RSS 2.0 FeedFox And ABC Excluding Ron Paul From New Hampshire Debates
by Doug MataconisRon Paul’s supporters are in an uproar over the fact that ABC and Fox News are both excluding their candidate from pre-New Hampshire debates scheduled for next weekend:
NEW YORK (AP) — ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox’s case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.
The roster of participants for ABC’s back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday’s Iowa caucus become clear.
Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines.
The network said it had limited space in its studio — a souped-up bus — and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.
In a nationwide poll conducted December 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, Thompson had the support of 11 percent of GOP voters and Paul was at 3 percent. Paul’s support is at 6 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted in early December.
Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll’s margin of error.
The Paul campaign is claiming that this is evidence of anti-Paul bias:
Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said it was a “big mistake” not to include Paul, especially given Paul’s recent success in fundraising. He said the campaign has been trying to reach Fox News to get an explanation for the decision, but its calls had not been returned.
“There very well might be some bias,” Benton said. “Ron brings up some topics that aren’t very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq … that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don’t see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul.”
Actually, given the metrics, it does have a logic to it. While there are several scenarios under which Paul could, and probably will, do better than expected in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Nevada, there are no realistic scenarios that have him actually winning any of those early primaries. The Paul campaign will no doubt stir up some noise over the coming weeks, but it simply isn’t realistic to expect that he will win the Republican nomination for President — anymore than it was realistic to think that when he started this campaign.
For those reasons, it makes sense for a news organization to limit debate participants to people who have a shot at winning the nomination. Ron Paul isn’t one of those people.
That said, I think excluding Paul at this point doesn’t make sense. Notwithstanding his poll numbers, he’s been invited to every other debate that’s been held and there’s no logical reason to exclude him now before the voting has even started. Keep in mind, though, that my answer to this question will probably be different in three weeks after several primaries have been held. At that point, any candidate who isn’t polling in double digits most definitely should be excluded.
“there are no realistic scenarios that have him actually winning any of those early primaries.”
Yes there are. Only a tiny percentage of Paul’s support comes from people who qualify as “likely voters” to the pollsters. The realistic scenario is that the polls are run in such a way that they do not measure Paul’s support with any accuracy whatsoever. I bet you’d find that 90% or more of those who are involved in Ron Paul Meetup groups or who have donated to the campaign would not qualify as “likely voters”. Only a real vote will tell us where he stands.
Jimmy Carty, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Pat Buchanan were all polling about the same at the same point in time in previous election cycles before they all went on to win early states. The precedent has been set. It would have been unthinkable to have excluded any of them from any of the debates approaching the first caucuses and primaries.
The bottom line… No one should be excluded until the first votes are cast. Polls run by private entities are not votes.
Comment by Scott — January 2, 2008 @ 11:13 amScott,
I don’t disagree with you that Ron Paul’s support is stronger than the polls are picking up, but unless there are a massive amount of people out there who are being ignored by the polls it’s hard to believe that this “hidden support” is strong enough to produce a victory in any of the early primary states.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 2, 2008 @ 11:22 amI’d also add…
FOX’s choice of criteria to decide who will be excluded seems suspect. If they had chosen to allow only those polling in the top five in New Hampshire, Ron Paul would be there, and Fred Thompson would not. But we all know that would never happen.
FOX’s choice of criteria is not arbitrary. FOX has an agenda, and they have researched how to fulfill that agenda. Plain and simple.
Comment by Scott — January 2, 2008 @ 11:23 am‘it’s hard to believe that this “hidden support” is strong enough to produce a victory in any of the early primary states”
The turnout in Iowa is typically embarrassingly low. In 2000, it was 6%… about 88,000 people. With the way the field is so spread, it will likely take 25,000 votes to win the state. With the motivation of Paul’s supporters, and with the polls not accurately measuring how many there are, I’d be surprised if Paul didn’t do -extremely- well in that state. As for New Hampshire… which polls predicted Pat Buchanan would ever win there? He ended receiving about 20% more of the vote than the polls ever indicated. We are one day away from Iowa, and 6 days from New Hampshire. We’ll know soon enough.
Comment by Scott — January 2, 2008 @ 11:38 am“but unless there are a massive amount of people out there who are being ignored by the polls ”
Average turnout of the Republican primaries last election cycle of registered Republicans: 6.6%, is the number I hear most often.
These are the people who get polled.
These are not the people who are voting for Paul.
Comment by DrEast — January 2, 2008 @ 12:32 pmI think Paul will survive and soon reach double digits in the polls. He should have a lot more endurance than someone like Fred Thompson, and so it will be interesting to see how Fox News try to backflip and decide to cover Ron Paul in the future debates.
But if Ron Paul gets some serious positive momentum, he should snub Fox News and refuse to speak to them.
Comment by Jono — January 2, 2008 @ 3:31 pmABC’s metrics are balanced and reasonable. They account for a number of different factors that encompass name-brand and insurgent campaigns alike.
Fox’s “metric”, which they announced several days after announcing the guest-list, is obviously simplistic.
Comment by Jeff Molby — January 2, 2008 @ 4:24 pmJono,
I agree that Ron Paul will have more endurance than Fred Thompson.
But Fred Thompson is in 4th place and looks like he’s asleep most of the time, so that’s not saying much at all.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 2, 2008 @ 5:50 pmJeff,
If that theory is correct, then why are they also excluding Duncan Hunter, who may well be the biggest war hawk in the race ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 2, 2008 @ 5:51 pmDoug,
Hunter is in it for the vice presidency. He mimics the same views as the front runners with none of the charisma or political backing.
Paul is there because he’s the only one subscribing to a completely different view of the republican party.
Comment by Greg — January 2, 2008 @ 7:50 pmI think the most suspect thing about this all is just the timing. The ABC criteria are just fine- they’re based on the actual results of the Iowa caucuses, which haven’t happened yet. The problem with Fox’s decision is that they’re narrowing the field before a vote has even been taken; that reeks of a desire to influence the nomination race. As for excluding Hunter as well- that’s not exactly a risky proposition given his inability to even register a number in any polls; at the same time it gives Fox pretty good political cover. I’m not saying this is necessarily a conspiracy or anything of that nature; but the timing of this decision combined with the source of it smacks of a real, overt desire on Fox’s part to influence the outcome of the race. It’s worth noting, by the way, that the NH GOP is actually backing Paul up on this one from what I understand.
I also should add that I don’t think this ultimately will have a negative effect on Paul, and will probably even help him out, seeing as the decision is being received unfavorably by even some of the most hardened opponents of the Paul campaign. Given the effects of debate fatigue at this stage of the game and the free publicity Paul is getting from the snub, I’d say there’s a good chance he’ll actually gain more from his non-appearance than any other candidate could hope to gain from their appearance.
Comment by Mark — January 2, 2008 @ 8:40 pmDoug, because after 12 months of campaigning, Hunter has not gained even the slightest traction by any metric. If Tommy Thompson were still in the race, he would understandably be excluded as well. There are already enough hawks to choose from; they can afford to trim the field a bit.
Comment by Jeff Molby — January 2, 2008 @ 8:43 pmIf Ron Paul finishes third in Iowa on Thursday night(as Pat Buchanan has predicted) it will make Fox News look foolish not to invite him to their forum. I predict that Fox News will change their mind if Paul does finish third in Iowa.
Comment by Ken H — January 2, 2008 @ 10:02 pmTruth be told, I’d prefer Hunter debate (and stay in the race) as long as possible. He’s just one more in a long line of hawks that will dilute the warmonger vote.
Comment by Brian T. Traylor — January 3, 2008 @ 12:22 amHah Check out McCain’s Dean Scream
“Make it 100!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM
Comment by John — January 4, 2008 @ 6:36 pm