Paul campaign rips ABC over probable exclusion from New Hampshire debate

[TheNewYorker]

Paul campaign rips ABC over probable exclusion from New Hampshire debate
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/28/paul-campaign-rips-abc-over-probable-exclusion-from-new-hampshire-debate.html

Rand Paul’s campaign is unloading on ABC News over new rules that would likely exclude him—and several other Republican candidates—from a crucial debate on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.

The network announced that its Feb. 6 debate in Manchester will be limited to candidates who poll in the top six nationally or in New Hampshire—but only the top three finishers in the Iowa caucuses. That approach would eliminate the undercard debate.

“It’s a little bit irresponsible,” Paul spokesman Sergio Gor said in an interview in Iowa, before the Fox News/Google debate Thursday night. “Voters should be the ones making these decisions and not network executives in New York.”

Gor said he is appealing to ABC and also pressing his case with the Republican National Committee, which oversees the debates.

Paul boycotted the Fox Business debate in South Carolina when he was relegated to the undercard, but his showing in the Iowa polls landed him a spot on the main stage tonight.

In recent debates hosted by Fox News, Fox Business and CNN, a top-six finish in polls in Iowa (as well as New Hampshire and nationally) was enough to earn a ticket to the prime-time stage. Under ABC’s approach, Paul, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum would likely be excluded, based on current polling, from the debate moderated by David Muir.

“It’s unfortunate because you’re discounting anything that happened in Iowa,” Gor said. “They’re dismissing the importance of the early states. Are they really going to exclude the fourth-place finisher in Iowa? We’re hoping they reconsider.”

[thatpeculiarcat]

Are they really going to exclude the fourth-place finisher in Iowa?

He's assuming that whoever finishes in 4th isn't polling in the top 6 nationally/NH with that statement. With the likely fabricated surge of Rubio, I'm expecting Paul to get 4th. I'm sensing we're about to get screwed again like in 2012, and by Gor's comments I think they campaign might be sensing it too.

Not being in that debate would be a pretty big nail in the coffin, albeit not a final one.

I'll just try to stay positive for another 3 days.

[Crashland]

That's bullshit! Why change the criteria for Iowa only? You would think Iowa should be even more factored in because real votes are better than sample sizes.
Unfortunately though, this also means he is not at all confident that he will get a top 3 finish in Iowa

[CPUd]

That's bullshit! Why change the criteria for Iowa only? You would think Iowa should be even more factored in because real votes are better than sample sizes.
Unfortunately though, this also means he is not at all confident that he will get a top 3 finish in Iowa

They are just hedging. They know they have the votes to win, it all depends on how well they execute their caucus plan on Monday.

[spudea]

why do we need so many debates anyways? The RNC think it will hurt Trump?

[CPUd]

There were like 20 debates in 2012.

[FriedChicken]

Honestly where do we expect to go if we finish 4th in Iowa and are 7th or worse nationally and in nh?

I don't want to get dragged from one disappointment to another.

The campaign acting worried about this makes me worried they're going through the list and all the supporters are telling them they're voting differently.

They know a lot more than us. They ought to have a very accurate idea of how many votes each precinct captain is bringing in at least.
If they're wagering 4th place I'm going to stock up on comfort food and watch movies the rest of this election.

[Jeffster]

https://youtu.be/d-hDl6OALv4

[Jackie Moon]

That's bullshit! Why change the criteria for Iowa only? You would think Iowa should be even more factored in because real votes are better than sample sizes.
Unfortunately though, this also means he is not at all confident that he will get a top 3 finish in Iowa


Honestly where do we expect to go if we finish 4th in Iowa and are 7th or worse nationally and in nh?

I don't want to get dragged from one disappointment to another.

The campaign acting worried about this makes me worried they're going through the list and all the supporters are telling them they're voting differently.

They know a lot more than us. They ought to have a very accurate idea of how many votes each precinct captain is bringing in at least.
If they're wagering 4th place I'm going to stock up on comfort food and watch movies the rest of this election.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

Rand has been speaking against the criteria that artificially limits the field since the debates began, even when he has qualified. So I expect that even if he finishes in the top 3 in Iowa, he will still complain that the criteria is unfair and that the voters should be the ones deciding.

The problem with making up artificial cutoffs by position is what if it's a close finish?

What if 4th place is only 10 votes behind 3rd? What if the finish goes 20% - 20% - 19% - 19%... and 4th is only 1,000 votes short of 1st?

[mit26chell]

Rand will be top 3 in IA.

[PCKY]

I don't think that's necessarily true.

Rand has been speaking against the criteria that artificially limits the field since the debates began, even when he has qualified. So I expect that even if he finishes in the top 3 in Iowa, he will still complain that the criteria is unfair and that the voters should be the ones deciding.

The problem with making up artificial cutoffs by position is what if it's a close finish?

What if 4th place is only 10 votes behind 3rd? What if the finish goes 20% - 20% - 19% - 19%... and 4th is only 1,000 votes short of 1st?
I think that is the scenario that Rand's campaign is strategizing. He's been saying they think it's going to be much closer in IA than polls are showing. I think this is RNC influence and they are manipulating the entire election with these debates. Which is crap! Gor was right to call them out on it.

[lakerssuck92]

These criteria were crafted to keep Paul out of the debates.

Why is it Top 3 finish in Iowa? Because they anticipate Rand to get 4th (at least that is my expectation).
Why is it Top 6 national polling? Because Paul is 7th in RCP average.
Why is it Top 6 in New Hampshire? Because Paul is about 7th there too.

The establishment did this with Ron too. It really annoys me to no end....

[limequat]

Furthermore, look at the quantity of polls they're using. Everything from Jan1 to Feb 4. There's been about 10-15 polls each for national and NH already. This all but guarantees that there will be no movement in the standings in the next week.

[derek4ever]

These criteria were crafted to keep Paul out of the debates.

Why is it Top 3 finish in Iowa? Because they anticipate Rand to get 4th (at least that is my expectation).
Why is it Top 6 national polling? Because Paul is 7th in RCP average.
Why is it Top 6 in New Hampshire? Because Paul is about 7th there too.

The establishment did this with Ron too. It really annoys me to no end....

I still remember that post-Iowa debate in which Giuliani and F. Thompson got invited to the debate and Ron didn't, even though he finished 5th in Iowa and got I believe 5% in the NH polls. That was just despicable! The other time Ron wasn't in the debate in 2008 was when an Israeli organization didn't invite him because he didn't go along with Israel's policies!! :mad::mad:

[JJ2]

“It’s unfortunate because you’re discounting anything that happened in Iowa,” Gor said. “They’re dismissing the importance of the early states. Are they really going to exclude the fourth-place finisher in Iowa? We’re hoping they reconsider.”

What a stupid thing for Gor to say. Even if you're expecting to not make the Top 3 in Iowa you don't broadcast that to the world. Good grief.

[derek4ever]

What a stupid thing for Gor to say. Even if you're expecting to not make the Top 3 in Iowa you don't broadcast that to the world. Good grief.

I agree! Poor choice of words. He would've been better just not sating anything at all. :(

[CPUd]

Honestly where do we expect to go if we finish 4th in Iowa and are 7th or worse nationally and in nh?

I don't want to get dragged from one disappointment to another.

The campaign acting worried about this makes me worried they're going through the list and all the supporters are telling them they're voting differently.

They know a lot more than us. They ought to have a very accurate idea of how many votes each precinct captain is bringing in at least.
If they're wagering 4th place I'm going to stock up on comfort food and watch movies the rest of this election.

I wouldn't buy too much into what he said being reflective of what they believe their chances are in Iowa. The campaign does know how many they expect from every precinct, and has multiple ways to hit those numbers, and those numbers aren't to place top 3, they are to win. They aren't going to sit around on Feb 1 and hope people show up.

[SilentBull]

Furthermore, look at the quantity of polls they're using. Everything from Jan1 to Feb 4. There's been about 10-15 polls each for national and NH already. This all but guarantees that there will be no movement in the standings in the next week.

Are you serious? Jan 1st?

[Jackie Moon]

What a stupid thing for Gor to say. Even if you're expecting to not make the Top 3 in Iowa you don't broadcast that to the world. Good grief.


I agree! Poor choice of words. He would've been better just not sating anything at all. :(

Rand has said all along that the media shouldn't create artificial cutoffs to limit the debate field, even when he qualified himself.

He said that his campaign helped lobby to get Fiorina on stage, and he thinks Santorum should have been complaining to get there too.

If Rand hypothetically finishes 1st in Iowa... he will STILL say this criteria is unfair - because it is. Rand is principled and consistent, and it would be hypocritical of him and us to say any different now just because it might work in our favor.

[Alldayallie]

Why is the campaign worried? Over 1200 captains? No way Rand finishes outside top 3, so why this statement?

[CPUd]

Why is the campaign worried? Over 1200 captains? No way Rand finishes outside top 3, so why this statement?

Because there shouldn't be a cutoff at all.

[limequat]

Are you serious? Jan 1st?

No joke:

2) Place among the top six candidates in an average of New Hampshire Republican presidential polls recognized by ABC News. To be included, polls must be conducted no earlier than Jan. 1, 2016, and must be released to the public before 5 p.m. ET on Feb. 4, 2016. Poll averages will not be rounded. (OR)

[adam220891]

We are winning Iowa.

Non-issue.

[Brett85]

Why is the campaign worried? Over 1200 captains? No way Rand finishes outside top 3, so why this statement?

With Rubio going up in the polls it's becoming more likely that Rubio will end up coming in 3rd. I hope that's not the case, but I think a week ago Rand had a better chance of coming in 3rd than he does now. Right now it looks like he's most likely to come in 4th.

[dannno]

Re-read the beginning of the article and note that the word "rips" and "unloading" were used by the author of the article, not the campaign. The statements made by the campaign are fairly reasonable, it's the author of the piece who is twisting things and exaggerating to make this seem like a big issue to the campaign.

[JJ2]

It's possible Rand could be 6th nationally if Carson drops out after Iowa.

[limequat]

I was wondering about that. But is there really much chance he'll drop with a week to go to NH?

[FriedChicken]

I wouldn't buy too much into what he said being reflective of what they believe their chances are in Iowa. The campaign does know how many they expect from every precinct, and has multiple ways to hit those numbers, and those numbers aren't to place top 3, they are to win. They aren't going to sit around on Feb 1 and hope people show up.

If this was just about being opposed to the criteria I think it would have been worded differently.
The criteria is stupid for sure. If anything the Iowa results should mean more than the polls.

I hope you're right.

[dancjm]

I think some of you guys are mistaking the campaigns principled argument about arbitrary exclusions for concern that Rand will come in fourth.

In my opinion we are making the case because it's right, not because we fear that our candidate will neccessarily be the one to suffer.

However, if Rand was to come 4th, we don't have to start complaining about the rules because our candidate is going to suffer, we said it from the start, because it's just wrong, period.

Realize that, "rules that would likely exclude him" are ABC's words, not the campaigns.

[01000110]

I think some of you guys are mistaking the campaigns principled argument about arbitrary exclusions for concern that Rand will come in fourth.

In my opinion we are making the case because it's right, not because we fear that our candidate will neccessarily be the one to suffer.

However, if Rand was to come 4th, we don't have to start complaining about the rules because our candidate is going to suffer, we said it from the start, because it's just wrong, period.
I agree

[Suzu]

With Rubio going up in the polls it's becoming more likely that Rubio will end up coming in 3rd. I hope that's not the case, but I think a week ago Rand had a better chance of coming in 3rd than he does now. Right now it looks like he's most likely to come in 4th.

But suppose he comes in 4th, and Trump makes one of the top three but decides to skip the next debate. Would ABC then include Rand, to replace the missing Trump, in the debate?

[65fastback2+2]

dont see the issue, we're top 3 in iowa.

[JJ2]

I was wondering about that. But is there really much chance he'll drop with a week to go to NH?

Carson is poling even lower in NH than IA. So if he does worse than the polls say in IA, he may drop out.