate is perfect. That said, the campaign is really the best vehicle we have to spread this message and to further the cause of getting Ron Paul elected. Why someone would knowingly defeat this purpose by withholding funds from the campaign is beyond me. If not now, when will it be the right opportunity to throw your full support behind a campaign? Are you waiting for some perfect campaign or candidate? None exist. We all knew the odds were against us from the beginning, so why would you base your willingness to provide funds on the chances of Ron Paul winning?

There is simply no excuse for not doing your part and donating to the campaign. I don't care what kind of percceived wrongs or mistakes the campaign or Ron Paul supposedly commit. I donate because I support the message, not necessarily the strategy. To me, that is a secondary concern, not a deciding factor in whether or not I support a campaign that is clearly working to get Ron Paul elected. Your donation should be a given. To treat any one issue as if it is so important that it is a cause for you to not support the campaign is selfish and overly dramatic. If you starve the campaign but support some other grassroots activity, how effective do you think that will be? Withholding funds only hinders Ron Paul's ability to get out there, travel and speak, which is of the utmost importance. If you support some grassroots cause with funds and yet hinder Ron Paul's ability to advertise, travel, speak, and hold official campaign events, then I'm sorry, but you've been a hindrance to the cause of liberty. No perceived campaign or candidate wrongdoing should be bad enough to warrant not allowing the campaign to function when you have funds to give. I am piss poor and I still give what I can. I can barely feed myself. There is absolutely no excuse to anybody who has funds to give for withholding them from the campaign because of some little pet peeve of yours or some perceived better strategy. That's why you donate because you support the message, not necessarily the strategy. Back in the good old days, I thought that was why anyone would donate to a campaign. Apparently, I was wrong about stingy, selfish Ron Paul supporters.

Please, people. Give what you can. Don't make excuses.

+ rep

This should be a thread IMO

[michaelkellenger]

To be honest, I don't think it is fair we hope people are excluded this early. I mean, even though I don't support these other guys, we had to deal with the same shit in 2008 based off of poll numbers. That is wildly unfair. I would expect we have a consistent standard.

That being said, I believe that Santorum, Huntsman, and possibly New will fall out like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo did in 2007 and 2008.

[cdc482]

I hope to God Ron Paul spent some time thinking about what his answers should be to likely questions.

[anaconda]

I hope to God Ron Paul spent some time thinking about what his answers should be to likely questions.

I would think the campaign would wish to be prepared several steps ahead. Even predicting rebuttals and comments from other candidates (like Perry's Reagan letter comment to Ron) and how to respond if and when they happen. I think Ron tends to editorialize his policies for their own sake or in the context of sound national policy. Rather than viewing his debate strategy as possible battles with individual candidates. If I was Ron and had the resources, I would ask my staff to take each candidate and bring me evidence, quotes, etc., that undermines their position or credibility on every separate issue in the campaign. Then build bumper sticker talking points designed specifically for each candidate, so that I could respond instantly and inflict great damage on my opponents.

[CaptainAmerica]

Why is Rick Santorum still running?

[Eric21ND]

Considering that Paul's support (at least in an anecdotal sense) seems to be increasing (comments I'm seeing, surge in likes on Facebook, overwhelming win in the MSNBC post-debate poll (hell every post-debate poll) - but come on 120,000+ votes), I wouldn't worry too much about his performance in the last debate. I mean between that photo of Perry trying to intimidate Paul, Paul being blatantly and obviously ignored, and the fact that Perry is likely to fall quite a bit in the polling due to being partially vetted on national TV (and appearing to be rather sub-par in the intelligence category), I think Paul had a net positive from the debate, even though he had stupid questions and didn't have a strong performance. I think he will do much better at the CNN/Tea Party debate tomorrow.
This is most correct. I didn't even realize those polls are going on and I'm a die hard supporter.

[kylejack]

Why is Rick Santorum still running?
If he quits he is going to make his family sad again.

http://i.imgur.com/8dHJY.jpg