I am dislexic so bare with me. I don't all way read everything correctly.
No problem. I understand on that. My apologies then, I wasn't aware.
I see, did He meet all of these requirement for all of the debates?
Its hard to tell you, in part because different debates have different rules. TYPICALLY, the rules for debates have to do with polling numbers...usually a stable threshold in that state and/or nationally. I forget the specific debate but I know for a fact there was a debate or two in Iowa whose rules stated the person had to have a 3% polling number in NH, Iowa, or nationally because I researched it when Huntsman first got in (he was my big pick). I know for a fact one debate in Iowa required above either 3 or 5% in Iowa alone, because Huntsman wasn't allowed at that one.
I'd need to go back to each and every debate and check the polls before them for each one to tell you for sure what they all were. I just don't have the free time to do that right now. What I can tell you is that by and large, from all the various one off times I've looked, that generalized polling percentage requirement has been the rules.
Menny of the candidates have dipped to one percent or lower at one time yet still in the debates.
Indeed, but many of them are like the New Hampshire one I quoted originally. I paraphrased the second time, but to go more specific....they gave a specific range (The one I quoted was from Nov 1 to the date of the debate invites) that the person needed to have one poll over the required number. Which meant if they were say....at 8% at one point but dropped under 5% they still got an invite because they were over the threshold within the time frame.
Other instances, like Huntsman in Iowa, the rules allowed for the polling numbers in NH to matter as well as those in Iowa.
Buddy Roemer hasn't popped over 3% nationally, if he even has gotten close to that. He hasn't gotten over 3%, let alone 5%, to my knowledge in any of the states that have hosted debates thus far.
I am not as verst in polatics as you seem to be yet, I still think some thing is off with the handling of how's in the debate pervinting roomer from being in debates.
Hobby and educational thing for me...its understandable
And trust me...I get you. You have a guy you like and you're miffed he's not in the debates. I understand that. The issue is that you have to set down SOME kind of rules to govern who can be in the debates. And however you set the rules its always going to end up leaving someone out that wants to be in on it.
Its a two way street. Yes, you need some kind of media attention to get interest in you up because of name recognition. At the same time though, why should you be able to take time away from people who the majority of the public are interested in simply because you're running? That's why generally most of these things require a small, but noticeable, amount of support FIRST before you then get into the debates. If you can't get a grass roots movement going enough to get even 5% of the support during these things then its arguable that you shouldn't be taking time away from people who the sizable majority of the public is actually interested in learning about and supporting.
Menny of the " liberal" media dose say he is as qoulifyed as some of the people in the debate and he is not being let in the debates for a resign that is not completely clear.
Yes, many liberal commentators like to suggest how the republican should run their primary....typically in regards to candidates that champion a few ideas the left likes or who would criticize the majority of republicans, turning the Republican primary debate into one aimed at attacking Republicans. They speak opinions based on emotional pleas such as "Will of the people" or broad conspiracies, but rarely actually put forth a reasonable, rational argument as to how debate rules should be set up in regards to attendance.
