Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential debates and forums

Polls

As an online poll has already been referenced for an earlier Republican candidate debate, and no scientific (randomized) polls are available yet for the Ames debate, I have added a paragraph on the poll with the highest vote count that I have been able to find on the issue. This poll was cosponsored by Fox News, one of the sponsors of the debate and also the sponsor of the other online poll referenced in this article. The poll is notable because it has had more votes cast than any other on the results of this debate of which I am aware (over 30,0000), this poll has an extremely wide geographical range (all 50 states, 6,850 cities, nearly all counties in the US) and it shows information which is not yet available from other sources - that is, the surprising distribution of results in favor of a candidate who most sources mention relatively little in comparison with the other candidates. When a poll with more scientific sampling becomes available, it should be cited and may replace this information, but until then readers will want to know the results of polls gauging the popular reaction. This addition to the article was reverted with a terse "Not notable". I think I have explained why this is notable, and hope that if better justification for deletion is not set forth here, (which also justifies retention of the other poll, or deletion of both) then there will be no further objection to inclusion of this reference.Enon (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Internet polls are meaningless. Don't waste time on this please. Ratemonth (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You response is merely assertions; please make a substantive reply. As I said above, an online poll is already referenced in this article, and this is the best currently available source. If you have a better one, please add it. Apologies for the comment to NYyankees51 if you are not affiliated with him.Enon (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with anyone. As I said, internet polls are meaningless. Please don't waste your time on them.Ratemonth (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable because it's a simple online poll, which anyone can vote in as many times as they want. Ron Paul wins every one of them because his supporters flood them. Also, these online polls can be hacked and manipulated. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And since a large amount of internet users are young people, who also make up most of Paul's fanbase, he wins every internet poll. That's why they are unreliable. SOXROX (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The poll automatically determines location from IP address. Any attempt to hack the results would have to spoof IP addresses, and would have to do so in a way that seems to follow the population density pretty well, with votes from thousands of different locations. A hacker would also have to spoof thousands of comments which seem to match the distribution of votes in both location and candidate preference, without any obvious cut and paste going on. Voting more than once does not seem to be allowed - this may be cookie or IP based, but would keep out casual and perhaps some more sophisticated efforts at stuffing the box. It is likely that the poll is not entirely representative due to the more mobilized and Internet-active nature of Paul supporters and therefore a scientific poll would be preferable, but one is not available, so we make do with the best source we have. Enon (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It can still be hacked. It's not reliable or notable. Anyone can make an online poll; they can't all be notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the vote on election day also can be hacked, and there are reliable sources that say that has happened in certain elections, whereas there aren't any I have seen alleging that the poll I referenced is being hacked. The vote results still belong in Wikipedia, even though they are not reliable, just as unreliable straw poll results also are notable. Even supposedly scientific polls can be hacked by using biased questions, not that that seems to be a fault of the poll I referenced. (You have referenced such push polls yourself on occasion in other Wikipedia articles.) Nevertheless the poll may be noteworthy despite its imperfection. It would in fact be noteworthy if it could be shown that this poll I referenced were being hacked. You haven't supported your argument at all that this poll isn't noteworthy (it seems at least 34,458 people disagree). We both agree that it may be unreliable, but I think that it is the best current source, and that indicating the limitations by using cautionary phrasing such as "self-selected voters" and "online poll" give readers enough information to know to take its results for what they are worth. Is the online poll referenced in note 3 in the article somehow more reliable or noteworthy than the one I referenced? If you're going to be consistent, then that should go, too. Are the opinions of TV talk panels really more notable and reliable than a poll with tens of thousands of responses? If not, then they should be taken out also.Enon (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable secondary reference establishing the notability of the poll, we may be able to include it. The other one should be removed too. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For anybody who cared enough to read this talk page, the disputed reference was: FoxNews/Topix Poll:Who won the Republican Presidential Debate? At the time of writing (the day after the Ames debate) out of 34,458 votes from 6,965 cities: Ron Paul had 19,407 votes, Newt Gingrich had 19,407 votes, and the remainder went to the other 6 candidates.Enon (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think you meant Gingrich had over 7500 votes, but you also have to remember that online polls never end- people can always vote on them, and presuming Fox News doesn't close the poll, the listing of this poll's results on wikipedia would always be outdated, no matter how much the correct total is added. Soxrock24 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrt similar events not debates

I added a section covering other types of candidate forums, per a precedent at the article for United States presidential election debates, 2008 with concern to the venue of the Civil Forum on the Presidency.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all (sarcasm, lol), for using the talk page to discuss this.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree related events, such as forums, should be included. This seems the most likely place, based on precedent and the point of comparing candidates side by side. If there are many of them they could be put into their own article, but otherwise I think a separate box under the debate box would be appropriate. I found the transcript for the September 5 GOP Forum here while I was searching for the debate transcripts. 75.59.204.135 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I now see Lynn Sweet called it a debate. 75.59.204.135 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviations and/or carriage returns in table

I abbreviated the months in the table. Neither dates or states' names are abbreviated in normal text but either or both may be done so inside the cells of a table, if necessary; and, unfortunately, the table stretches beyond the right margin on many browsers.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Also please see my "sheesh" in the talk page section immediately above! lol......) Hey, I, of course, will bow to any talk page consensus in this matter but someone has inexplicably--per accepted Wiki operating procedures, anywho--removed these abbreviations thrice w/o discussion or even mention their doing so in their edit summary. If there be a reason (other than attemped wp:OWNership issues / wp:DONTLIKEIT), would it be asking too much to simply say what it is here? Thanks in advance, sir or ma'am.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be abbreviated. Otherwise the table's too big. It still can be shrunk, actually. SOXROX (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

SOXROX, if push comes to shove (which perhaps it already has), maybe we could try this?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need the not invited column. We can just mention them on the bottom. SOXROX (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and taken SOXROX' suggestion and moved comments to the bottom. Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was bit too bold in reverting your changes, especially because I didn't see this discussion. Still, I think hyphenating the candidate names might be too drastic. Here are a few other ways we might consider reducing the size of the table:

• Change the dates to numerical dates written in MM/DD/YY (e.g. 06/13/11 for June 13th, 2011).
• Some of the sponsor names can be abbreviated to their state name (e.g South Carolina Republican Party --> SC Republican Party)
• Put the "not invited" section in a note below the table, and remove the comment section. -- (edit conflict)

Anyway, let me know what you think of these suggestions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Jethrobot, for my part, thanks for your suggestions. I wasn't kvetching about your edit, btw, but another editor that kept undoing month-abbreviations w/o comment, day after day... Not a big deal, I know. But I had done the talk page comment and a edit summary, and to have it ignored and simply summarily um .... (oops! see what I mean abt my silly kvetching in that....lol) sighs)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Per what I view to be the tentative consensus above, I reverted a subsequent edit back to abbreviated months (and S. for South for "South Carolina" ). I think edit warring over this minor matter is bad form, with seeking to convince other editors of one's view on the talkpage preferred.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I begin this addendum to my comment above with a short discursion, for which I apologize in advance. Yesterday after logging off I stopped in the dollar store and on a Chinese-made product pachage was a type of fortune cookie saying. It said, when you get angry, to try to step outside of yourself and observe the anger. This super minor diff between South Carolina and S. Carolina and between Mar and March is so minor that my even getting getting worked up over it in the slightest tells more about me then anybody else, I imagine. So, I reverted back from my (above-linked) restoration of the abbreviated forms to the un-abbreviated ones.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And how did you make the text so small (indicating reflection) I asked myself. Found out via < edit > and examining Wiki-code. Use "< small > " and "< / small >", no spaces. And always, Thanks Again, truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve King's quasi-debate Monday

I wonder if details of this debate should be added as well as on the schedule? http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/09/01/king-to-question-candidates-in-quasi-debate-monday/ --Diamond Dave (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a debate though. A forum is different from a debate. All the candidates present are there to just fire up the tea party and bash obama. There aren't really debating with each other, and few candidates will be present, anyway. SOXROX (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added either. We should just stick to formal debates, otherwise we'll have to deal with all sorts of asterisks and explanations. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lynn Sweet called it a debate. Those present: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. iow, the leading candidates. There's a CNN transcript. I don't care why the candidates are there, imo we should report that they are there, and provide a transcript of what they said. I'm really disgusted that these transcripts and videos are so hard to find this year - and that the rest of the media isn't raising hell about it. Do we really want voters who are only informed by clips, snips, spin room 'restatements' et al? An encyclopedia is supposed to help people become informed. Transcripts and videos provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of what these people said. 75.59.204.135 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

One, Perry wasn't there, and two, the format wasn't even a debate either. SOXROX (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

From the transcript: "Missing, the Texas governor, Rick Perry. At the last minute he decided to go home because of wildfires affecting his state." I wouldn't claim all the official debates are in the format of a true debate, either. So what's your point? You don't want people to know about this event? Wikipedia's supposed to provide information, not conceal it by playing games with definitions. If you want a separate article on Candidate Forums, I suppose that would work, although imo it's more sensible to keep these things in one place to avoid a lot of extra linking. 75.59.226.19 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose a separate small section mentioning in short detail the Twitter Debate and the South Carolina Forum. This will resolve both disputes. --Smart (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Pawlenty/List Order

Since Pawlenty is now out of the race, does anyone else think it makes sense to put him at the end of the list of candidates participating in debates, since his status for all remaining debates is that little gray o.Schnapps17 (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Its better to keep it in alphabetical order I think. SOXROX (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

keep it alphabetical, just like the 2008 debates. --Smart (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

TheTeaParty.net /  Twitter

Should this really be considered a debate? For all we know, the candidates' staffers answered the questions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, totally. It's also the only reason McCotter is mentioned on the page.... SOXROX (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would support its removal from the table, but it should still be mentioned. Possibly in a secondary section with the Jim DeMint Forum? --Smart (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Videos of debates

Yes, we include links to videos of debates. I'm sorry they're on YouTube and some people don't like YouTube, but that's where most of them are. Feel free to complain to the hosts of these debates as to why they refuse to provide their own videos, and only provide little 'soundbite' clips, but our readers and watchers need to be able to see the full and complete debates. 75.60.18.245 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Disproportionate attention to "Booing controversy"

See Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2012 #Booing controversy. User Toussaint (talk · contribs) has added an excessive amount of material, mostly in the section "Booing controversy", which appears calculated to make the Republican audience appear in a negative light to people with 'progressive' views. I think this is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is noteworthy. It has been very controversial. Especially the Stephen Hill Booing incident, which has recieved extensive national criticism. The only way it violates POV is how much he put in it- it should still be included. SOXROX (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This section makes it seem like a large sum of the audience was booing when at the most it was five people. That whole section is a one-sided joke.--74.167.7.205 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is WP:UNDUE and also WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire debate article is RECENTISM and NEWS. That's how these articles tend to work. Are we to believe that in fifty years, schoolchildren will be taught about Ron Paul's twenty-four-hour moneybomb or Gingrich's complaints about "gotcha" questions, but not about the fact that there's been controversy over audience response at half of all the debates in this primary? It's not more NEWSy than anything else because it happens to make Republican supporters and candidates look bad. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Debate Bias/Gary Johnson Rule

Perhaps these sections can be rewritten under a new section like "Debate Qualification Criteria." Complaints from lower tier candidates happen every cycle in both parties. While a short section on complaints of bias might be relevant, a whole section on Gary Johnson is not. The so-called "Gary Johnson Rule" was coined by a Slate columnist and is not being used outside of the Johnson campaign. I'm not an expert, but I don't think either section meets the Wiki sourcing standards. Slate, Daily Caller, and Think Progress sources all contain editorial content. --Takemyall7 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Merging those sections, with some rewriting, under a single section with the title "Debate Qualification Criteria" (or something similar) would be much more neutral & encyclopedic.--JayJasper (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ironic, also, that the only news organization to host Gary Johnson is Fox News which is continuously decried as a shill for the Republican Party. Funny that Slate (the only reference for the supposed "(Anti-)Gary Johnson Rule") didn't notice that. Is this at all reminiscent of earlier Republican debates when Alan Keyes was handcuffed and taken away from the Republican Debate in Altanta in 1996. With the mainly Republican audience chanting "let him in, let him in" very clearly on the available video he is handcuffed, put into a cruiser, and taken away from a debate to which he had been invited in January by the Atlanta Press Club then disinvited immediately before the debate by WSB-TV shortly after they took over control of the debate. The national media immediately blamed Alan Keyes' absence on the Republican Party and the other candidates - the other candidates were even challenged by the debate moderator that night about why Alan Keyes wasn't allowed to debate - all of whom answered, not unlike the Repulican audience response before the debate "we think he should be here and don't know why he's not." The decision, in the end, was purely that of WSB-TV. 65.202.226.2 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)mjd

I was about to start a new section suggesting the same thing until I saw this here, so I have to agree. The debate bias section needs more information in order to be relevant and to warrant even being a section. I think they should be combined and worked on or removed. HotshotCleaner (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

December Telemundo Debate

Telemundo is planning a debate in Nevada for December. New Telemundo Hispanic Debate --Smart (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

November 15 CNN Debate

New debate for November 15th, hosted by CNN in Washington D.C. CNN --Smart (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rescheduling debates based on primary-moveup

December 27, 2011* FOX News / Iowa GOP Debate Sioux City, IA December TBD, 2011 Des Moines Register / PBS / YouTube GOP Debate Des Moines, IA January 7, 2012* ABC News / WMUR-TV Debate Manchester, NH January 8, 2012* NBC News / Facebook Debate Concord, NH January 10, 2012* New Hampshire Primary

The ABC debate will be on the Saturday before the New Hampshire Primary, and the NBC debate will be on the Sunday before the primary. Assuming New Hampshire picks the Tuesday (the 10th) then we know the exact dates of the debates.

New Fox debate: January 20, 2012 FOX News / South Carolina GOP Debate TBD, SC

Further information: NH debates--Smart (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Romney's infamous lawncare svc

Since R said that he doesn't think he's ever hired an illegal immigrant in his life, Wikipedia should either precisely highlight the source of this specific allegation along the lines of "----- said that Romney...," or else phrase the statement along the lines of what R has admitted: his hiring of a service using undocumented workers [despite promises to him not to].--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fox News adds two more GOP debates to 2012 campaign

New Debates--Smart (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New CBS debate, followed by updated date for Johnston, Iowa debate

CBS - Nov 12th debate PBS - December 19th Debate--Smart (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

CBS - I don't think that's a reliable enough source so I'm going to go ahead and remove it until we get better sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion has never been a direct link to the television-provider's website. Compare the Telemundo and FOX News debates in December/January.

Multi-source attestation that are not influenced by one another: The State [based in South Carolina] and Goupstate --Smart (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those two are reputable news sources. Caffeinated Thoughts is a blog, and the article cites unnamed "reliable sources". NYyankees51 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I'm dumb. I thought you were saying those were used as sources for other debates so CT could be used for this one. I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Directly from CBS themselves: CBS News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart30 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Santorum to participate in Houston Tea Party debate?

Their website say not.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Debate date changes?

Several of the debates have dates moved. Where are the sources for these changes, and why do the people editing the page NOT provide a reason for their edit?

What evidence is there that the Arizona debate is November 30 not December 1? What evidence is there that Telemundo has decided on December 7, for their debate?

Sources! Smart (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This site gives Nov 30 for the Ariz CNN debate. As for Telemundo, the IP who edited that line might well be an insider and know the score but perhaps Wiki should leave the date blank until Telemundo/NBC release a statement indicating the date as Dec 7 or some other date.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah November 30th is now confirmed. Still no word on Telemundo though. --Smart (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving Family Forum

November 19, 2011 Thanksgiving Family Forum 5pm ET on C-SPAN Location: First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa Sponsor: The Family Leader Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry and Santorum all confirmed, Romney unconfirmed --Smart (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Republican Presidential Forum On Manufacturing

Earlier today (cnn), Iowa Public Television hosted a Republican Presidential Forum On Manufacturing held at the Vermeer Corporation headquartered in Pella, Iowa. Five GOP candidates attended the forum including Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Each candidate received about 20 minutes taking questions on the topic of jobs, the economy and the manufacturing sector in particular. --Smart (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

?

Stray references: --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona debate moved from Nov. 30 to Feb 22nd

The Arizona Debate has been moved back three months! Source --Smart (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC Forum Videos

Should we had recordings of the Forum? Buddy Roemer/Gary Johnson Newt Gingrich/Rick Santorum

It was not televised nationally or locally.--Smart (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems "encyclopedic." Why not?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add them, following the format of the debate video links. These "in full" links are difficult to find, both videos and transcripts, but are far superior to the soundbites, as we are an encyclopedia not a spin machine. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Sad, but true. I just restored the CBS News link for the November 12 debate which provided the full video, full transcript, fact checking, and various other pieces. Two days ago I had to restore the official CNBC link for the previous debate. 75.59.227.116 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) Wiki-intralinks targeting anchors (2) table introductory note (3) use(/non-use), TBD cells

1) Someone removed the links acting as a table of contents index directing to the section's individual summary subsections. Since no edit summary/talk page mention was made, this would appear to either be an edit deemed so obvious to not merit comment or ahem ... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick --still, if no-one else thinks the deletion less than obvious, I'll leave the matter alone.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK.. To render above editor's deletion less damaging to navigability, I've re-added the deleted links to the Table of Contents proper via this edit.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

2) An editor removed w/o explanation an introductory note contained in a dek--which I've reinstated, this time in a sentence above the table, here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrt "TBD" cells?

3) An editor does not want to use them (per their removal of the same without edit summary); however they left a few strays, which I've now removed for purposed of consistency throughout the table.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy reminder wrt need to use talkpage and leave edit summaries when doing controversial edits e/g rmving article content

Recent edits to the article seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the edit warring guidelines recommend to not edit war even if you believe you are right. Rather, if you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK as an, it's hoped, reasonable compromise, I've put the intrawikis at the enumerations so that they remain hardly noticeable but users who might desire such navigability can easily access the same. Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Tentatively added "red letter" dates for primaries

Here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New March Debate - Georgia CNN March 1st

New CNN Georgia debate --Smart (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dec 19th debate canceled

The dec 19th debate has been canceled and now the Des Moines Register will be a co-sponsor at the Dec 10th debate. Source --Smart (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Airtime by Candidate

Someone should track for each debate how much airtime each of the candidates gets. It would be interesting to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.83 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of a reliable way that could be tracked?--Newbreeder (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump/NewsMax/Ion Debate Dec 27 in Iowa

New debate --Smart (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Location: Des Moines, Iowa Sponsor: Newsmax and Ion Televison – moderated by Donald Trump Participants: TBD

Huntsman Iowa Debates

I'm not sure what is going on with Huntsman and the three Iowa debates.

Dec 10th it appears he was originally not invited, but also says he is not participating. I am going to revert this to not invited for now: http://www.woi-tv.com/story/16175362/huntsman-to-skip-iowa-debate-plans-nh-town-hall

I can't tell what is going out with the Dec 15 debate, he was invited but is he going? http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/30/huntsman-will-participate-in-fox-news-debate/

He definately was invited and turned down the Trump debate. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/03/9191474-paul-says-no-to-trump-joins-huntsman-in-skipping-debate?chromedomain=nbcpoliticsObieTalk (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Trump/NewsMax debate

Shouldn't there be a seperate section for the Donald Trump/NewsMax debate? Right now the content is under the heading of "Complaints of bias". Not sure how it ties in with that subject.--Newbreeder (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that it now has been moved to a different section. Much better. Thanks.--Newbreeder (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Invited in table

Would it be worthwhile to have an indicator for invited to indicate a candidate has been invited to a future debate? They can then be moved to P once they actually were in the debate or A if they announce they are not going?

The confusion about Huntsman on Dec 15 illustrates the reason for this change.ObieTalk (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I added this as it seems to make sense given that some debates have not occurred yet, like the Arizona one.198.190.9.225 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

March 1st CNN Debate Cancelled

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/cnn-cancels-march-1-debate-after-candidates-decline-20120216

After two of the 4 candidates declined, the debate was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.176.22 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wash Times debate

• [1]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• [2]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Observations

All this detailed information on the debates and the mechanics of how they worked -- even a listing of various non-debate events -- and not a single mention of the ratings? I think that was part of the story as these debates were commencing; that the ratings were big, to the extent that newspeople started calling them "a popular reality show."

Another thing missing from this article: an entire section on "bias" in which candidates were asked to participate, and how much airtime each candidate received. No examination of the bias of the news coverage on the debates themselves. For example, the bizarre exchange between Romney and Stephanopoulos(sp.?) over whether states can ban contraception -- a lot of conservative critics called foul on that. No mention here. Also, the various audience reactions to questions and responses during the debates; commentators said the networks were paying too much attention to the booing (and cheering of tough talk) so as to portray Republicans as mean-spirited. Would that merit inclusion here? --SchutteGod (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)