Did Rand beat any of this candidates given the ABC criteria?

[phill4paul]

I dunno. You tell me. If he suspended his campaign and could have been in any one of these spots then he shouldn't have suspended. MHO.

 

[CPUd]

It depends on which polls they used. If they go back to polling since Jan 1, probably not. If they did "last 5", he probably would be tied or ahead of Christie in national polling.

 

[CPUd]

Christie has no business being up there, I don't give a shit what he's polling.

 

[phill4paul]

It depends on which polls they used. If they go back to polling since Jan 1, probably not. If they did "last 5", he probably would be tied or ahead of Christie in national polling.

It was Christie I was wondering about. Seems he could have made a good case to beat Christie in.

 

[Jackie Moon]

It depends on which polls they used. If they go back to polling since Jan 1, probably not. If they did "last 5", he probably would be tied or ahead of Christie in national polling.

Yeah, the problem was that it went back to Jan 1st. If they had done it by the last 5, Rand would have almost definitely edged out Christie for 6th nationally.

The last 5 on RCP:

Christie

3
3
1
4
4

Total 15 = 3% avg

Rand

n/a
5
4
3
1

Total 13 = 3.25% avg

Rand wasn't included in the most recent poll, but he would have only needed 2% to tie Christie's avg, and 3% would have beat him. And the other PPP poll after Iowa had Rand at 5% so we can be pretty sure that he would have at least hit 2.

However, since they went all the way back to Jan 1st, Christie's avg is 3.18%. Rand would have needed to get 9% in that latest Quinnipiac poll to tie Christie.

Even if Rand had only received 5%, his average from Jan 1st would have been 2.82%... 0.36% behind Christie. It's insane to keep someone out of a debate over 0.36% - but we've seen before that they would have.

Plus, they put more weight in to polling than actual voting results. When considering polls they included top 6, but when using actual votes from Iowa it's only top 3.

 

[phill4paul]

Yeah, the problem was that it went back to Jan 1st. If they had done it by the last 5, Rand would have almost definitely edged out Christie for 6th nationally.

The last 5 on RCP:

Christie

3
3
1
4
4

Total 15 = 3% avg

Rand

n/a
5
4
3
1

Total 13 = 3.25% avg

Rand wasn't included in the most recent poll, but he would have only needed 2% to tie Christie's avg, and 3% would have beat him. And the other PPP poll after Iowa had Rand at 5% so we can be pretty sure that he would have at least hit 2.

However, since they went all the way back to Jan 1st, Christie's avg is 3.18%. Rand would have needed to get 9% in that latest Quinnipiac poll to tie Christie.

Even if Rand had only received 5%, his average from Jan 1st would have been 2.82%... 0.36% behind Christie. It's insane to keep someone out of a debate over 0.36% - but we've seen before that they would have.

Plus, they put more weight in to polling than actual voting results. When considering polls they included top 6, but when using actual votes from Iowa it's only top 3.

Thanks for the breakdown.

 

[gee_blee]

Thanks for the breakdown.

ABC would not have used all ten national polls since Jan 1 (they never said they would - they stated "polls recognized by ABC News" - and no other debates used nearly that many). They would've probably used an average of the last five, as was previously done. I believe Rand would've been invited, especially after finishing 5th in Iowa. Hell, look at how much play Fiorina is getting from being excluded because she, like Rand, got a single Iowa delegate, even though her polling is at the bottom.

 

[bronc_fan23]

Hell, look at how much play Fiorina is getting from being excluded because she, like Rand, got a single Iowa delegate, even though her polling is at the bottom.

Yeah, but she's getting so much play because she's the only one left out. The field narrowed considerably after Iowa. You honestly think any of them would be making such a fuss if it was Rand and Fiorina? Doubtful.