As of 1/9/16, we don't make the cut.

[PCKY]

Sanders vs Rand on CNN or MSNBC at the same time gets the entire Dem audience, Every talking head would rather be watching Rand vs Bernie.

A big network would do it just for the ratings the shitstorm would bring.

The idea isn't to piss on the GOP debate, but do something more interesting entirely that cant be ignored.

I love this idea, but Sanders is statistically tied with Hillary in Iowa and leading her in NH. The risk to him outweighs the reward.

 

[Cabal]

Eschew the undercard debate.

Go up against Sanders on another channel same time, way higher ratings.

Cause a giant ruckus, and have an intellectual 1 vs 1 debate on the issues.

I lol'd.

 

[erowe1]

^THIS. You don't even need Sanders, although it would liven things up if he were invited to join him. But if not, just have Rand take the same questions being asked at the debate, while commenting on the others. He should buy prime time on CW or even MSNBC to counter the debate itself. This would be dealing with (or canceling out) a prime time shut out with strength, or like a boss.

How is he supposed to afford that?

 

[erowe1]

I love this idea, but Sanders is statistically tied with Hillary in Iowa and leading her in NH. The risk to him outweighs the reward.

What's the risk? Would it prevent him from being eligible for Dem debates?

 

[PCKY]

What's the risk? Would it prevent him from being eligible for Dem debates?

He risks saying something that Hillary can use against him or looking dopey in general. I saw a "debate" between he and Paul on some committee they are on about spending (I think healthcare was involved somehow) and Rand made the fiscal argument against and Bernie made the moral argument for...it was pretty much a draw.

 

[erowe1]

He risks saying something that Hillary can use against him or looking dopey in general. I saw a "debate" between he and Paul on some committee they are on about spending (I think healthcare was involved somehow) and Rand made the fiscal argument against and Bernie made the moral argument for...it was pretty much a draw.

That kind of draw is fine, because they're not really running against each other now. Bernie wants to win over Democrat supporters, and Rand wants to win over Republican ones. It's true that Rand is in a more desperate situation than Bernie, but Bernie absolutely does need a boost if he wants to win the nomination. He does need to take risks; and really, the likelihood that a risk like this would give him just the boost he needs is higher for Bernie than it is for Rand. And this would be more likely to help him win support from Dems than hurt him.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How is he supposed to afford that?

How can he afford NOT to? He would get much more out of it than what he paid for it. Seriously, while a broadcast buy of the time on CW may be too costly, a cable buy across the country (such as for MSNBC) is quite doable. I bought a few 30 second spots in the NYC cable market for a past LP run for the US Senate, and found they only cost a few hundred bucks per spot. A two and a half hour cable buy nationally (or just in selected key markets) could run more like in the tens of thousands, but not much more. If Rand brought in Sanders, the network might cover the thing for free, in addition to Cspan covering it.

 

[PCKY]

That kind of draw is fine, because they're not really running against each other now. Bernie wants to win over Democrat supporters, and Rand wants to win over Republican ones. It's true that Rand is in a more desperate situation than Bernie, but Bernie absolutely does need a boost if he wants to win the nomination. He does need to take risks; and really, the likelihood that a risk like this would give him just the boost he needs is higher for Bernie than it is for Rand. And this would be more likely to help him win support from Dems than hurt him.

You make a good point. And I'm not sure how the DNC would react. They seem to be kind of "ready for Hilary". Interesting thought...the DNC trying to screw Bernie and the RNC screwing Rand...so together they talk about what Americans really want to know about...the big C vs. the evil S...sigh...I think his handlers would say no.

 

[moraha]

That's what drives me crazy. You almost never hear about the part that matters on tv....the delegates. They never once mentioned that Ron was the actual winner of Iowa.

 

[69360]

Sanders won't do it now. He has become very credible in IA and NH. Both are statistically 50/50 now. He has no reason at all to face exclusion from further Democratic debates.

 

[erowe1]

A two and a half hour cable buy nationally (or just in selected key markets) could run more like in the tens of thousands, but not much more.

Where did you get this number?

 

[CPUd]

That's what drives me crazy. You almost never hear about the part that matters on tv....the delegates. They never once mentioned that Ron was the actual winner of Iowa.

Most of the news readers don't understand the delegate system. There was a lot of lazy reporting in 2012, because it is literally a full time job keeping track of delegate counts.

 

[MarcusI]

Most of the news readers don't understand the delegate system. There was a lot of lazy reporting in 2012, because it is literally a full time job keeping track of delegate counts.

This year - they changed after the last cycle - every state which is holding a candidate poll, is required to bind them - in some way, and only for the 1st ballot - to the results of this poll. Only like 3 states (and some territories) chose to not hold a poll at all - so consequently their delegates are not bound at all. Ofc, as soon as we would have a brokered convention (which isnt likely, still) then the REAL delegates count. So its worth trying to get there.

 

[CPUd]

This year - they changed after the last cycle - every state which is holding a candidate poll, is required to bind them - in some way, and only for the 1st ballot - to the results of this poll. Only like 3 states (and some territories) chose to not hold a poll at all - so consequently their delegates are not bound at all. Ofc, as soon as we would have a brokered convention (which isnt likely, still) then the REAL delegates count. So its worth trying to get there.

Yeah, they tried to streamline it after the 2012 cycle, so the nominee could clinch by April. If different candidates are winning pluralities by close margins in the proportional states, it could have the opposite effect. They will probably have to change the rule where a candidate is required to control delegations in 8 states to be on the RNC ballot.

 

[Scott_in_PA]

They will probably have to change the rule where a candidate is required to control delegations in 8 states to be on the RNC ballot.

I hope this rule bites them in the arse this go around. If they have to change it, and they can, it will only further prove they hate the Pauls.

Ron has more than 5 states = change it to 8.

Drump is the only one with the required 8 states = change back to 5, or 4, or 3, or whatever jeb or rubio need.

and finally 2+2=5

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Where did you get this number?

It's low estimate based on the commercial cable buys I did in past campaigns, as stated. The amount per spot went for the low hundreds in NYC as of a few years ago, which may be higher than in other parts of the country. If Rand wanted to concentrate on just the Iowa or NH markets, and invited CSpan and RT to cover it for free, he could spend as low as $50-$100,000 for the effort. If MSNBC covered it free, not even that much.

 

[Antwan15]

Rand will be in the debate.

CPUd is always right. (MrNoSmile, do you ever smile? Why play the blame game.) It's the polling....those things are always rigged. Plus the media black out is for real. After the last debate, when Rand literally won the debate (even sauerkraut thought so), the media basically did not talk about him. Kelly Paul mentions this in one of her interviews; how she wanted to throw something at the tv because they were talking about everyone but him and he had been the shining star. This is how they, the media, manipulate the viewers. In spite of people saying they hate the media and the media is biased, they are still directly impacted by it. Maybe it is unconscious but then of course most people are unconscious most of the time. Notice, they then give Rand all of these interviews but only after the initial impact has faded and they have convinced the viewers that he is really not even worth talking about. They did the same thing with Ron. He got tons of interviews when it didn't count and they had already degraded his viability. Same old same old and it seems that most people never figure it out.

Guess not.

 

[CPUd]

For the record, I never claim to be. Rand got screwed by a couple of those polls.

 

[Crashland]

For the record, I never claim to be. Rand got screwed by a couple of those polls.

He would have needed to perform better than average in order to make the cut. It was certainly possible but just didn't work out this time

 

[CPUd]

They were expecting a couple 6+ in Iowa with Jeb polling 3-4.