Wikipedia

Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential debates and forums/Archive 1

< Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential debates and forums
(Redirected from Talk:Republican Party presidential debates, 2016/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by David O. Johnson in topic Different air times for candidates
Archive 1 Archive 2

Schedule Released

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Seeing as how the official schedule for the 12 debates has been released, isn't it time to start working on this page?

Here's the source from Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rnc-2016-debate-schedule-114329.html

169.231.59.11 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Another URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/16/rnc-announces-schedule-for-presidential-debates-fox-hosts-first-from-ohio-in/?intcmp=latestnews -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to include the table and the list with the debates; it's repeating the same info. I would prefer keeping the table.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Although repetitive, the article looks good to me. -- AstroU (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with David O. and think that, after a while, the bullets with list of debates could be replaced with additional informative text, a paragraph or two. What do you think? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourced comments on the large Republican field

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are good sourced comments on (1) the large field; (2) HOW TO do the debates(?). 

Headline-1: GOP Better Get Used To Crazy-Big 2016 Field

QUOTE: "Perhaps a single candidate will break out with a big lead by the beginning of fall. But it's more likely that won't happen, which could lead to a series of results in the early 2016 contests that seem less than conclusive. ... "As long as you've got enough money for gas, you can stay in the race," says one veteran Iowa Republican operative of the sprawling 2016 presidential field. "It's going to take a long time for this to play out." ... Right now, there are 14 candidates in the GOP field currently being measured by the RealClearPolitics average of polls: Bush, Rubio, Walker, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Carson, Perry, Kasich, Santorum, Graham, Jindal and Fiorina, in order of their current standing in national surveys. There are still others not in the average. Donald Trump, for example, is not in the average but is polling at five percent in the new WMUR Granite State poll of New Hampshire -- ahead of nine candidates who are in the average. Then there are John Bolton, George Pataki and others who are showing up at Republican campaign events. ... The point is, there are a lot of smart candidates in the field. They are most likely going to be in the race for some time. Of course they should be part of the conversation." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: This is a very good article, for our purposes; FYI for future editing.

Leading up to the first debate (and Iowa caucus) first week in August

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The seven invited were Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. 

Headline-1: Major 2016 GOP presidential candidates to gather at Economic Growth Summit in Orlando
 subtitle: Summit organized by Florida Gov. Rick Scott's political action committee

QUOTE: "Seven GOP candidates have confirmed they will speak in 30-minute increments to an estimated crowd of 400 invited to the summit, organized and hosted by Scott's "Let’s Get To Work" political action committee at Walt Disney World Yacht Club Convention Center. Florida has been the largest swing state in the last two presidential elections and remains so, with 29 critical, winner-take-all electoral votes." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Florida Economic Growth Summit: What the speakers said

QUOTE: "At a GOP economic forum at which seven potential presidential candidates called for less taxes and government and most blasted Democrats, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for "conservative principles applied the right way" and cautioned against angry rhetoric. In speaking to about 400 businessmen and women gathered at Walt Disney World, Bush, the final speaker, referred heavily to his actions as Florida's governor from 1999 to 2006 as a blueprint for his economic principles, and made space between himself and most of the other candidates by calling for immigration reform and a conservatism that does not alienate."

CONCLUDING QUOTE: "Ironically, Rubio got stuck in Washington because of the actions of his rival in both the GOP presidential race and foreign affairs policy, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who filibustered to block passage of the bill Sunday. Paul was invited but declined to come."

-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.


Rules

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What are the rules to be invited to the debates?83.80.208.22 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rules? The rules of who will be invited have been announced; another question would be, "What are the 'rules' of conducting the debates? What will the formats be? What will be the ground rules?

As to the invitees: the top ten in polling, coming in to a debate, will be invited, and if there is a tie for 10th, 11th will also be invited. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Minor candidates will be in a forum earlier in the day.

QUOTE: "Michael Clemente, the network's executive vice president of news and editorial, said in June that the declared candidates who don't qualify for the debate will instead be given an opportunity to participate in a forum earlier in the day. Both the forum and the debate are set to take place in Cleveland, Ohio, on Aug. 6." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

The first debate has an additional secondary debate

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Headline-1: Fox lowers threshold for early debate

Paraphrase: According to a POLITICO analysis of the latest national polling, the prime-time participants today would be: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Chris Christie and Rick Perry. The 5 p.m. debate, which will last an hour, will be moderated by Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum. The 9 p.m. [main] debate will run about 90 minutes (two hours with commercial breaks and introductions), and be moderated by Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Fields for Debate inclusions

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the debate upcoming in five days, I'm posting this to ensure that editors know which templates to use for each candidates' inclusion status, likely announced on August 4 by Fox News. The following are codes for each type of field:
Participant:{{Yes|'''P}} Secondary:{{YS|'''S}} Invitee:{{Unofficial|'''I}} Absent:{{Yes-No|'''A}} Not Invited:{{No|'''N}} Out of race/exploring:{{n/a|'''O}}


The table below illustrates how these should appear in the complete table:

Debates among candidates for the 1824 U.S. Presidential Election
 N°. Date Place Sponsor Participants*
 P  Participant, main debate.     S  Participant, secondary debate.   I  Invitee (to a future debate).     N  Non-invitee.†
   A  Absent invitee.     O  Out of race (exploring or suspended). 		Andrew
Jackson 		John Quincy
Adams 		Wm. H.
Crawford 		Henry
Clay 		John C.
Calhoun 		Smith
Thompson
1 Feb. 6, 1824 Federal Hall,
New York City 		National Intelligencer P S I A N O
2 Apr. 30, 1824 Independence Hall,
Philadelphia 		Pittsburgh Mercury P P S S O O

Spartan7W § 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

NH Candidate Forum

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

"Local news outlets in states with early primaries are teaming up to hold a Republican candidate forum in early August amid complaints that subsequent full-fledged debates are excluding candidates based merely on polling."

"The New Hampshire Union Leader, along with news organizations in Iowa and South Carolina and C-Span, are sponsoring a candidate forum in Manchester, N.H., on Aug. 3. The forum, which will give each candidate five minutes to respond to questions, would come before the Aug. 6 debate hosted by Fox News, which is limiting the stage to the 10 Republicans leading in recent national polls."

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/candidate-forum-planned-in-new-hampshire-before-first-republican-debate/

208.103.112.69 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting! Do you (or anyone else here) know if it can be seen nationally? —The Sackinator (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh! Here's a link to answer that question of mine: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150715/NEWS0605/150719512. —The Sackinator (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Your link died; possibly because FoxNews will include all candidates over 1% in two debates on August 6th, 5pm and 9pm. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This is happening, it seems. All "big-name" candidates were invited, but Trump declined, Huckabee failed to reply to the invite, and Gilmore missed the reply-cutoff. Participating candidates are all the other "big" names: Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Graham, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki, Paul, Perry, Rubio, Santorum, Walker. It is called the "Voters First Forum", or in some sources, the "2016 Voters First Presidential Forum", moderator is Jack Heath of WGIR radio who will ask questions of each of the candidates based on a random draw,[1] and will be broadcast nationally[2] by C-SPAN[3] as the "originating"/"source" media entity, Monday August 3rd at 6:30pm EDT (banner advert says "live 7pm-9pm"), from the New Hampshire Institute of Politics and Political Library of St. Anselm College aka the usual-suspects location in New Hampshire that is often used for presidential events (politician-ratings-group Live Free or Die Alliance[4] is an associate sponsor). It will also be (quite unusually[5]) simul-cast and/or co-sponsored by New England Cable News in NH, New Hampshire Public Radio, WLTX-TV in South Carolina, KCRG-TV in Iowa, Union Leader in NH, the Post and Courier in Charleston SC, and the Cedar Rapids Gazette in IA, WGIR (who provided the moderator), iHeartRadio, and possibly more. Banner-advert lists financial sponsors No Labels, Americans for Prosperity, Eversource Energy, Eastern Bank, and one I could not read with a house-icon-logo. This is, by my reading of the text, technically a violation of the RNC debate-rules which were supposed to gate the candidates through the nationwide-polling-barriers, with only the fig leaf of calling it a "forum" rather than a "debate" to cover the facade. The early caucus state activists, and the "little media" of statewide newspapers/radio/cable/etc, are apparently not willing to cede the field to the nationwide polling firms and the big four nationwide television networks. Quite interesting. I will add this to the table as the 'zeroth debate-slash-forum', if anyone thinks it should be listed elsewhere (i.e. in a separate non-sanctioned-forums-table or maybe an implicitly-sanctioned-forums-table) then please feel free to fix it up, as you see fit. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it to the table in the article, and made the appropriate subsection-summary. I gave it the identifier "forum#A" to distinguish it from "debate#1" and "debate#2" and etc. If there are additional quasi-sanctioned forums like this, they can be dubbed "forum#B" and "forum#C" and so forth. The sponsoring-newspapers are supposed to print stories with pre-debate-infocards on the candidates, and then following the broadcast, there will doubtless be a slew of WP:RS covering the reception to the event. With two hours[citation needed] of airtime, and 14 participants, each will have maximum 8 minutes of speaking-time, assuming that the moderator fires off questions in under 30 seconds per candidate, or more conservatively, each candidate might get 6 minutes of speaking-time to respond to two minutes of moderator-questioning. I am unclear on whether the event will have any candidate-to-candidate interactions, and also on whether there will be time allocated to commercials/advertisements. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right; thanks for all your investigation. I saw on One_America_News_Network that three early voting states will have the forums: NH tomorrow night (at Saint Anselm College) will have 14 candidate, but not Donald Trump. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Charles, you are surely welcome. I get all my news from wikipedia (grin) so I had no idea this was happening. There was a passing mention of it here,[6] in a story about how Marist-McClatchy is temporarily suspending their national-polling-for-who-is-your-first-pick-to-be-repub-nominee, in protest that the use-or-misuse of such polling-data as they produce (by FOX/CNN/RNC to stock the debate-stage via arithmetical averaging-n-sorting) is a quote "bad use of polls" because the pollsters simply cannot, due to the inherent limitaitons of statistical sampling, give a noise-free answer to the question of "who is in 10th place" since that is almost always a statistical tie. I never added that Marist-protest-move, because I got side-tracked by the IA/NH/SC zeroth-"forum-not-debate" protest-move.
    The motive behind the VotersFirstForum protest-move is similar to the motive behind the Marist protest-move, but distinct: the early-caucus-states are mad that the RNC is shifting power from the early-caucus-processes, to the polling-firms, in particular because it lets the polling-firms effectively winnow the field of candidates, long before the caucus-n-primary voting begins. See also the anger amongst national convention delegates in 2012, over the rules-change that was arguably pushed through during that convention, which permits the RNC members (~170 people three-per-state aka like a "party senate") to alter the presidential-selection-procedures themselves, whereas prior to 2012 any such presidential-selection-rule-changes had to be approved by the national convention delegates from the states (~2200 people weighted-by-population aka like a "party house of reps"). The new debate-rules, which shift power away from the early caucus states and the Republican delegates&activists therein, giving it to the major polling firms and the major TV networks, were made by the RNC membership alone (aka the "party senate")... utilizing those selfsame recently-modified rule-change-procedures. Hmmm; I linked you above to our 2012 Republican National Convention article, because I figured it would mention the controversial rule-change, but wikipedia has flushed that entire episode down the memory-hole unfortunately. Try pumping rules committee change 2012 republican convention into your search engine of choice, several WP:SOURCES will appear, cf Morton Blackwell and Ben Ginsberg. E.g. backstory,[7][8][9] pro-estab,[10][11][12][13][14] anti-estab,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] non-involved-journalism,[23][24][25][26][27] aftermath,[28] and the various rule-12-powered-changes.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Here is when the 2012-rule#12-change was used to make the 2016-debate-format-changes.[38]
    For somewhat different reasons, the statewide newspapers and the local radio/teevee affiliates are *also* protesting the power-shift from the IA/NH/SC caucus-n-primary-delegates, to the polling-firms... because they see it as hurting the relevance of local-to-IA/NH/SC statewide media, in favor of the major nationwide television networks. I was already expecting this heavily-packed no-clear-frontrunner season to be interesting, but if the RNC continues to take fire for centralizing rule-changes and shifting power away from the caucus-states (e.g. cf attempt to convert Nevada from caucus to primary and attempt to move Ames straw-poll to the Boone-docks then cancelling it at the last minute and so on), then I expect the season will become quadruply-interesting.  :-)     All of which is WP:OR of course, and unfit for mainspace, but my point is, keep your eyes peeled, because we may see future such local-insurgencies, organized by strange bedfellows, and given relatively little attention by the national party and by the major networks, since they are the targets of the protest-moves-slash-criticism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a trailing indicator, and ought most definitely reflect what the sources say, but it looks to my eyes like the sources are feuding amongst themselves, about which of them gets to have the most coverage-impact on the presidential elections in 2016 (and in future elections yet to come). p.s. Where should the Marist protest-move be mentioned? In the subsection specific to the FOX debate, or in the subsection talking about the logistics-criticism, or maybe both? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I put something in about the Marist thing into the logistics-criticism paragraph, and also mentioned some of the other stuff that I had open in tabs. Please feel free to condense/fix my attempt, it is a bit rough around the edges. I decided to leave Marist out of the FOX-specific section, becaue I think their point is more general (not specific to FOX criteria but to the overall idea of using polls-as-winnowing-gatekeeper at all), but feel free to add it there too, or move it there, if you think that makes more sense. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Green Papers are authoritative

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Green Papers were very reliable in the previous election cycles, and their information is consistent with what is in our article herein:

  • Saturday 15 August 2015: Debate - Fox - Cleveland, Ohio
  • Wednesday 16 September 2015 (presumably): Debate - CNN - Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, California
  • October 2015 (presumably): Debate - CNBC - Colorado
  • November 2015 (presumably): Debate - Fox - Wisconsin
  • December 2015 (presumably): Debate - CNN - Las Vegas, Nevada
  • January 2016 (presumably): Debate - Fox - Iowa
  • February 2016 (presumably): Debate - ABC - New Hampshire
  • February 2016 (presumably): Debate - CBS - South Carolina
  • February 2016 (presumably): Debate - NBC/Telemundo - Florida
  • March 2016 (presumably): Debate - Fox - TBD
  • March 2016 (presumably): Debate - CNN - TBD
  • Monday 18 July - Thursday 21 July 2016 (presumably): 41st Republican National Convention

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/events.phtml?s=a
I've refined the first two dates in the article herein. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. I have also found TheGreenPapers.com to be a real-world-reliable source on presidential election data (and although they do make predictions e.g. about specific primary-dates or specific debate-dates it is always made perfectly clear THAT a prediction is what you are looking at), and believe they are a clear exception to WP:BLOGS, specifically "expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter" if they have been treated as an expert by WP:RS publishers, which Berg-Andersson has: in 2007,[39] maybe in 2008 (paywall but "Berg-Andersson" search hit),[40] in 2011,[41][42] in 2012,[43][44] and a radio-mention in 2015.[45] Those are just the first few pages of search-hits, probably more examples exist. I think it is fair to say theGreenPapers is a wiki-reliable source that satisfies WP:RS, despite being "just a blog". Most of the info there is found elsewhere, but in some cases I've found data-corrections on TheGreenPapers which set the record straight months or years after the events, whereas the nominally-more-WP:RS mainstream news sources never bothered to issue a correction. In cases like that, it would be especially helpful to be able to use the true and correct data from TheGreenPapers, so that wikipedia is not forced to reflect erroneous data published-but-never-corrected by usual WP:RS types. (That said, even TheGreenPapers can miss things -- they don't list the August 3rd NH forum, for instance.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

financial sponsors of Voters First

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I put this sentence in, and it was recently[46] taken out: "Financial sponsors include No Labels, Americans for Prosperity, Eversource Energy, Eastern Bank, and others." I self-tagged as [citation needed] because I read the list from a banner-advert, rather than getting it from some WP:RS. There was a fifth headliner-sponsor, but I could not read the tiny font giving their name (some kind of house-icon). I don't believe the WP:RS have mentioned these financial sponsors yet, by name at least, which means the sentence fails to satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY and should be left out now that it has been challenged, until a source can be found. (I looked but one was not readily available that I could see.)

Anyways, leaving this disputed factoid here, in case somebody runs across some verification for it and would like to put it back into mainspace. And speaking of not-really-WP:RS-sources, here is a WP:BLOGS posting[47] outlining the rule#12 situation, specifically statewide-media-and-early-caucus-activists versus the national-media-and-RNC-leadership, plus discusses Trump's decline. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

C-SPAN "Voters First" Forum

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is there a reason this debate isn't included?

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327157-1/2016-republican-candidates-voters-first-forum

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/

Moonboy54 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comment above, User:Moonboy54. It is apparently a quasi-sanctioned (by the RNC) "forum" and not technically a "debate". I will add it shortly, feel free to pitch in.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, as you may know, of the four 'early voting states', three of them are holding 'forums': New Hampshire (NH), Iowa (IA), and Nevada (NV). This is all good, and the work in the article here is to be commended! We'll all be watching C-Span from 7-9pmET tonight. BTW, [48] Washington Post article was found with a Google-search (for the three forums) but is entitled: "In states with the first 2016 primaries, Democrats ask: Where’s Hillary?" (Voters want to know, they say.) -- AstroU (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The fourth 'early-voting state' is South Carolina (SC). You view Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#February for voting dates:
  • Monday, February 1: Iowa caucuses
  • Tuesday, February 9: New Hampshire
  • Saturday, February 20: South Carolina
  • Tuesday February 23: Nevada caucuses
So, when are the 'forum' dates for Iowa and Nevada? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Where have you seen forums announced for Iowa and Nevada? There may be such events later, but I don't think they have been announced yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I read that some place, but a Google-search yields nothing. Watch their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/VotersFirst -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Very important to be in the first debate

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Recently, WSJ.com had a graphic and description the top 10 in polling to be invited to the first Republican Primary debate, August 6th, (the first ‘face-off’). As I read the graphic, here are the top ten, so far, but obvious new-comers will bump out a few, soon.

Currently, according to the WSJ graphic: (Alphabetically in the 10% range: Bush, Carson, Huckabee, Rubio, Walker); (Followed in descending %-order: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, D.Trump, C.Christie, Carly Firorina, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Lindsay Graham, Rich Perry, Rick Santorum, and George Pataki currently at 1%.) The graph shows Firorina and Kasich tied at 10th, and “if tied for 10th, 11th will participate.”) The 90-second video ends by saying the largest group of those polled (20%) haven’t made up their minds yet. 

Headline-1: “Forget Primaries. First GOP Race Is to Get Into Debates”

QUOTE: "The 2016 GOP primary debates hosted by Fox and CNN will be restricted to the top 10 candidates. With a possible 16 presidential hopefuls, the race for some will likely be decided before the first face-off on August 6." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing: A great WSJ article for our purposes.

And as of today, Tuesday, August 4th, 2015
The ten candidates were announced today by FoxNews (ordered per poll average): Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Huckabee, Dr Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ron Paul, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. This information has already been expertly entered into the Article table herein. To list another way: on stage in this order: #9 Christie, #7 Rubio, #5 Carson, #3 Walker, #1 TRUMP, #2 J.Bush, #4 Huckabee, #6 Ted Cruz, #8 Ron Paul, #10 Kasich. [I think it is brilliant!]

And alphabetically (as in our Article table): Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki, Paul, Perry, Rubio, Santorum, Trump, Walker. 

Headline-2: Fox News announces candidate line-up for prime-time debate

QUOTE: "Fox News has announced the line-up for the prime-time Republican presidential debate this Thursday, and here's who qualified: Real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. The roster of 10 candidates was determined based on an average of the five most recent national polls. Trump as expected made the cut, securing the top slot. Right behind him were Bush and Walker, who each have posted strong numbers in recent surveys. The drama, rather, was at the edge of the top 10. Christie and Kasich, who were hovering by that edge in recent polling, were able to qualify. … " -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

preliminary contents for the 6 Aug 2015 republican party debate

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

journalism and political correctness vs. the question on immigration, 4th amendment and the conception of life, funding isil allies: iran, defunding epa, doe, irs and national sales tax proposals, attitudes on repealing aca, dodd-frank, and various executive orders, education excellence, iran nuclear pact: votes against, big debt: huckabee, how to answer `middle class vs. the rich' from a democratic party, abortion and the life of the mother, prisons and medicaid insufficiency as a contributor, transexual weddings and love, fisa and christie on 10 sep., rights and surveillance of phone records, military spending, potential war or enemy tack with iran, russia, and china, ukraine, israel border walls, fences, doors, tunnels, amnesty declarations, intelligence of elected officers, religious beliefs. (those among many ideas discussed during this debate.) 173.14.238.114 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

note: the debate was conducted in Aug. (corrected). 206.174.175.243 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

source-conflict about the California moderator-list

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Some sources claim (incorrectly methinks) that Hugh Hewitt of Salem Radio is the only moderator; others claim (also incorrectly methinks) that Jake Tapper of CNN is the only moderator. The truth seems to be somewhere in between, with the CNN person acting as the primary moderator, and with the SalemRadio person acting as a participating-moderator. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Hewitt should know and he said on the radio that he will moderate. CNN says it will be both Jake Taper and Hugh Hewitt and since it is a CNN-sponsored debate, they should be the definitive autority.[49] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Charles, do you remember which broadcast of Hewitt you were listening to? In the one I saw an online transcript of, Hewitt specifically said that Tapper was the moderator, and that he (Hewitt) would be participating, asking questions, and side-by-side with Tapper, but did not -- that I saw anyways -- say that he (Hewitt) would be a co-moderator, like the three FOX folks did. CNN has two places on their website, that I found at least, an announcement where they *only* mention Tapper as "the moderator" and then a fast-facts listicle which says "Moderators: Jake Tapper, with participation by Hugh Hewitt"(from memory ... it is the one you linked to). There are some sources that go ahead and call Hewitt 'one of the moderators' e.g. Brietbart, but I believe these sources are just missing the subtle nature of the Tapper/Hewitt working relationship, that is outlined with more care in the WP:ABOUTSELF sources from Hewitt && CNN. I am also, mostly going on WP:OR but also partly from hints in the sources, not fully convinced that Hewitt is going to be the *only* question-asking-participant, but may in the end be a panel-participant with multiple other as-yet-unnamed question-askers, in which case Hewitt will become the "featured panelist" and Tapper will be "the moderator" and the other question-askers will be "additional (non-featured) panelists" or something. I've added a couple of paragraphs to the article, with the sources I mentioned in this comment. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
So it seems to us that Hugh Hewitt will be sitting next to Jake Taper coordinating their questions. Recently, there was a Breitbart online article talking about Hugh Hewitt and seems to be the same info that you already included in the article[50] and I'm sure that as the debates become 'history' the paragraphs can be trimmed down. For now, WP readers will enjoy reading all about the next debate. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the impression that Tapper will be the "main" moderator, and from time to time will cue Hewitt as "questioner" (and mayhap other as-yet-unnamed panelists on occasion). So not the same setup as FOX, where the three co-moderators generally took turns asking questions, though possibly with a bit more time for Wallace as the seniormost moderator in age (I haven't seen a breakdown of which moderators spoke most or asked the most questions -- do you know if that info exists somewhere?).
    As for length, we might trim down the paragraphs via deletion, but I'm more in favor of eventually moving most of the sentences over to the Jake Tapper and Hugh Hewitt articles, where they will have a permanent home someday. At the moment, though, the main focus of the wp:sources about the CNN debate is on the question of who will make the cutoff (aka polling-data) first, and secondarily on whether the moderators will be biased (and whether the CNN debate will differ in flavor from the FOX and CSPAN ones), so I went ahead and summarized what I could find. On that note, contrary to the brevity-goal, I found another big Hewitt article, which somebody can incorporate if they like; among other tidbits, Hewitt clerked for Scalia/Bork/Ginsburg/Roberts, interestingly.[51] 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

correct status for Gilmore in VotersFirst NH forum

Latest comment: 8 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion

This still seems to be getting changed around rather often. Earlier usertalk discussions: [52][53] Some sources:

  • [Gilmore] does have one intention determined for this year: he plans to be a part of the August Republican presidential forum organized by the New Hampshire Union Leader. ..."I've already talked to (New Hampshire Union Leader publisher) Joe McQuaid, and I expect to be here, here in New Hampshire." [54]
  • [Gilmore] notes that the New Hampshire Union Leader plans to hold a forum for presidential candidates the same night and that he hopes to participate. [55]
  • missed the cutoff deadline [56]
  • entered the race too late to qualify [57]
  • did not announce his candidacy early enough to be included [58]
  • Added source#6, dug up Aug 11th, published July 15th: "The network [C-SPAN] has invited all 17 of the GOP presidential hopefuls".[59][60] From the context it is clear that Gilmore is one of the 'all 17' group, because Mark Everson was -- after a "serious look" by the co-sponsors -- expressly uninvited.[61]
  • Added source#7, dug up Aug 11th, published June 11th/12th, when the NH forum was still scheduled for August 6th to compete directly with FOX debate, and when FOX had only just announced that they too would now be allowing non-top-10-candidates some kind of somewhat-specific participation, rather than the vague promise of 'airtime' the original mid-May press release described: Rachel Maddow (interviewing Joseph McQuaid) (June 12, 2015). "Transcript: 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, June 11th, 2015". MADDOW: Have you heard from candidates yet who have committed to coming to your event? Has anybody told you they`ll do it for sure? MCQUAID: One, who is a real long shot, who says to say hi to you. He used to be the governor of Virginia. MADDOW: Jim Gilmore, tell him I said hi back. MCQUAID: He seemed to be serious. He`s a guy who was the governor of a big commonwealth when 9/11 happened. He ran a 9/11 commission. He`s a military guy. And the only way that he`s got any shot in hell at this is coming to New Hampshire and meeting voters, which he`s done quite a bit of. And, you know, lightning can happen in a bottle.... (end source#7 addition)
some commentary on how the sources could be plausibly interpreted

Gilmore expects to / plans to / hopes to participate in NH, per sources #1 and #2. Per the sources #3 and #4 and #5, the reason he was NOT a participant, is because the organizers of the NH forum set the forum-invite-criteria so that Gilmore's announced presidential run was too late (whereas Kasich's announced presidential run was not too late for their cutoff-date). Thus, I think we can mark Gilmore as "Not Invited" without any WP:SYNTH, because from the sources we know that he was going to attend if he could, and from the sources we know that he could not attend specifically because he failed to meet the debate-invite-criteria set by the forum-organizers, and to me that sounds more and more like a case of NotInvited. Source#6 strongly implies Gilmore *was* invited... the later *disqualified* from participating, on a filed-after-the-cutoff technicality.

In the past Gilmore's also been marked as Absent, aka invited but decided not to attend, which I think we can rule out based on sourced #1 and #2 above. Based on source#6 he *was* invited, and based on source#1 he expected to attend... without more sources, we simply cannot say whether the forum-co-sponsors *retroactively* added the cutoff to purposely dis-invite Gilmore, or whether Gilmore himself *purposely* filed later than a cutoff he knew would disqualify him, or whether Gilmore *wanted* to attend and the forum-co-sponsors *wanted* him to be there but he couldn't get the paperwork shuffled fast enough to make it.

(Gilmore was also marked once as Invitee-to-a-Future-Debate, based on reasoning that SpartanW explains below, which I understand but disagree with.though it seems clear from sources #4 and #5 above that Gilmore was not invited to *this* particular August 3rd forum.)

Finally, at other times, Gilmore's been marked as exploring-or-out-of-the-race, aka in Gilmore's case, marked as "o" meaning not-yet-in-the-race. This is more tricksy, because from the brief statements in sources #3 and #4 and #5, it is plausible to interpret the sources as saying that Gilmore was not at the forum, because he was still exploring and not a declared candidate. Source#6 suggests "o" is our best remaining option. Can we please get some consensus on whether Gilmore is "o"-not-yet-in, or if instead Gilmore is "n"-not-invited-by-the-forum-organizers?

Does everybody at least agree he was not present?  :-)     Ping User:Guck14, User:104.52.53.152, User:Spartan7W, User:Calwatch, and User:76.189.153.157User:FCSundae who have adjusted Gilmore's NH-forum status in the past. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Gilmore should be marked as "P" == Participant in the debate (not listing the "S" option because there was no secondary-tier at the NH forum.)
  • Gilmore should be marked as "I" == Invited To A Future Debate
  • Support The forum is in beige, signifying that it already occurred. Marking him 'o' is wrong, as he wasn't exploring at the time of the forum, he just entered after their deadline. Had he announced earlier, he would have been invited. Thus, his invitation to the FOX debate demonstrates his qualifications. Therefore, using 'I' as an invitee to a future debate is proper, because the legend clearly establishes he was invited to a later debate event. Spartan7W § 23:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand what SpartanW is suggesting here, but I don't think the "i" marking is used in this way normally; in past elections, when the invites were announced weeks or months prior to the event, wikipedia usually marked down the invited candidates as "i" to a November-debate, in our as-of-August-table, aka the debate was in the future. In 2016, because polls are being used to winnow the field for the first time, invites are sent out just a couple days before the debate, so "i" will rarely be used. (Also, although it is true Gilmore wasn't exploring at the time of the forum, he *was* exploring at the time of the forum-cutoff, hence my weak support for "o".) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Gilmore should be marked as "N" == Not Invited.
  • Weak Oppose (changing to) per newly-added source#6, Gilmore was invited. Per sources#3/#4/#5, he was later disqualified (different from being uninvited cf Mark Everson). Support since from the sources, the forum-organizers set their cutoff deadline to exclude Gilmore, even though he wanted/expected/planned/hoped to attend the forum. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As per the sources, Gilmore was aware of the cutoff date and was an officially declared candidate at the time, so he wasn't an "Out of the race" candidate. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
See my replies to SpartanW ... I'm not sure we know those things. We know there was a cutoff-date. We know Gilmore was on the wrong side of it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wouldn't delve into his state of mind, we don't know that. All candidates were invited, Gilmore didn't make the cutoff. However his not being invited isn't by virtue of his disqualification Spartan7W § 00:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We do know that Gilmore expected/hoped/planned to attend the NH forum, from the quotations of Gilmore himself speaking about the event. And although I've seen claims that all candidates were to be invited, I think that is not true; we can presume Mark Everson was not invited, Jack Fellure was not invited, Vermin Supreme was not invited... and although Gilmore says (see source #1 above) that he was in discussions with forum-co-sponsor McQuaid to attend, I don't think Gilmore got invited, I now think Gilmore *was* invited but later on got disqualified... whether intentionally-sponsor-disqualified or intentionally-self-disqualified is unclear... maybe even just accidentally-disqualified via forgetfulness?... based on missing the campaign-declaration-cutoff-date set by the forum-sponsors. The only question in my mind is when exactly the cutoff-date was established, i.e. retroactively or otherwise; I don't think the exact invite-criteria were ever published. Thus I agree we don't know whether Gilmore was or was not aware of the cutoff-deadline; *I* certainly am not aware of what the specific cutoff-deadline was, nor when that invite-criteria was announced (if ever). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the requirements for the forum was being an announced candidate. Gilmore was not announced, therefore he did not receive an invite. Guck14 (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Gilmore should be marked as "A" == Invited But Absent
    • Oppose, since although Gilmore was 'invited' per source#6 and source#7 early on, it seems pretty clear from source#3/#4/#5 (and from Gilmore's name NOT appearing on the mid-July list of committed-attendees whereas it DID appear at the very top of the mid-June list of committed-attendees), that Gilmore was definitely not 'absent' in the usual way, that for instance Huckabee && Trump were 'absent' from the NH forum (aka solely due to their own decisions). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Gilmore should be marked as "o" == Out Of The Race Or Exploring
  • Weak Support since technically speaking, the sources actually say that Gilmore was invited and that he hoped-slash-expected to attend, but that he was in the end not a participant because, at the time the forum was being organized/finalized, Gilmore had not yet declared. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


All of this is 'history' now ... since Jim Gilmore was the last candidate to 'make the cut'. He was onstage for the first (minor candidate) debate at 5pmET.[62] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Charles, the bangvotes being discussed above are for Gilmore's status ("i"/"n"/"o" each have some support so far) in the C-SPAN forum aka #F_1 on August 3rd, not for his status (which everybody agrees was "s") in the FOX debate aka #d_1 on August 6th. And you are correct, this is all history now... but I'd like wikipedia to get *our* reported version of history correct, and the sources are a bit ambiguous about exactly why Gilmore failed to appear on-stage in NH on August the 3rd. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the current 'O' (out of the race) and agree with you and '104' that it should be 'N' (not invited) because he was a week or two late in filing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Stranger and stranger; Gilmore was not only invited, he was the first to commit to be in NH, sometime before June 11th, see source#7. But by July 15th, Gilmore was not listed among the "eight names" who were going to be there (although Kasich who was also not yet officially announced was listed as being committed to show up at the NH forum), see source#6. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
since you pinged me, I chose "O" because he was, at the time invitations were being doled out, not officially in the race, although he hoped to be. While it happened to work out this way, it was not a deliberate non-invitation as was the case in the "N"'s in the 2008 and 2012 races. He just didn't announce before the deadline. Whether it was the organizers trying to save Gilmore's face or not, who knows, but out of the race when the invitations were sent out, or "O", is the correct choice. See also this source - http://politics.concordmonitor.com/2015/07/gov-federal/make-that-17-jim-gilmore-officially-launches-presidential-campaign/ - the press release was sent out July 29 with the 14 candidates present. Gilmore was not on it, and the organizers chose not to make an exception. Calwatch (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion. At first I thought that 'O' would mean he dropped "out" of the race, and I had read that he was uninvited because he hadn't filed. As I read the legend in the table, it says "Out of race (exploring or suspended)" and so it covers not being 'in' yet (at the time). -- AstroU (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes User:AstroU, the meaning of "o" is supposed to cover both not-in-yet situations, as well as no-longer-in scenarios. I think it is ambiguous whether Gilmore was *really* not-in-yet, but per source#6 which I just found today, it seems Gilmore was most definitely invited, so we cannot say "N" since that means NotInvited. I think we can say "o" about Gilmore, with wiki-honor intact, and leave the somewhat-odd nature of his 'missed the cutoff' situation to the footnotes. Contrast with Kasich, who like Gilmore was out of the race when invites were sent out, but committed to attend anyways sometime before the 15th, and then announced/filed on the 21st (eight days before Gilmore filed on the 29th); the cutoff-day must have been somewhere in the middle of that date-range. Contrast also with Everson, who filed/announced in March, but was specifically NotInvited by the co-sponsors. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to "O" as logged-out user 76.189.153.157. I think "I" is clearly incorrect, as that is a code for a future debate, and this debate is in the past. The fact that he was invited to other future debates is not relevant to this code. I am not strongly opposed to "N", but unless we create a new code, I think "O" + footnote makes the most sense. FCSundae (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Good logic. With Nancy Reagan "not inviting Gilmore" he will be the other definition of 'O' before too many more debates. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So, looks there are not many (additional) comments coming in on this one. Can people please bangvote, to see if we have achieved local consensus? From the commentary many folks are leaning "o" but none have so bangvoted. Alternatively, since at the moment we have "o" in mainspace whilst the discussion here is ongoing, maybe the better question is, are people still against using "o" for Gilmore? Please note the added sources#6 and #7, at the top of this section, where we learn that Gilmore was 'invited' and also 'committed' in mid-June, but that by early-to-mid-July, Gilmore was no longer being mentioned as 'invited' and/or committed; we know now why those changes happened, but we do know they happened, and in that order (the exact datestamps remain fuzzy). Go ahead and ping the seven, and see if we are ready to get informal talkpage consensus hammered out, just yet. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

source-conflict about the Nevada debate-location

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Some sources claim Reno, Nevada and some sources claim Las Vegas, Nevada. These are in completely different parts of the state, one on the far central-western edge, one on the far southeastern tip. I assume only one can be correct, at least, if all the candidates are to be physically on the same stage (and not satellite-linked as happened due to a Senate vote at the August 3rd forum). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

CNN sponsors the December 15th debate, and their website-info says "Las Vegas".[63] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Charles, Las Vegas Review Journal of Aug 7th (just a few days ago) says the city is not yet set.[64] Back in January, same LVRJ newspaper said CNN was "reporting" Vegas, but the RNC was staying mum about the Reno versus Vegas question: "A party spokeswoman could not say whether the debate will take place in Las Vegas or in Northern Nevada. CNN reported it will be in Las Vegas."[65] CBS also says no city yet.[66] This FOX affiliate says definitely Reno,[67] and they also have a lot of other interesting details, which seem to sync up with what we know from other sources, in particular they give full dates for 9 of the first 11 debates, whereas at the moment wikipedia only lists exact dates for 8 of the first 11 ... and we conflict on the date of d#11 in Florida, saying March 10th whereas the FOX11 affiliate says it is actually March 11th. Of course, as you point out, there are also *conflicting* sources which say, without qualification, that the december CNN debate will definitely be in Vegas.
    When sources conflict, wikipedians should not pick which sources we think are "best" or which we consider "most reliable", as a general rule... and although I would tend to agree with you that CNN probably knows their debate-schedule better than FOX11 and better than the RNC, it sets a very bad precedent to let WP:ABOUTSELF sources trump other wiki-reliable sources, right? We don't want to remove reliably-sourced criticism of a political candidate, just because the candidate themselves says on their campaign website that the criticism is incorrect!  :-)     Anyways, I suggest that we do something like this: "Sanctioned Debate #5, CNN, Nevada (either Las Vegas[3][4][5] or Reno[6][7]), 2015-12-15, time TBA." Alternatively, I would be equally happy with something like this: "Sanctioned Debate #5, CNN, Las Vegas,[3][4][5] Nevada (some sources say Reno[6][7]), 2015-12-15, time TBA." Does one of those sound good? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
75-108, Thanks for your careful research (more than the rest of us). We'll watch and see. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your kind words Charles. I didn't do much of the research though, I just found most of this stuff while watching the edit-history of the article. User:Metropolitan90 and myself are concerned about the table-width being excessive for readership with older 4" smartphones and such, so every time somebody adds the city, or the tertiary debate-sponsor, or similar width-increasing-changes to the table, I've noticed.  ;-)     Anyways, at the moment mainspace just flatly says "Reno" which I'm pretty sure is premature for Wikipedia to be saying. Are you okay with one of (or both of) my wording-suggestions above, getting implemented, so that we can hint to future mainspace-editors that the exact Nevada city-location is currently somewhat in limbo? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As the table stands now (Reno-Sparks Convention Center, Reno, Nevada) seems fine to me; and we have till December 15th to refine. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I asked the person who added RSCC where they got that factoid; they never replied,[68] but they do seem to live in Nevada, so maybe they know WP:THETRUTH. I expect it will be a source of slow-running-edit-wars, however, unless we list both Vegas (which CNN themselves says is the city) and also Reno (which NV residents and FOX11 say is the city). Do you care if I try a parentheses-with-both-cities edit? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see just the best site listed (most likely per CNN) and your friend is right. I just did a Google-search and watched for CNN to say. They say Las Vegas, Nevada: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/2016-presidential-debates-fast-facts/ -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it would be nice if we could just list the truth. But we're not supposed to be deciding the truth, right? "Wikipedia is about WP:V verifiability, not about truth." There's even a funny WP:THETRUTH essay about it: the person edting as 45.26 believes they know the truth, and that the truth is Reno. (FOX11 backs their version up, so they have WP:RS for their version of the truth, see WP:V.) You and myself believe that Vegas is the truth, and we have CNN itself to back us up, per WP:ABOUTSELF but in this case also arguably WP:RS as the journalistic network moderating and co-hosting the event, so we also have WP:V.
    But here's the problem. Should wikipedia ... which is to say ... should us wikipedians ... use our logic, and decide that Vegas is the REAL truth, and Reno is to thus be DELETED from mainspace? That's a recipe for edit-wars, right? And it's against wiki-policy, WP:NPOV says we should not try to decide the correct side of a conflict when sources conflict, we should just describe the conflict. See also WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:THETRUTH the all-time classic. Therefore, I suggest we say something like this:
  • Debate#5, hosted by CNN, 2015-12-15, in Las Vegas,[3][4][5] Nevada (some sources say Reno[6][7]).
    Thataway, us individual wikipedians aren't picking which sources "win" and which sources "lose" in terms of what city is TheTruth. That's a good, neutral stance to take. It also cuts down on edit-warring-temptation, because ALL viable reliably-source-backed-possibilities are listed right in mainspace. So that is also good; less hassle during the next few months. Anyways, as the date gets closer, we will soon know the city for sure, and so will 45.26, and so will any other editors that happen to check this page (plenty more people have added "Reno" than just 45.26 to mainspace). Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

per-debate tables , showing airtime-allotted versus poll-numbers

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I added an airtime-vs-polling table on the 7th,[69] which has some (I thought) pretty non-contentious calculations and colorations, that indicated whether the airtime allocations were "fair" by two distinct mathematical conceptions of fairness (equal shares of airtime and airtime-proportional-to-polling-rank shares). Turns out it was pretty controversial.  :-)     First the proportional-share-percentage column was deleted,[70] then the entire table was deleted,[71] and most recently the table was partially restored, but without either of the fairness-calculation columns (nor any fairness-colorations).[72]

  I was planning on adding some additional columns to the table, column#5 to indicate the number of questions the moderators asked a candidate (plus the number of times the candidate interrupted to challenge), and eventually column#6 to indicate polling-number-differentials (between Aug 4th FOX-invite-cutoff and the future Sept 10th CNN-invite-cutoff for this table in particular). I was also going to add a row to the table, which showed the airtime-allocation to the moderators (i.e. how many seconds were spent asking questions rather than listening to answers). Of course, I would like to make such tables for each of the debates; I have not been able to find airtime-numbers for the VotersFirst forum August 3rd, or I would already have made such a table for that one. See also, the longer rationale which gives WP:SOURCES showing *why* I'm reasonably sure these sorts of WP:CALC columns -- if not necessarily the exact calculations I utilized -- belong in mainspace.

  So: can people please comment on whether (1) any sort of airtime-vs-polling-nums table is helpful to the readership, or if we should just list the airtimes and the polling-nums in prose form, and (2) if the airtime-vs-polls table *is* potentially helpful, comment on whether any sort of airtime-fairness-indications are helpful to the readership, which could be in the form of colorizing existing columns (green for top-three airtimes and orange for least-three airtimes) or could be in the form of a calculated-column of some type (proportional-shares-fairness-calc or equal-shares-fairness-calc or insert-other-suggested-calc-here).

  As the 'logistics' section of the article demonstrates, there have been a LOT of sources discussing the 'fairness' of using national-polling-numbers as a way to winnow the field 'early' during the 2016 race. There is a much longer tradition of WP:SOURCES discussing whether airtime was or was not allocated fairly during debates, and many such sources exist[73] for the 2016 debates as well. The discussion of airtime-allocation-fairness is distinct from, but related to, the overall problem of moderator-bias. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

These are data which personally I find interesting, however, I cannot see their basis. I didn't undo the original table, but I restored the simple version with polls + airtime. I don't think percentages are of any encyclopedic value, for such statistics provide little data. The polls + airtime clearly demonstrate the order of emphasis on each candidate and his receipt of interest, but aside from that, other data are superfluous. Spartan7W § 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The percentages are intended to illuminate the readership about the degree of fairness, at a particular debate, of a particular candidate's airtime allocation. The sources I linked to above specifically talk about the two distinct types of fairness, and one of them did so graphically with percentages. Are you also against 'colorizing' the raw data table, for example something like giving the top-three-airtimes green backgrounds, and the bottom-three-airtimes orange backgrounds, and then also giving the top-three-airtimes-per-percent-polled numbers green backgrounds, and the lowest-three-airtimes-per-percent-polled candidates orange backgrounds? This would necessitate an explanatory key, explaining what the colorations mean, but would be two columns rather than four. I still prefer the added columns, because then we can colorize them without worry about confusing the readership *why* we are colorizing; with two columns you need an explanatory-key, but with four columns the colors become self-explanatory. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Simplicity is good; polling seems so volatile it would be hard to keep up. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, agreed. I'm not talking about putting a running tally of poll-numbers in, I'm talking about the specific-to-each-debate cutoff-poll-numbers, used to send out invites for that debate. FOX picked five specific polls, and averaged them; WaPo reported the exact avg-of-5-polls data (for all candidates from Gilmore on up to Trump). That is what goes into the FOX table, and those numbers never change. CNN also has specific rules, about which polls they are using; when Sept 10th rolls around, they will release their invites, and they or somebody will report the CNN averages.
    My differential-comparison, to be added once we *have* more than one bunch of airtime-numbers of course, was going to be with the "official" polling-figures, used by the debate-broadcasters, on a per-debate basis. Now, if they *stop* using polling-cutoffs at some point, that might have to change; the RNC and FOX and CNN have been mum about whether or not polling-data will be used in debate#3 and #4 and so on (and if so exactly how). The first calc-column shows whether each candidate got more airtime than average; the second calculated column shows whether each candidate got more airtime than their invite-poll-numbers would justify. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear 75.108: I would find it very interesting (the poll numbers after each debate) but it might not find consensus here and wouldn't it be better in the text for each debate than in widening the table? Is that how it is going now? -- AstroU (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi AstroU, I agree consensus may not be achieved just yet. (As more debates occur, I will probably put my suggested six-column-tables here in this talkpage-section; it is hard to explain their value, until we have another debate or two under our belts... I expect the fairness-algorithms used by CNN will differ from the one used by FOX, for instance, and if so, perhaps then consensus will be achieved to put some wider tables into mainspace.)
    At the moment, I believe that we have a local consensus, that the sortable table with airtimes and debate-moderator-specific-pollnumbers is okay. Such a 3-column-table has been in mainspace for many days now. I originally had inserted a 5-column version, plus some added background-colorations, that highlighted whether the airtimes were "fairly" allocated by the debate-sponsors, under two mathematical definitions of fairness (equal timeslices vs timeslices proportional to poll-nums). Those 'extra' columns were cut, partly for space reasons maybe, but mostly based on questions about their utility&value to the readership.
    I believe it is, right now, still up in the air whether or not we should colorize the name/airtime/pollnums table ... can we use an green background on the top-three-airtimes, and an orange-background on the bottom-three airtimes? Similarly, can we use a green background on the top-three-pollnums, and an orange background on the bottom-three-pollnums? I think that would help point out to the readership how FOX was doing things on August 6th. This question or adding cell-colorizations can be decided in August, or can be deferred until mid-September when we'll have the 5-column CNN table for comparison-purposes. Hindsight always helps.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark Everson

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Add Everson to the list because he also has a seasoned background in politics and should also be considered a main player in the race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:504:3341:A4E9:D737:A3AA:BD44 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, at the moment there are a couple of reasons to leave Everson (and other FEC-declared candidates who have not been invited to a debate) out of the wikipedia-table-of-debates. The main reason is that, until and unless they are invited to one of the debates, their column would be entirely filled with N,N,N,N... markings which is hardly helpful to the readership. The other reason is that, with a table that already contains 17 candidates, we are having serious trouble making the table work properly with 4" smartphone screens (and even 7" tablets might be problematic). The more columns we add, the wider the table will get, and the harder it will be for mobile readership. Those points aside, I did add a sentence a few days ago, mentioning Everson under the FOX debate per WP:NOTEWORTHY, since WaPo reported he filed a complaint about being excluded from that debate with the FEC -- whereas by contrast Gilmore/Pataki/Graham would have been excluded under the original rules but were allowed in at the last minute by FOX adjusting the rules to permit them in, but not Everson (whether intentionally or unintentionally is not known at this time... cf the Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2012 which involved similar complaints about debate-invite-criteria). Also of course, Everson, as well as Fellure, are both listed in the Template:United_States_presidential_election,_2016 which appears on pretty much every 2016-election-related wikipedia page. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Also added an Everson-sentence-fragment to the NH forum subsection; he was officially not invited to that one, despite meeting the criteria... and from what I can tell, the exact invite-criteria were never disclosed by the Union Leader or the other NH-forum-co-sponsors-and-broadcasters. Cf, the Gilmore discussion below; at first Gilmore *was* invited, but later he was disqualified, and the exact details are fuzzy; did Gilmore file late on purpose, to keep himself out of the debates until he was ready (three days later on FOX?). Did the co-sponsors retroactively change the declaration-cutoff-date, to include Kasich (declared 21st) but exclude Gilmore (declared 29th)? Or was it just a case of Gilmore being told the invite-cutoff in advance, and then somebody on his staff forgetting to submit paperwork until the 29th, thus accidentally disqualifying their boss, and the sponsors didn't want to make exceptions? We don't have sources that tell us what REALLY happened, either the WP:RS kind, or even the WP:BLOGS sort, that I have seen. Same for Everson; we have one reliably-sourced-paragraph-of-text, that mentions he tried to get into the NH forum, but no specifics about exactly when and exactly why he was non-invited by the co-sponsors. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The popularity of Trump increases, not decreases

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the interest of improving the article, it can be noted that Trump's popularity continues. I just changed a phrase that he was criticized for being rude. Meanwhile, there are seven Republican candidates that have greater unlikability including J.Bush. It is noted that in May the Trump unlikability was 63% and now his likeability is 61%. Pundits are hard-pressed to explain. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

9-16-15 - 2nd Republican Debate ???

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

what's the time of the 9-16-15 republican debate ??? can't find it anywhere on the web sites... just the date & location. even sent a comment/question to the CNN website 3 days ago, no answer.

thanks, franwy@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.238.124.80 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

From their banner-adverts, it is being dubbed the CNN Reagan Library Debate, and will have an undercard at 6pm Eastern Time, followed by the main debate at 8pm Eastern Time. (But note the info below from Charles which says '9pm' rather than '8pm'). Mainspace currently says 6pm/8pm, but that doesn't make it correct.  :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

New news today: "The CNN debate will similarly be split into two sessions, with a 6 p.m. undercard debate featuring any candidate who scored at least one percent in three recognized national polls, and a 9 p.m. main show." [74] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC) PS: The requirement to be in three national polls (and above 1%) between August 7th and deadline of September 10th, will determine the top 10 to be in the main debate. And Jake Taper and Hugh Hewitt will do both early and later debates.

Another reference today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/cnn-changes-gop-debate-criteria-which-might-put-fiorina-into-main-event/ -- AstroU (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

problems with our prose about the CNN-invite-criteria changes

Here are the CNN original criteria from May.[75] Here is the new set of CNN criteria.[76] Currently mainspace says this, emphasis added in a couple places:

The primetime debate would have consisted of the candidates ranking in the top ten, as measured by nationwide polling performed by specific firms in specific ways, averaged across polls that are released between July 16 and September 10;[1] the polling time frame was changed to span from August 7 through September 10;[2] in addition, more than 10 candidates could potentially be at the prime time debate.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Nancy Reagan invites 16 of 17 GOPers to CNN GOP debate". New York Daily News. August 11, 2015. Retrieved August 11, 2015.
  2. ^ "CNN amends GOP debate criteria". CNN. September 1, 2015. Retrieved September 1, 2015.
  3. ^ "CNN changes debate criteria, clearing path for Fiorina". Politico. September 1, 2015. Retrieved September 1, 2015.

I don't think we're reflecting the situation accurately. As I read the new criteria, there are two insertions, a new rule that invitees must "agree to accept the rules and format of the debate" ... but these 'rules-and-format' are NOT public, that I have found at least. (The invitation-criteria are part of the rules... but since 16 candidates have already been invited, the invite-criteria are mostly moot... unless the criteria are changed at the last minute... which suggests that the not-yet-public-to-us... but known to the candidates who've already been invited... 'format' and such are potentially controversial. In other words, CNN is retroactively threatening to dis-invite any hypothetical candidates who refuse to accept the format, question-rules, timing, and other details of the debate-rules.) In the new criteria, this 'must accept rules&format' insertion is newCriteria#6. The first five criteria are unchanged.

The other rule-insertion is newRule7A, which reads, per fair use: "In the event that there is a candidate (or candidates) polling in the top ten in qualifying polls between August 7 and September 10, but not polling in the top ten in polls between July 16 and September 10, that candidate (or candidates) will be added to the debate stage and will appear in 'Segment B' [aka 8pm main event] of the debate." Emphasis added. This is an *additional* rule; none of the other qualifying-criteria were deleted nor replaced, by newRule7A.

So as I read them, the rules are still the same as before: if you are in the top-ten, of the specified live-interview-polls by specified firms between 7/16-to-9/10, with a couple specified tie-breakers. As of the criteria-tweak, there is the *additional* possibility that an 11th/12th/etc candidate(s), whom failed to qualify under the 7/16-to-9/10 rule... might now be added to the stage, under newRule7A which is the 8/7-to-9/10 subset.

Also worth noting, in the original rules there was a special qualifier, wherein CNN said that 'at their discretion' they might limit the primary-debate-stage to the top 8 candidates, if '14 or fewer' candidates qualified under the 1%-in-at-least-three-polls-averaged rule. That 'additional note' has been deleted/removed from the tweaked criteria, presumably because it is moot, now that sixteen invites have already gone out.

So I think we need to say something like: 'The original criteria were for a top-ten debate, based on live-major-polls between 7/16 and 9/10. (There was a provision for restricting that to a top-eight debate, if less than 15 candidates qualified, but as of August 2015 at least 16 candidates had received invitations.) At the "last minute"[77] an additional tweak was inserted into the CNN criteria, specifying that additional candidates might qualify for the main debate, even if they fell outside the top-ten group under the original early criteria, as long as they were within the top ten during live-major-polls between 8/7 and 9/10 (aka the subset of the original criteria happening after the C-SPAN forum on August 3rd and the FOX debate on August 6th).' Does something like this sound reasonable? If so, I'm happy to put it in, or if somebody else would like to adjust our phrasing of the newly-adjusted-CNN-criteria, that's fine too, please be WP:BOLD. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No citation for officially included candidates in CNN debate

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I saw that the second debate now shows eleven candidates for the main debate and five for the undercard, but there's no source for that. I've been looking around myself but haven't found a source stating who's in yet. What is the source for this claim? —Torchiest talkedits 22:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to notify a user, but user:Guck14 is the one that added it [78]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, there was no official press release yet. This was my comprehension of the polls through my own research in conjunction with the criteria provided. I suppose it will be made official tomorrow. Guck14 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Guck14: In that case, I've undone it for now. Please take a look at the policy on original research. —Torchiest talkedits 02:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, the table is correct with this recent ref. I'm sure there are others.

  • (Alphabetical) J.Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Kasich, Rand Paul, M.Rubio, Trump, Walker.
  • (Lower-polling) Graham, Jindal, Pataki, Santorum. [Not R.Perry, and not Jim Gilmore]. (For a total of 11+4=15candidates.)

"ATLANTA, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- CNN on Friday announced the lineup for its Sept. 16 Republican presidential debate, which, after tweaking the selection criteria, will now include businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The network changed its rules for selecting who will appear in the debate last week in response to a fewer-than-expected number of polls following Fox's debate Aug. 6. CNN originally planned to feature the top 10 average polling candidates since July 16, but later decided to include any candidates also in the top 10 average of polls conducted after the Aug. 6 debate. The debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., will feature former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Fiorina, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, real estate executive Donald Trump and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Lower-polling candidates have been invited to a debate earlier the same day, similar to method Fox used Aug. 6. The earlier debaters include South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Though former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore participated in the earlier debate in August, he did not meet the minimum requirements for the CNN's debate.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/09/11/CNN-announces-Republican-debate-lineup/9631441983290/
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This article clearly explains the criteria and has a better graphic:

Overdue?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The august 6th section says

"In the primetime debate, frontrunner Donald Trump’s overall performance was criticized as rude and erratic by many pundits, while others said his comments were popular and his criticisms were overdue."

I don't think that last word is correct, but I am not sure what the correct word is. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsanctioned debate note

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The table includes the following note regarding the August 3 forum:

Not sanctioned by the RNC; an RNC rule makes a candidate who participates in a 'nonsanctioned debate' ineligible to participate in a sanctioned one, but the format of the forum in which candidates speak one at a time with no direct challenges did not affect the eligibility of the candidate.

This seems to be a somewhat overwrought description. Paraphrase: "This event was not sanctioned by the RNC, and anyone who participated in it would be banned from the sanctioned debates! But it wasn't a debate anyway, so nobody was in danger of being banned. Never mind." (And the RNC may not be able to enforce the penalty of banning candidates from the sanctioned debates, since the debate invitations are made by the media sponsors. See [79] for a discussion of the same issue on the Democratic side.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The description could use some work. But the CSPAN/UnionLeader thing was in fact, set up specifically to challenge the RNC's power, and was originally scheduled to be held the same day (August 6th) as the first 'sanctioned' FOX debate. Later, as FOX continually weakened their originally-top-ten-only-no-exceptions criteria, and then later not even enforcing the average-of-1%-criteria, the CSPAN/UnionLeader forum was moved. But the weird structure of the 'forum' ... specifically that candidates had to walk on-stage one at a time, and then walk quickly off-stage whilst the next candidate walked on-stage, plus could not "directly" challenge each other ... was all done to fit into the loophole of the RNC sanctioned-debate-rules. In other words, the very name of 'forum' was specifically chosen, to emphasize that this was a not-officially-a-debate-but-actually-almost-indistinguishable-from-a-debate-except-in-a-few-oddball-details. The question of whether the RNC could *enforce* the prohibition, is a separate one (but not one that is covered in the WP:RS that I've seen). The specific gyrations necessary to qualify as a not-a-debate, however, were specifically WP:NOTEWORTHY and explicitly covered by sources.
  A better paraphrase is "the CSPAN event was not supposed to happen, according to the best-laid plans of the RNC national-party-body in late 2014, but due to pressure from CSPAN and ABC/NBC/affiliates, plus pressure from state-level parties and grassroots organizations in the early states which are worried that nationwide-polling-based-debate-invite-criteria may someday loosen their power on the presidential election process, a 'forum' was organized which specifically claimed not to be a debate, yet included a large subset of the candidates -- and used a variety of rule-loopholes to comply with the letter of the recently-modified RNC debate-rules." Most of that is WP:OR but it is also WP:THETRUTH.
  In mainspace, what we can actually say is that, although the RNC attempted to cut down the number of debates in the 2016 cycle as compared to the 2012 cycle by promulgating a new set of rules which allegedly would result in candidates who participated in non-RNC-sanctioned-debates getting disinvited from all future RNC-sanctioned televised debates, and although the CSPAN forum was not 'sanctioned' as a debate by the RNC, it was 'acceptable' to the RNC because of the particulars of the arrangements (no challenges and speaking one at a time and so on). How we phrase that is not a big concern to me, but it is important, and there are plenty of sources covering it (some used to be in mainspace but were removed and/or shifted over to the 'logistics' subsection), I can dig them up if you need, please ping my talkpage if so. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The title of this Wiki page

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just a brief suggestion that maybe this page could be entitled, 

"Republican Party Presidential Debates, 2016 General Election"

Since there have been debates in 2015, it leads for some ambiguity as to what '2016' means to a worldwide reader(s) of this page.

FiveOnThree (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We've done this for three election cycles now, and I think it's worked out okay. I created redirects from 2007, 2011, and 2015 to their respective general election years to help with people searching. —Torchiest talkedits 13:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the first sentence is the problem... it assumes too much, methinks.
Instead we could say this:
  • The Republican Party presidential debates (not to be confused with the general election debates which will be held in fall 2016) are are a series of televised debates in the United States, held among specifically-invited candidates, each of whom is seeking the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. The fall 2015 and spring 2016 party-debates precede (and overlap with) the state-by-state balloting which determines the eventual party nominees, who will announced at summer conventions. During fall 2016, the nominee for the Republicans will then compete against other presidential nominees for the other political parties in the national election of 2016.
No doubt that could be tightened up a bit, but it does list the main points in the process, and helps people understand why they aren't called the "2015" debates, plus that these are "intramural" debates. p.s. I found it annoying that I had to use 2016 Republican National Convention instead of Republican National Convention, 2016 ... can somebody please make a pagemove and/or redirect, as appropriate? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Zone time I.D. on November 10th Republican debates

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See possible error in debates table. Not knowledgeable enough to do a fix myself: For the November 10th debate, times are listed as 5 pm and 8 pm Central DAYLIGHT Time (CDT). The country will be back on STANDARD time at that point. My guess is the Madison, WI broadcast should read "5 p.m. CST / 8 p.m. CST". The fixer may want to confirm this with Fox Business, the host of that debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.90.24 (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Different air times for candidates

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Politico has different air times for last night's debate [80]; I'm not sure if the New York Times count is more reliable. David O. Johnson (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Republican_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums/Archive_1&oldid=1087196594"