(Promoted by Colorado Pols)
Last week, Denver Post reporter John Frank wrote that 9News’ “announcement of the first televised debate in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate is sure to create controversy: With more than a dozen candidates in the race, who will make the debate stage?”
9News stated it will include any “viable” candidate in its April 5 debate, as determined by a 5-member panel of political analysts.
“The panel may also draw scrutiny,” Frank suggested, “as the members represent establishment politics in a field with a number of outsider candidates.”
Frank swiftly outlined how each member of the panel is connected with establishment politics.
Along these lines, one detail I stumbled on is that fact that one panel member, Kelly Mahar, has close ties to former Rep. Jon Keyser, having joined with him to form “iGOP,” a “slate of young, tech savvy Republicans” who ran for Republican National Convention (RNC) delegate slots in 2012. Mahar is also a 9News commentator.
In any event, I asked Rittiman to respond to the criticism that in deciding between a grassroots and a more establishment GOP candidate, 9News’ establishment-oriented panel might be biased toward the establishment candidate. He said:
Rittiman: “We selected people [for the panel] who know what it takes to mount a successful Senate campaign and see if a candidate has anything to show besides filing an FEC form. We want people on stage who have a shot of gaining access to the primary ballot, which takes some level of organized support by this point in the process.
By now, when we’re this close to the state convention, the candidates should be able to point to something. Grassroots support is great. Show us the grassroots support you have. That’s fair game.
Just because we have some folks who have been closer to politics and know what it takes to run a campaign involved in the selection process doesn’t mean that those people wouldn’t take it very seriously if any of the candidates were to show us some metric or measure of grassroots support. We can all recognize that when we see it.
I’d again stress that we will allow any ballot-qualified candidates who haven’t dropped out to participate in our June 7 primary debate—and that we are allowing all candidates to submit up to two minutes of video to be published on 9NEWS.com and mentioned during the debate.
Yesterday, 9News announced that the panel chose eight candidates to participate in the debate. Wouldn’t voters want all of them to go at each other?
Ideally yes, but there are limits. What would all those Republican presidential candidates have looked like on the same stage, with no B-Team debate to siphon some of them off? Pretty bad. A over-crowded debate doesn’t serve the public interest. Colorado faces a similar situation.
So 9News did the right thing to limit the number of candidates, and a “viability” standard, in the absence of polling, makes sense.
You can argue that television station should have put some non-establisment folks on the selection panel — like former Rep. Tom Tancredo, former GOP Chair and KLZ talk-show host Steve Curtis, or Tea Party leader and lawyer Randy Corporon. Some people like that, with political experience.
But I don’t think it mattered. Judging from the candidates selected (see below) yesterday, 9News struck a balance between the voters’ need to hear from 1) candidates who have a demonstrable hope of winning and 2) from the underdog candidates who deserve to be heard. It’s a tough call when you have so many odd candidates vying against each other.
9News’ announcement yester of the debate lineup seemed to reflect a fair process:
“The lineup for the debate is not yet final. Campaigns who were not invited have been given a deadline of March 31 to provide any additional evidence of viability for the panel to consider.
The panel unanimously decided that the campaigns of Charlie Ehler, Jerry Eller, Michael Kinlaw, and Donald Rosier did not demonstrate a viable path to accessing the June primary ballot.
Ehler and Rosier did not provide materials for the panel to review by the Monday deadline.
Greg Lopez, who had announced a run, told 9NEWS he’s dropped out and is endorsing Natividad in the race.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Genghis
IN: All Eyes On CO-08 As Rep. Yadira Caraveo Clings To Narrow Lead
BY: joe_burly
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Thorntonite
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: joe_burly
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Why not just deal with it the way the national media dealt with the up-ticket clown show? Have a kids' table and then a grown-ups' table. Granted, it might be tough figuring out who gets placed where, but so what……
How about some "March Madness" brackets?
Hunger Games?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioqtyc_M2RA"Along these lines, one detail I stumbled on is that fact that one panel member, Kelly Mahar, has close ties to former Rep. Jon Keyser, having joined with him to form “iGOP,” a “slate of young, tech savvy Republicans” who ran for Republican National Convention (RNC) delegate slots in 2012. Mahar is also a 9News commentator."
Yea, right.. No home cooking between these two. The video below shows Keyser coming to Mahar's "defense" after she was "rudely" called out by a Ron Paul supporter in 2012. Keyser comes in when Kelly starts crying because she's upset..BOO HOO. Maybe she can tell someone..heck, anyone, what Keyser has done to even warrant ANY consideration for a US SENATE SEAT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioqtyc_M2RA
I could argue that Tancredo should have some part to play in something at some point in time …
… but unless I'm being tortured, I'm certain I never will.
They won't like "viability" being used as a criteria. It sounds too much like Roe v. Wade.
Putting the Con in Conservative.
Of course, a lot of candidates aren't there to win, they are just in it for the grift. It's about media attention, outrageous statements, viral emails, book deals, and right-wing think tank sinecures. There is a LOT of money to be made as a right-wing politician. So why not let in all the kooks or crooks or whatever.
What if we had a panel of political experts selecting the Presidential candidates? I mean, on what planet would anybody consider Herman Cain an actual candidate.
Or Donald Trump, for that matter. Does he have a viable path to becoming president?
Wrong election for Herman Cain. Were you thinking Ben Carson?
Haha. Brain Fttt.