Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign

[webfact]

Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign
By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) — Iowa and New Hampshire are still on the horizon — but first there's the Fox primary, and the buildup to this week's first Republican presidential debate shows that the influence of Fox News Channel on the GOP selection process is stronger than ever.

The musical chairs-like rules for participation in Thursday's televised debate required candidates to reach a certain threshold in opinion polls, making national exposure to an interested audience vital at a stage in the campaign when candidates are usually shaking hands in early primary states. And where better to find that audience than on Fox News Channel?

The 17 candidates —only 10 of whom are invited to the prime-time debate — made a total of 273 separate appearances on Fox News in May, June and July, according to a count by liberal-leaning group Media Matters for America. Six hopefuls — Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina and Rick Perry — have appeared 20 times or more each on Fox or Fox Business Channel, the network said. Besides interviews, candidates have joined the panel of talk shows like "Outnumbered" or "The Five."

"It is the most important forum for a Republican running for president," said Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for President George W. Bush's 2004 campaign and now an ABC News analyst.

Fox announced Tuesday afternoon that Trump, Paul, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Chris Christie were included in the prime-time debate. The remaining candidates will be in a secondary forum that starts four hours earlier.

Trump, who is leading in the polls, leads in time spent on Fox (just under five hours, Media Matters said). Sean Hannity's prime-time show, which hosted Trump, Cruz and Christie one night last week, has offered the candidates twice as much airtime as any other individual show, Media Matters said.

Part of the draw for candidates is the size of Fox's audience: second only to shark-obsessed Discovery among cable networks in July and typically larger than that of CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time. And there's the guarantee of finding like-minded voters; 47 percent of voters who described themselves as "consistently conservative" said Fox was their main source of news about government and politics, according to a 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Of the people who watch Hannity's show, 78 percent described themselves as conservative, according a 2012 Pew study. Sixty-five percent identified as Republican and 6 percent as Democrats.

"With the number of candidates we have, the gatekeeper becomes more powerful," Dowd said. "If there were only three or four candidates running, the power would be less."

That's evident in the amount of attention paid to the rules for Thursday's debate. With the largest field of contenders in modern memory, Fox said that setting a cap on the size of the prime-time debate was necessary for a coherent event, yet some experts believe a failure to be included in the first tier could itself deal a death blow to a candidacy. Republican pollster Frank Luntz told the AP last month that "if you're not on that stage, you're irrelevant, you don't matter."

CNN's Sept. 16 debate will also have two separate tiers, although the two forums will run back-to-back. The network hasn't yet specified how many candidates will be in each.

Fox said that it determined participation by averaging the results of the five most recent national opinion polls done by nationally recognized organizations, not affiliated with a party or a candidate. Since the network didn't specify in advance the polls that it would be using, that led to grumbling that was encapsulated by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show." ''Basically, they're going to look at the polls and (Fox News Chairman) Roger Ailes is going to pick whoever he wants," Stewart said.

The network announced Tuesday that its decision was based on a combination of polls from CBS, Fox, Bloomberg News and Monmouth and Quinnipiac universities.

"Common sense would tell you that there is no formal schedule for who releases polls and when," said Michael Clemente, Fox's executive vice president of news. "And fairness would tell you that we can't judge any poll until you can see the methodology."

Still, some resentment seemed apparent Monday night at a forum in New Hampshire, when Fiorina thanked the hosts for "reminding the political class that we don't have a national primary and managing to get all of the candidates here."

Although Fox's dominance in viewership is unchallenged — July marked its 163rd straight month atop the prime-time cable news ratings — this early stage of the campaign hasn't necessarily been a boon to the network. Fox's full-day viewership in July was down 4 percent from July 2014, the Nielsen company said. CNN was up 6 percent and MSNBC, where Rachel Maddow has done segments critical of Fox's impact on the GOP candidate selection process, was up 17 percent, Nielsen said.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-05

[arjunadawn]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

Edited August 5, 2015 by Jai Dee
Font resized

[sammygood]

dems or reps

it does not matter

they all listen to their masters, aka sponsors... big companies

[Chicog]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

No, it should read "Roger Ailes", not "Fox News".

[Rancid]

I had Fox news through cable here ages ago, it took me years to gain some sembalnce of my former IQ. Goebbels would have been proud to see his theories so well executed.

[arjunadawn]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

No, it should read "Roger Ailes", not "Fox News".

Yes, I agree.

[ggt]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

[mikebike]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

should read: as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings for white men 68 and older.... what an awesome demographic!!!!

[F430murci]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

[brewsterbudgen]

The networks share the debates don't they? Fox is just first up.

[Chicog]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

You realise that polls have margins of error for a reason, right?

I tend to agree with the poster above - they should have split the candidates over two nights and given them equal footing.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Chicog

[arjunadawn]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

should read: as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings for white men 68 and older.... what an awesome demographic!!!!

Not an unfair comment but is it complete? I mean, are we being frank with the data? There is little doubt older people watch Fox News. The Atlantic asserts 50% of viewers are basically old, like you suggest. Yet when one considers the available census graph for lately 2010 its apparent something else is taking place. There is simply not enough old people to account for the market share. Only a complete picture emerges when one looks at the low ratings of other competitors. The market share of competitors either reflects low information voters who run on emotion and don't need news, or a tuning out of their bias- as opposed to tuning in to Fox bias. I believe it is a combination.

I am not a statistician but I realize, as Fox admits, its entertainment. The amount of people "older" in relation to Fox's market share reflect something else is going on. Entertainment or news, it does not matter. Its called entertainment but watched as news, indicted as news, but the viewers marginalized as being entertained only. Regardless, its success model is because it fills a niche vacated by previous network news. It resounds with its viewers.

The US is irrevocably fractured and this Balkanization is actually being intentionally cultivated so reconciliation can never take place. This is not a phase, this is a defining time. There will be no healing only widening of the cultural gap. This alone proves my point. Fox news is successful because a majority of Americans feel the changes to the country are not necessarily wrong but unnecessarily divisive and nihilist.

[sdanielmcev]

Oh, the hand wringing and teeth gnashing of that terrible ogre Fox News! Let the blubbering and sputtering begin!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

[mikebike]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

should read: as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings for white men 68 and older.... what an awesome demographic!!!!

Not an unfair comment but is it complete? I mean, are we being frank with the data? There is little doubt older people watch Fox News. The Atlantic asserts 50% of viewers are basically old, like you suggest. Yet when one considers the available census graph for lately 2010 its apparent something else is taking place. There is simply not enough old people to account for the market share. Only a complete picture emerges when one looks at the low ratings of other competitors. The market share of competitors either reflects low information voters who run on emotion and don't need news, or a tuning out of their bias- as opposed to tuning in to Fox bias. I believe it is a combination.

I am not a statistician but I realize, as Fox admits, its entertainment. The amount of people "older" in relation to Fox's market share reflect something else is going on. Entertainment or news, it does not matter. Its called entertainment but watched as news, indicted as news, but the viewers marginalized as being entertained only. Regardless, its success model is because it fills a niche vacated by previous network news. It resounds with its viewers.

The US is irrevocably fractured and this Balkanization is actually being intentionally cultivated so reconciliation can never take place. This is not a phase, this is a defining time. There will be no healing only widening of the cultural gap. This alone proves my point. Fox news is successful because a majority of Americans feel the changes to the country are not necessarily wrong but unnecessarily divisive and nihilist.

But market share is totally misleading as 30-35 and under don't do TV newstertainment of any sort - their infotainment is web-delivered...

[Emster23]

Does Fox still use big lie technique calling itself "Fair and Balanced"? I don't know if it chicken or egg thing, but since Fox has been on the scene political civil discourse has gone in the crapper. I wonder what some of the questions will be: Why is Obama the worst since Hitler? What's the best way to return traditions of old white people calling all the shots? How long until 10 commandments are carved into front of every Federal building? Which should we deport first: gays or atheists? etc etc

[sdanielmcev]

Does Fox still use big lie technique calling itself "Fair and Balanced"? I don't know if it chicken or egg thing, but since Fox has been on the scene political civil discourse has gone in the crapper. I wonder what some of the questions will be: Why is Obama the worst since Hitler? What's the best way to return traditions of old white people calling all the shots? How long until 10 commandments are carved into front of every Federal building? Which should we deport first: gays or atheists? etc etc

Yes and yes. Their really is a vast right wing conspiracy.

Fox is fair. Just not to the leftist/socialists and their legions of lemmings. And it balances out the rest of the liberal media. Just one network.

[notmyself]

I'm really looking forward to Thursday and various debate dates that follow. Always fond of a good belly laugh, Republican debates offer a near perfect mix of Python like way way out there subjects and answers mixed with finest quality slapstick. To me, as a non U.S. citizen, it resembles the Edinburgh comedy festival with the added twist of many people taking it seriously.

[sdanielmcev]

"Debate line-up illustrates power of Fox News in GOP campaign" should read

"Fox News reflects that degree of discontent in the majority of American Viewers" ...as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings. Therefore, those who oppose the emerging socialist-progressive state are more apt to have a fair hearing on this issues in the Fox News lineup and subsequently reach more disaffected voters."

should read: as evidenced by its supreme rank in the news ratings for white men 68 and older.... what an awesome demographic!!!!

Not an unfair comment but is it complete? I mean, are we being frank with the data? There is little doubt older people watch Fox News. The Atlantic asserts 50% of viewers are basically old, like you suggest. Yet when one considers the available census graph for lately 2010 its apparent something else is taking place. There is simply not enough old people to account for the market share. Only a complete picture emerges when one looks at the low ratings of other competitors. The market share of competitors either reflects low information voters who run on emotion and don't need news, or a tuning out of their bias- as opposed to tuning in to Fox bias. I believe it is a combination.

I am not a statistician but I realize, as Fox admits, its entertainment. The amount of people "older" in relation to Fox's market share reflect something else is going on. Entertainment or news, it does not matter. Its called entertainment but watched as news, indicted as news, but the viewers marginalized as being entertained only. Regardless, its success model is because it fills a niche vacated by previous network news. It resounds with its viewers.

The US is irrevocably fractured and this Balkanization is actually being intentionally cultivated so reconciliation can never take place. This is not a phase, this is a defining time. There will be no healing only widening of the cultural gap. This alone proves my point. Fox news is successful because a majority of Americans feel the changes to the country are not necessarily wrong but unnecessarily divisive and nihilist.

Actually, Fox and the rest of the televised medias' news programs are run by the entertainment division, not denoting they are entertainment as such. Just to be fair and balanced. "Fox News" is the name of the network, not all of the product.

And I cannot agree more with your last sentence.

[sdanielmcev]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

You must not realize that "batting clean up" is a designation for the big hitters, not the also rans.

[bendejo]

It's all a little ridiculous as the primary elections do not begin until February. To put that in perspective, that means after xmas (started shopping yet?). After New Years. And then another month. In the US is it now summertime, and none of this will happen until they're sleeping under blankets again and the snow is yay-deep. Super Tuesday may be a warm pre-spring day. The only people paying attention to this are the politicians, the media that covers them, and those of us to take an interest (or take amusement) from this stuff. Other than moments the media will not allow us to forget (eg, Perry's 'oops!' from 4 years ago) who is going to remember any of the stuff going on now?

"Hey honey, which is the one who put the bacon on the machine gun?"

"What's the name of the old guy with the Noo Yawk accent?"

Trump is a tv star, Hillary is a household name, and then there's Bush. There's a lot of Americans who can't be bothered keeping up with this stuff so, they just might vote with name recognition.

[notmyself]

It's all a little ridiculous as the primary elections do not begin until February. To put that in perspective, that means after xmas (started shopping yet?). After New Years. And then another month. In the US is it now summertime, and none of this will happen until they're sleeping under blankets again and the snow is yay-deep. Super Tuesday may be a warm pre-spring day. The only people paying attention to this are the politicians, the media that covers them, and those of us to take an interest (or take amusement) from this stuff. Other than moments the media will not allow us to forget (eg, Perry's 'oops!' from 4 years ago) who is going to remember any of the stuff going on now?

"Hey honey, which is the one who put the bacon on the machine gun?"

"What's the name of the old guy with the Noo Yawk accent?"

Trump is a tv star, Hillary is a household name, and then there's Bush. There's a lot of Americans who can't be bothered keeping up with this stuff so, they just might vote with name recognition.

This is certainly how it should be unfolding but it isn't. Political donors are unlikely to fund those outside of the top 10 from the get go never mind after 3 debates. Why would someone or some body (large donor) continue to fund someone who isn't even being mentioned in the media. They are going to cosy on up to whoever is willing to do their bidding but they must at least have a chance of being able to do so. The 2nd debate and lead up to it will end it for some, before they have really started.

It's actually quite obvious why there are so many Republicans running. Every **** and their mother knows that the final choice is totally down to the Koch brothers but you have to be in it to win it. The eventual candidate chosen by said Koch brothers is almost certain to be the most pliable, the most open to suggestion and the one with a sociopathic tendency.

[F430murci]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

You must not realize that "batting clean up" is a designation for the big hitters, not the also rans.

Lol, it was early morning for me . . ., but you are correct.

[F430murci]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

You realise that polls have margins of error for a reason, right?

I tend to agree with the poster above - they should have split the candidates over two nights and given them equal footing.

You realize that some of you guys complain about anything and everything having to do with the US. I doubt GGT is a Republican, will vote Republican or perhaps won't even vote at all.

Makes sense to be worked up or spun out about who gets the spot light in a GOO debate when ya don't even vote Republican to begin with. Just another reason to whine.

[F430murci]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

You realise that polls have margins of error for a reason, right?

I tend to agree with the poster above - they should have split the candidates over two nights and given them equal footing.

Oh, and margin of error is plus or minus 2% so those crack candidates you want to give center stage could have a negative 2%? Nah, they are right where they belong and lucky to get in a stage at all.

Edited August 6, 2015 by F430murci

[Publicus]

Rick Santorum had already closed up shop in Iowa which he'd won in 2012. His campaign staff is gone elsewhere so Santorum who'd finished 2nd to Romney back when quietly accepted the kiddie debate table.

Perry is already a goner, he just can't remember being told. Jindal is a has been who never wuz and the list is already getting long and longer.

Trump meanwhile has cranked up professional full time paid campaign staff in Iowa for the caucuses and in New Hampshire for the primary and he's got the Republican party chairman in South Carolina which is the third primary state organizing for him there.

Trump has closed in Iowa to a few points behind Walker's lead and is significantly ahead in New Hampshire and in SC. The reputable Florida state poll showed him cranking Bush and Rubio there too.

Trump is significantly ahead of the pack and he's hired political pros to figure ways to sustain the momentum, the Big Mo.

[keemapoot]

As much as Trump has infused a carnival atmosphere into this early process, I have been reading how his support is at the level that Romney's was in the last cycle at this same juncture. This means he cannot be dismissed as the clown he is so easily. One article mentioned that quality which he shares with Obama, which is brand. Trump is always touting his brand, and he seems to be rightly doing so that this point in American politics. It's also interesting that the republican demographic supporting him the strongest is uneducated white males, and firmly not educated, higher income repubs.

Hilary is expecting him to flame out, which is why she is only addressing Jeb Bush, and perhaps she is right, but could there be another Reagan (entertainer with brand) in the making?...well, kind of cross between Reagan and Jesse (The Body) Ventura.

[Publicus]

Been thinking about that, the demographics of Trump's support base.

The minority of the (supposedly) educated ones who welcome The Donald with open arms. The ones with a bachelor degree or higher whose hearts beat faster now that Trump is in charge of the Republican party and its processes.

Wherever it was they matriculated with others while young.

[ggt]

I have thought something is wrong with this picture...ever since I heard how candidates for the debates would be chosen...

This makes an "A" team debate in prime time...and the "B" team debate to precede prime time...

This gives FOX News the power to make certain Presidential candidates irrelevant...in the minds of many viewers...

How many of you attend a High School JV team game? Not many...everyone wants to watch the Varsity...

I would have given each candidate a number...randomly choosing the numbers...come up with two different "prime-time" debates...giving each candidate equal footing in the eyes of the viewers...

FOX's selection process may have damaged some candidates chances to the point of having to withdraw from the race...

Unintended consequences? Or, deliberate sabotage?

Lol, how some just always look for the negative and complain about everything.

There are 17 candidates. Out of the bottom 8, only 2 have 2%. The rest have 1% or less. I would venture to say the candidates batting clean up for the debates already have very little chance so Fox is doing nothing to hurt those chances.

The debate needs to feature those with that have public support and actually have the ability to be contenders.

You realise that polls have margins of error for a reason, right?

I tend to agree with the poster above - they should have split the candidates over two nights and given them equal footing.

You realize that some of you guys complain about anything and everything having to do with the US. I doubt GGT is a Republican, will vote Republican or perhaps won't even vote at all.

Makes sense to be worked up or spun out about who gets the spot light in a GOO debate when ya don't even vote Republican to begin with. Just another reason to whine.

You know nothing about me...and are full of yourself...among other things...IMHO

[notmyself]

Hilarious. Trump is 100% a shill but I hope he continues for the next 2 debates.