Libertarian Librarian

This AP story on CNN looks at ABC and Fox thinning the debating ranks.

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.

A Fox News Poll released on 20 December 2007 had Thompson in fifth place with 10%, while Ron Paul was only polling at 3%.

Ron Paul won't be in ABC's New Hampshire debate if he doesn't place fourth or higher in Iowa, poll 5% or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5% or higher in one of the last four major national surveys. If ABC excludes him, will "there simply [be] no justification for excluding Paul but including Fred Thompson... other than that Thompson says stuff that [ABC] News agrees with and Ron Paul completely opposes much of the [ABC] News/Bush Administration's policy and spin?"

Sure, Paul is ahead in Time's recent New Hampshire poll that you cited, but the vast majority of the national polls have Thompson in double digits and Paul in single digits. Thompson currently leads Paul in the majority of the polls for the other five states with a caucus or primary before Super Tuesday.

Fox News is broadcasting nationally, and they state that space will be limited due to their forum studio being in "a souped-up bus." Should they really choose to put Paul on instead of Thompson considering that Paul consistently polls nationally below the other five candidates that Fox chose, and that Paul is ahead of Thompson in only one of the six states choosing delegates before 5 February 2008?

Maybe Ron Paul should use all the money that he's raised to campaign hard in the upcoming New Hampshire primary. He might make the ABC debate in New Hampshire, but that could be it for him on national debates if he doesn't end up in the top four in New Hampshire. Paul is coming in fifth in the majority of the polls in Iowa right now, and sixth in the majority of the polls in Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida. His national numbers are poor, so if he can't get past Huckabee or Giuliani in New Hampshire, he's likely going be off the radar by Super Tuesday.

Here's some national polling data, just for reference.

-----

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll that was conducted 14 December 2007 through 17 December 2007 placed Thompson in fifth (11%), and Ron Paul in sixth (4%).

(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY THEY ARE A REPUBLICAN IN Q.6a OR THAT THEY WOULD VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY IN Q.6b.)

14. Let me mention some people who have said that they will seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. If the next Republican primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote? (IF "NOT SURE," ASK:) Well, which way do you lean?

THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE

Rudy Giuliani 20
Mitt Romney 20
Mike Huckabee 17
John McCain 14
Fred Thompson 11
Ron Paul 4
Duncan Hunter 2
Tom Tancredo 1
Other (VOL) 1
None (VOL) 1
Not sure 9

A USA Today/Gallup Poll that was conducted 14 December 2007 through 16 December 2007 found Thompson in fourth place (14%), and Ron Paul tied with Alan Keyes at sixth place (3%). Those polled were Republicans and those who lean Republican.

Candidate Most Likely to Support for 2008 Republican Nomination for President
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners

Rudy Giuliani 27
Mike Huckabee 16
John McCain 14
Fred Thompson 14
Mitt Romney 14
Alan Keyes 3
Ron Paul 3
Tom Tancredo 1
Duncan Hunter *

* Less than 0.5%

Gallup also noted that Thompson is stonger amongst Republicans, versus those who lean Republican.

Hard-core Republicans -- those who immediately identify with the GOP as opposed to independents who lean toward the GOP -- are stronger in their support for Thompson than are independents who lean Republican. There is relatively little difference across the other candidates, however.

A CNN Poll released on 10 December 2007 had Thompson in fifth place (10%), and Ron Paul in sixth place (6%), both amongst registered Republicans

RP1. Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for President in the year 2008. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, California Congressman Duncan Hunter, Arizona Senator John McCain, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, or former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson? (RANDOM ORDER)

Registered Republicans

Giuliani 24%
Huckabee 22%
Romney 16%
McCain 13%
Thompson 10%
Paul 6%
Hunter 2%
Tancredo 1%
No opinion 6%

An ABC News/Washington Post Poll released on 11 December 2007 had Thompson in fourth place (14%) amongst likely voters who leaned Republican, and in fifth place (12%) amongst all those polled who leaned Republican. Ron Paul was in sixth place with 3% in each category.

20. (ASKED OF LEANED REPUBLICANS) If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, or Fred Thompson), for whom would you vote?

NET LEANED VOTE - LIKELY VOTERS

Rudy Giuliani 25
Mike Huckabee 19
Mitt Romney 17
Fred Thompson 14
John McCain 12
Ron Paul 3
Duncan Hunter 2
Tom Tancredo 0
Other (vol.) *
None (vol.) 3
No opinion 4

NET LEANED VOTE – ALL LEANED REPS

Rudy Giuliani 26
Mitt Romney 17
John McCain 15
Mike Huckabee 15
Fred Thompson 12
Ron Paul 3
Duncan Hunter 2
Tom Tancredo 1
Other (vol.) *
None (vol.) 4
Wouldn’t vote (vol.) *
No opinion 5
 

Another poll update:

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, gained a bit on Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Huckabee cumulative three-day tracking total equaled 28% support among likely Republican caucus–goers, while Romney moved up from 25% to 26% support. Arizona Sen. John McCain remained in third place at 12%, tied with former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who has seen a late-breaking surge. Among Democrats, 5% were yet undecided just three days ahead of the caucuses. Among Republicans, 6% were yet unsure.

They didn't mention Ron Paul, however.
 

Atrios points out also that had one of the other media outlets - supposedly 'liberal' but not really - had done something similar (like excluding Joe Lieberman) there would be much more media attention and faux outrage.
 

All interesting stats, Mojo, but did you watch the debate? Did it look impossible to fit a sixth chair up on that stage?

It is unsuprising that Thompson and Giuliani are out-polling Paul nationally-- they already have "name value". But in the places where people are already deciding-- and where the candidates are actually campaigning-- Paul trounced Giuliani in Iowa and was outpolling both Thompson and Giuliani in New Hampshire.

Plus, Paul's on-hand funds and recent fund-raising place him solidly in the "legitimate contender" ranks.

Yet he was excluded because the stage was too small?

Not buying that.

Look, I wasn't saying exclude Thompson, but I am saying that leaving Paul out of the debate was wrong. Plainly and simply wrong.

Perhaps I am wrong about Fox's motivations for excluding Paul-- trying to ascertain others motivations is always tricky at best-- but the given reason, stage was too small, was a bald-faced, lie. And I am rarely that unequivocable in my evaluations.
 

Giuliani is banking on Florida for his break-out, so nearly every candidate outpaced Giuliani in the polls for Iowa and New Hampshire.

And, speaking of places where people are already deciding, let's look at the delegates. Coming into New Hampshire it was Romney with 26, Huckabee with 20, Thompson with 6, McCain with 3, Paul with 2, Giuliani with 1, and Hunter with 1. Paul may have trounced Giuliani in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he has only pulled two delegates so far, while Giuliani has pulled one without really even trying. And, as the numbers are coming in from New Hampshire, Giuliani is leading Paul in the actual votes there.

Despite the Time New Hampshire poll that you cited originally, Paul is near the bottom of almost every state and national poll, and he isn't getting the votes needed to secure the delegates. He may have decent on-hand funds, and he may be able to raise money quickly, but his campaign is not using those resources to help put him anywhere close to "legitimate contender" ranks. When you have only one more delegate than Duncan Hunter going into New Hampshire, and when Hunter is the guy at the bottom of the pile, I wouldn't call that being a contender.

Right now I'd say that Paul and Hunter are through, and Thompson needs a decent finish in South Carolina to have a prayer. McCain won't take all of New Hampshire's twelve delegates, but he will jump up to third place. If Giuliani can stay on the radar in Michigan and Florida, he has a shot. Romney keeps finishing strong, and with Michigan coming up, he'll likely keep the delegate lead. Huckabee, we'll have to see if he was just a flash-in-the-pan in Iowa, or if he as actual staying power.

Look, I'm sorry your guy isn't doing well; but Fox News covers politics well, and I'm sure that they took the realistic political landscape into consideration when picking the five candidates who would be on their channel's debate. Could there have been one more chair? Possibly. But do you honestly think that Ron Paul would be doing any better if he had been on the Fox News debate two days ago?

Barring some sort of miracle for Ron Paul, Fox News was probably only one debate ahead of the majority of the other networks in dumping him from their debates.
 

I agree with both Nick and Billy Pilgrim-- Fox's decision was just stupid, AND I think that had the same thing happened but with the Dems, there would be much more outrage. But then again, wasn't there a similar thing with Kucinich recently? Perhaps believing that the mothership is coming to get you pushes you off the souped-up bus stage all by itself...
 

Frankly, some of the Ron Paul shine has worn off for me. I think at the present he makes a better "prod" to the establishment than an actual presidential candidate. Still a very useful part to play. But since McCain is back in play, I'm leaning towards rooting for John. He compromised some his convictions in a futile attempt to placate the base, but now he seems to have rediscovered his core.

But whether Paul is my candidate or not, he got screwed, plain and simple. Would the debate have mattered? I don't know, but it was wrong. Saying that Paul will likely now be an after thought and now not on other debates is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Had he been on the Fox debate and done well, maybe he would've gotten a bump and finished better and gotten on other debates and gotten a bump and... well, you get the idea.

There was room on the stage. Paul out-distanced Giuliani by a mile in Iowa and wasn't that far behind McCain and Thompson. He deserved to be included.
 

First it was because "Thompson says stuff that Fox News agrees with and Ron Paul completely opposes much of the Fox News/Bush Administration's policy and spin." Then, after the AP story was included in a comment that noted that Fox was short on space in their mobile studio, you watched the debate and determined from wherever you were watching that space didn't play an issue.

Part of Fox's decision was probably made by looking at the political landscape and Paul's lack of pull outside of some New Hampshire polls and his ability to raise a lot of cash on obscure holidays (such as Guy Fawkes Day). Another part of it was probably space, regardless of whether or not you believe that (try to keep in mind that if Paul got on, but Hunter didn't, people would ask why they couldn't make room for one more so that all the candidates could be heard). Further, Fox stated that they were only inviting candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls (presumably nationally). I'm sure there were many reasons why Fox limited their debate to the five candidates that they did.

You say he got screwed, while I say that his inability to make headway got him passed over by ONE network in ONE debate.

Paul was on ABC's debate. That didn't make a difference for him.

Paul has on-hand cash, but his campaign wasn't smart enough to put together a sixty-second positions-on-the-issues spot that could be offered up for showing either immediately before or after their debate. Even if Fox refused to carry it, you can all but guarantee that CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other MSM would have loved to show the spot that Fox was unwilling to show. His campaign didn't help to make the difference for him.

Paul was ahead of Giuliani in votes in Iowa by a margin of almost three-to-one, but Paul was behind Giuliani in votes in New Hampshire. Even though Giuliani was practically not involved in campaigning in either state, Paul was only able to edge him by a margin of just over 5,000 votes in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. His grassroots couldn't help to make the difference for him.

Fox made a business decision. Paul should have sucked it up, used it to his advantage, and tried to make the most of it. Instead, his supporters whined, his campaign missed an opportunity, and he failed to turn lemons into lemonade.

As ABC's Charles Gibson said, "You will have had a year's politicking. You will have had, I think by count, about 641 debates. You will have had national polls and state polls and one state's vote. I think that's pretty indicative."

Feel badly for him because he "got screwed" if you want, but it was ONE debate on ONE network, and he was on another network's debate the night before.

Besides, does anyone who has been upset with Fox over this think that the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who watch Fox News would even get Dr. Paul's message to begin with?
 

You are conflating issues, Mojo-- and maybe so am I. I do think you're getting rather defensive in your protestations of Fox's decision. You mentioned the space as a possible alternative motivation for Fox's decision to exclude Paul. Indeed, as Fox's stated reason for excluding Paul. That stated reason was crap.

Whether Fox's true motivation was my initial thought-- Paul is too anti-establishment for them-- or your belief-- Paul has no real chance of going anywhere so let's not spend time on a non-viable candidate-- I don't know. Neither do you. Only the folks that made the decision really know.

But the stated reason was disingenuous at best. I still think it was a flat out lie that somebody came up with after the Paul supporters started to raise hell. It was CYA. I would have had much more respect and confidence in Fox if they had actually said any of the things that you have said about his chances.

But they didn't.

As to the rest-- in retrospect it is easy to say that Paul never had a chance, and maybe he didn't. Certainly the campaign did a lousy job with the $ it raised, the TV ads ranged from stupid to creepy, and it seemed like Paul went into Dean mode after he got some attention. Which is to say, stopped being himself and started trying to be what he thought people wanted.

But none of that was a known quantity when Fox made its decision. So yes, I still think he got screwed. And I still personally think Fox's motivation was because they don't like Paul's message.

And for the record-- I don't believe Fox viewers are knuckle-dragging neanderthals. In fact, I know they aren't. That doesn't mean I have to believe that Fox is fair and balanced.
 

I do think you're getting rather defensive in your protestations of Fox's decision.

You started out with the assumption that Fox News excluded Ron Paul because his views don't match their views.

You seemed to jump on the limited space reason after the debate because you believe that space wasn't an issue; presumably based only upon your judgement of how much space there appeared to be from what was shown on the television that you watched it on.

I am defending my position on this because I think that you are flat-out wrong in your observations on this one. If you are seeing that as me being defensive, then so be it.

But the stated reason was disingenuous at best.

It was one of the stated reasons, Nick. It wasn't the only reason.

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.

Was the double-digit support in recent polls requirement a flat-out lie and CYA, too? ABC had similar requirements, but their requirements included state and national polls at 5% +, instead of just national polls at 10% +. Again, if Ron Paul's poll numbers had slipped and he had not gotten on ABC's debate, would you be condemning that, too?

As to the rest-- in retrospect it is easy to say that Paul never had a chance, and maybe he didn't. Certainly the campaign did a lousy job with the $ it raised, the TV ads ranged from stupid to creepy, and it seemed like Paul went into Dean mode after he got some attention. Which is to say, stopped being himself and started trying to be what he thought people wanted.

But none of that was a known quantity when Fox made its decision. So yes, I still think he got screwed. And I still personally think Fox's motivation was because they don't like Paul's message.

There have been questions about Paul and his viability for a while, and this started showing up in December just before Fox's decision.

Wow, can this guy raise money... but what is he doing with it? You really get the sense that the campaign is raising more money than it knows what to do with. Until he proves he can use this money to push a message that lures Republicans to his cause (i.e., less government), we're not going to view him as a serious player who could overtake any of the top five. (MSNBC - 04 December 2007)

Asked for advice on how Dr. Paul could convert his millions to votes, several prominent political consultants and analysts said, in essence, he can't.

"Ron Paul's only option is to buy as many flat screen TVs as he can, put 'Ron Paul' bumper stickers on them, and hand them out to voters in New Hampshire," the manager of Robert Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, Scott Reed, said. "I just don't see where he goes. … He will probably be the only presidential candidate ever to have a surplus when he drops out, because he has an incredible amount of money and no campaign strategy to win."

"I don't think Ron Paul is a serious candidate who will make any significant difference," a political newsletter publisher, Charles Cook, said. "Money or no money, I don't think Paul will be a factor and don't waste time thinking about him." (NY Sun - 21 December 2007)

And for the record-- I don't believe Fox viewers are knuckle-dragging neanderthals.

That last bit on my previous comment was intended to suggest that many of the people who are upset about this aren't Fox News fans anyway. People who refer to Fox News as Faux News, or comment disparagingly on Fox News viewers, seem to be in the majority of those who are claiming to be shocked and apalled that Fox would do this to poor Dr. Paul, even though they would likely assume the worst of Fox in any instance. I wasn't attempting to paint you with that broad-brush, however, and I apologize if that is how it came across.

Luckily, no one will have to feel sorry for Ron Paul tonight. He'll be on the Fox News debate. There have been various little things coming to the surface about racist writings in several of his old newsletters, however, and considering his support from the likes of Storm Front, David Duke, and Mel Gibson's dad, that could be something that is addressed in the debate tonight.

Back in November, while commenting on your "The Ron Paul Freedom Express Gains Steam" post, I said that this could be an issue for him.

If his poll numbers and backing would happen to rise dramatically, then he will be covered more by the media; and at that point Paul will need to deal with the national media asking pointed questions regarding his support from white supremecists, 9/11 "truthers," and other odd fringe groups. If the media starts to pose such questions, his broader support could quickly drop-off due to guilt-by-association, especially if he and his campaign don't respond well.

His supporters are getting their wish to get him back on the national stage. We'll see if that works out for him.
 

Look at who appears to be kicking-out people who don't agree with him, using lack of space as a reason.

The Washington Times, N.Y. Post and Dallas Morning News -- three newspapers that recently endorsed John McCain -- have been kicked off Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plane in the final days of his campaign.

The Obama campaign informed The Washington Times Thursday evening of its decision, which came two days after The Times editorial page endorsed Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama. The Times editorial page runs completely independent of the news department.

"This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama's campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporter's pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign," said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon. News organizations typically pay campaigns for the cost of traveling on the candidate's planes.

The Washington Times endorsed Mr. McCain on Tuesday.
"I hope the candidate that promises to unite America isn't using a litmus test to determine who gets to cover his campaign," Mr. Solomon said.

I seriously doubt, however, that there will be as much indignation and outrage here towards Obama (if there is any at all) as there was towards FOX News all those months ago.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama doing it. Doesn't play well towards the "Uniter" meme, but it is his plane and he can invite who he wants to invite.

Of course, if I were the editor of any of those newspapers, I would probably start to find a lack of space in my newspaper for coverage of Obama while my reporters were barred from his aircraft.

I wonder if Josh Marshall would agree?