ABC News republican debate criteria

[shenmue]

I don't know if this was posted before but here it is:

The forthcoming criteria from ABC News is as follows: Candidates must do one of the following:

-- Place among the top three candidates ranked according to the popular vote in the Iowa Republican caucuses on February 1, 2016.

-- 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 January 1, 2016, and must be released to the public before 5 p.m. ET on February 4, 2016. Poll averages will not be rounded.

-- Place among the top six candidates in an average of national Republican presidential polls recognized by ABC News. To be included, polls must be conducted no earlier than January 1, 2016, and must be released to the public before 5 p.m. ET on February 4, 2016. Poll averages will not be rounded.

There won't be an undercard debate

Looks like Rand best hope is place 6th in the national polls (currently is 7th behind Christie)

 

[Joeinmo]

I don't know if this was posted before but here it is:

The forthcoming criteria from ABC News is as follows: Candidates must do one of the following:

-- Place among the top three candidates ranked according to the popular vote in the Iowa Republican caucuses on February 1, 2016.

-- 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 January 1, 2016, and must be released to the public before 5 p.m. ET on February 4, 2016. Poll averages will not be rounded.

-- Place among the top six candidates in an average of national Republican presidential polls recognized by ABC News. To be included, polls must be conducted no earlier than January 1, 2016, and must be released to the public before 5 p.m. ET on February 4, 2016. Poll averages will not be rounded.

There won't be an undercard debate

Looks like Rand best hope is place 6th in the national polls (currently is 7th behind Christie)

Bush is going to take a hit in the polls, his voters are going to Rubio, in addition I think the poor showing of Christie make him headed to a downward spiral, and if Carson drops out then Rand is at 6th anyway

 

[RandRising]

Bush is going to take a hit in the polls, his voters are going to Rubio, in addition I think the poor showing of Christie make him headed to a downward spiral, and if Carson drops out then Rand is at 6th anyway

I agree, but their polling deadline is the 4th. Do you think we'll get enough polls in by then?

 

[presence]

please explain why the top 3 from a REAL fucking caucus are accepted but the top 6 from BULLSHIT polls are accepted

 

[mello]

please explain why the top 3 from a REAL fucking caucus are accepted but the top 6 from BULLSHIT polls are accepted

According to Rand, that was set by the Republican Party.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Bush is going to take a hit in the polls, his voters are going to Rubio, in addition I think the poor showing of Christie make him headed to a downward spiral, and if Carson drops out then Rand is at 6th anyway

In that case I guess he will be convinced by TPTB not to drop out.

 

[Havax]

So Rand will be excluded. What a depressing campaign and massive blow to the liberty movement. Guess we will have to wait for the dollar to crash for people to start waking up.

 

[jbauer]

So Rand will be excluded. What a depressing campaign and massive blow to the liberty movement. Guess we will have to wait for the dollar to crash for people to start waking up.

What makes you think the dollar is going to crash anytime soon. We can print the living daylight out of dollars as long as other countries keep on printing.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

So Rand will be excluded. What a depressing campaign and massive blow to the liberty movement. Guess we will have to wait for the dollar to crash for people to start waking up.

You expect a group of individuals that hate Rand's guts to make fair rules? It's always been an uphill battle

 

[randbot16]

Even if he doesn't make this debate, can't he literally just wait until most of the field drops out and will be included in the debate, or will they keep moving the bar just above wherever he is in the polls even if its only a field of 4 or 5?

 

[Influenza]

please explain why the top 3 from a REAL fucking caucus are accepted but the top 6 from BULLSHIT polls are accepted

I thought the polls were BS too. But apparently they weren't. They seemed pretty solid for the Iowa caucus. I'd say the only major deviation from was +4 or 5 for Rubio and -4 or 5 for Trump. Not too surprising, as Rubio was being pushed as "trending upward" by the media for awhile. Of course the reason for the top 3 from Iowa and top 6 from NH criteria is because, well, shockingly, the next primary is being held in NH. It is completely reasonable for them to put more weight on NH polling.

 

[PCKY]

The debates now are such bullshit any way. Same rhetoric from the same people....it's old news and the RNC should just stop them. And they have never helped or hurt Rand. I think Stafford is mounting an argugument to get Rand more TV time because he knows they're screwed.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

I thought the polls were BS too. But apparently they weren't. They seemed pretty solid for the Iowa caucus. I'd say the only major deviation from was +4 or 5 for Rubio and -4 or 5 for Trump. Not too surprising, as Rubio was being pushed as "trending upward" by the media for awhile. Of course the reason for the top 3 from Iowa and top 6 from NH criteria is because, well, shockingly, the next primary is being held in NH. It is completely reasonable for them to put more weight on NH polling.

Rand would be the only candidate with a delegate count excluded in favor of someone who doesn't have one.

 

[CaptUSA]

I thought the polls were BS too. But apparently they weren't. They seemed pretty solid for the Iowa caucus. I'd say the only major deviation from was +4 or 5 for Rubio and -4 or 5 for Trump.

Yeah, no... They were pretty wrong.

Actual % vs RCP Average 1/15 - 1/27

Trump   28%  35.8% (-7.8%)
Cruz    24%  19.6% (+4.4%)
Rubio   23%  10.2% (+12.8%)
Carson   9%   7.6%  (+2.4%)
Bush     3%   4.8%  (-1.8%)
Christie 2%   3.0%  (-1%)
Paul     5%   2.4%  (+2.6%)

That was far outside their "Margin of Error". Especially with a RCP average.

 

[TheNewYorker]

Yeah, no... They were pretty wrong.

Actual % vs RCP Average 1/15 - 1/27

Trump   28%  35.8% (-7.8%)
Cruz    24%  19.6% (+4.4%)
Rubio   23%  10.2% (+12.8%)
Carson   9%   7.6%  (+2.4%)
Bush     3%   4.8%  (-1.8%)
Christie 2%   3.0%  (-1%)
Paul     5%   2.4%  (+2.6%)

That was far outside their "Margin of Error". Especially with a RCP average.

That was the rcp average.

The DMR poll was the one most people are referencing, which was pretty much spot on

 

[William Tell]

Yeah, no... They were pretty wrong.

Actual % vs RCP Average 1/15 - 1/27

Trump   28%  35.8% (-7.8%)
Cruz    24%  19.6% (+4.4%)
Rubio   23%  10.2% (+12.8%)
Carson   9%   7.6%  (+2.4%)
Bush     3%   4.8%  (-1.8%)
Christie 2%   3.0%  (-1%)
Paul     5%   2.4%  (+2.6%)

That was far outside their "Margin of Error". Especially with a RCP average.

You are using the national RCP average, here's the Iowa RCP average:

[TABLE="class: data large"]
[TR="class: header"]
[TH="class: noCenter"]Poll[/TH]
[TH="class: date"]Date[/TH]
[TH="class: sample"]Sample[/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Trump [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Cruz [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Rubio [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Carson [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Paul [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Bush [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Huckabee [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Kasich [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Fiorina [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Christie [/TH]
[TH="class: diag"]Santorum [/TH]
[TH="class: spread"]Spread[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="class: final"]
[TD="class: noCenter"]Final Results[/TD]
[TD]--[/TD]
[TD="class: sample"]--[/TD]
[TD]24.3[/TD]
[TD]27.7[/TD]
[TD]23.1[/TD]
[TD]9.3[/TD]
[TD]4.5[/TD]
[TD]2.8[/TD]
[TD]1.8[/TD]
[TD]1.9[/TD]
[TD]1.9[/TD]
[TD]1.8[/TD]
[TD]1.0[/TD]
[TD="class: spread"]Cruz +3.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: rcpAvg2"]
[TD="class: noCenter"]RCP Average[/TD]
[TD]1/24 - 1/31[/TD]
[TD="class: sample"]--[/TD]
[TD]28.6[/TD]
[TD]23.9[/TD]
[TD]16.9[/TD]
[TD]7.7[/TD]
[TD]4.1[/TD]
[TD]4.1[/TD]
[TD]3.1[/TD]
[TD]2.9[/TD]
[TD]2.6[/TD]
[TD]2.4[/TD]
[TD]1.1[/TD]
[TD="class: spread"]Trump +4.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

 

[PCKY]

I thought the polls were BS too. But apparently they weren't. They seemed pretty solid for the Iowa caucus. I'd say the only major deviation from was +4 or 5 for Rubio and -4 or 5 for Trump. Not too surprising, as Rubio was being pushed as "trending upward" by the media for awhile. Of course the reason for the top 3 from Iowa and top 6 from NH criteria is because, well, shockingly, the next primary is being held in NH. It is completely reasonable for them to put more weight on NH polling.

I saw some stuff online last night indicating that Rand and everyone below him got 1 delegate...even Huckabee.

 

[adam220891]

I saw some stuff online last night indicating that Rand and everyone below him got 1 delegate...even Huckabee.

I don't think so. Jeb! And Rand got 1, rest zero.

 

[Suzu]

if Carson drops out then Rand is at 6th anyway

Carson isn't dropping out, despite rumors to the contrary spread by the Cruz campaign just before the caucuses.

 

[FindLiberty]

Carson isn't dropping out, despite rumors to the contrary spread by the Cruz campaign just before the caucuses.

If that rumor of a rumor is true, that's just plain nasty.