Paul campaign rips ABC over probable exclusion from New Hampshire debate

[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.