CNN News Rigs US Presidential Debates 1012

**500,000** · 09-28-2011, 11:46 PM

Its hard to get your self heard, TV air time is a must these days when running for a election, this bit of info gets me upset.

CNN, which is Hosting a debate in Las Vegas on Oct. 18, has set criteria for participation that Mr. Huntsman -- at this point -- has not managed to meet.The network has said candidates must reach an average level of support of 2 percent in three separate polls by news organizations published since Sept. 1. Mr. Huntsman has reached 2 percent in two polls, but has been at 1 percent in the rest.
If he doesn’t reach 2 percent in a third poll by Oct. 16, Mr. Huntsman will not be on the stage. Sam Feist, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, said Monday that the network set the 2 percent floor months ago and hasn’t changed it.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...te-endangered/

**Raider** · 09-29-2011, 04:48 AM

I know other networks have a 1% rule.

If the rule is 2%, it's the rule that all candidates should adhere to, and this has nothing to do with my dislike for Huntsman, my position would be the same if it were Bachmann. But when a candidate meets the requirements and is blocked from the debate like Alan Keyes was in 2008, that I have a real problem with.

To CNN's defense, viewers get a chance to hear more from the candidates that are most likely to be contenders in the race, I'm sure this was factored in when they made the 2% rule.

Just my 2 cents.

**draggar** · 09-29-2011, 05:35 AM

Oh my, debates rigged? You mean when they only have a fraction of the candidates isn't enough? You mean only picking and choosing who partipates in them isn't enough?

**500,000** · 09-29-2011, 06:08 AM

Well, What if you do not have a paid cable or satellite TV service to watch. As a voter and if you meet the age requirement, you have no idea who your voting for.

---------- Post added at 07:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

Originally Posted by draggar

Oh my, debates rigged? You mean when they only have a fraction of the candidates isn't enough? You mean only picking and choosing who partipates in them isn't enough?

After the Obama debates / elections I don't think they have enough time. Obama was a compleat unknown when he got elected as president. I seen videos were a news team interviews people that voted Obama. Obama voters are ignorant and had no idea who they voted for. Obama voters knew more about Sarah Palin though the saturday night live show, lool, and that was all wrong.

**Mike Cruz** · 09-29-2011, 09:20 AM

The 2% or 1% cap or any cap for that matter is stupid.

If a candidate is accepting campaign dollars and is officially running, it should not matter what % he is at to debate.

This is like Fox News not inviting Ron Paul to debate in early 2008, this is like Fox News removing Ron Paul as the winner of the debate and claiming Mitt Romney won last week in Orlando.

Mainstream media picking sides is why our Political system is so corrupt, besides the amount of greed living in almost every politician's soul.

CNN / MSNBC / FOX NEWS - they are all the same at the end of the day.

Ron Paul 2012...

**Raider** · 09-29-2011, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

If a candidate is accepting campaign dollars and is officially running, it should not matter what % he is at to debate.

Really?.. If we use that logic, we can have a 100, or 1000 candidates on stage, some for the purpose of making a mockery of the debates, brilliant.

The media does play favorites as you say, and they do influence the outcome of our elections, but NOT because of picking who won the debate, but rather giving a free pass to certain candidates and going after others with "Gotcha" moments, demonizing candidates they don't like... I've seen none of that with respect to Huntsman.

Your forgetting how Obama got elected.

**Mike Cruz** · 09-29-2011, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Raider

Really?.. If we use that logic, we can have a 100, or 1000 candidates on stage, some for the purpose of making a mockery of the debates, brilliant.

The media does play favorites as you say, and they do influence the outcome of our elections, but NOT because of picking who won the debate, but rather giving a free pass to certain candidates and going after others with "Gotcha" moments.... Your forgetting how Obama got elected.

Whether or not that is how Obama got elected, what has been proven time and time again after the elections, is these people still do not have a clue and would not be doing any better of a job than Obama is or isn't. Where are they now?

The candidates the Republicans chose to have as their front runners were terrible, as we all know. I believe if their focus point was on Romney or Ron Paul, the elections would of went a lot different.

And please lets not pretend that Obama is the only President that has ever had the media on his side to help win an election ~ whether or not they were on his side, he still would of won simply because of who his "opponents" were.

You are always bragging about how Fox News has the highest ratings of every news corp combined... so even if every other news channel only focused on Obama, then in your theory, he should have still lost. They are the biggest and the best right? I know they are definitely the biggest and the best at twisting the news any way they like, especially when it comes to making any democrat look bad.

**500,000** · 09-29-2011, 11:22 AM

**Mike Cruz** · 09-29-2011, 11:35 AM

Anyone can make a video cherry picking voters and push it in any direction that they would like, just like with this video and any other video doing this for their own preferred agenda.

**Raider** · 09-29-2011, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

The candidates the Republicans chose to have as their front runners were terrible, as we all know.

No, we don't all know... I think we have a pretty good selection of candidates up there, far better than what we had in 2008.

I would of like to see more true conservatives in the race and less moderates.. But what are you going to do? In the end, anyone on that stage is better than Obama and will win.

Originally Posted by zurc.net

You are always bragging about how Fox News has the highest ratings of every news corp combined... so even if every other news channel only focused on Obama, then in your theory, he should have still lost.

No, that's your theory, I clearly wrote the media helps "influence" the outcome of elections. You know the media extends far beyond cable news don't you? If you think Obama wasn't given a Free Pass during the 2008 election, your completely blind.

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

Originally Posted by zurc.net

Anyone can make a video cherry picking voters and push it in any direction that they would like

"Cherry Picking"? You would know that better than anyone.

**500,000** · 09-29-2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by zurc.net

Anyone can make a video cherry picking voters and push it in any direction that they would like, just like with this video and any other video doing this for their own preferred agenda.

So anybody can? How about http://zogby.com/about/about-us/
You calling them liars now, just to defend yourself or Obama?

**Mike Cruz** · 09-29-2011, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Raider

No, we don't all know... I think we have a pretty good selection of candidates up there, far better than what we had in 2008.

I would of like to see more true conservatives in the race and less moderates.. But what are you going to do? In the end, anyone on that stage is better than Obama and will win.

No, that's your theory, I clearly wrote the media helps "influence" the outcome of elections. You know the media extends far beyond cable news don't you? If you think Obama wasn't given a Free Pass during the 2008 election, your completely blind.

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

"Cherry Picking"? You would know that better than anyone.

lol.

Originally Posted by 500,000

So anybody can? How about http://zogby.com/about/about-us/
You calling them liars now, just to defend yourself or Obama?

Look at the stats on that site. 2000 voters... c'mon man!

**Raider** · 09-30-2011, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by 500,000

So anybody can?

Did you see this one Greg?

This is ***king hilarious!

You know what we really need? an intelligence test before allowing people to vote.. We simply have far to many stupid people in this country walking into the voting booth and casting votes for measures they don't understand, That goes for choosing a candidate who's running on issues they don't understand or care to understand.