Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
CNN Improves Debate Rules; Fiorina the Big Winner
When facing a 17-person GOP field, cable networks had a debate dilemma: limit the number of participants or install bleachers. They chose the former, but their process is deeply flawed. Serious candidates like Perry and Jindal are shouting to an empty auditorium while vanity projects like Huckabee use the debate to hawk his book. (Buy Giblets, Gullets & Grifters, available now at your local Bass Pro Shop!)
In theory, if someone did well in the first B-list debate, they would advance to the main stage the next time around. Carly Fiorina was the obvious standout of the Fox News forum, so most observers assumed she would appear at the adults’ table for CNN’s round two. Not so fast…
CNN based its top ten on the average ranking in “approved national polls” between July 16 and September 10. However, following the first debate on August 6, just three new polls have been released. This strongly skewed the decision to the status quo, leaving the ascendant Fiorina on the sidelines once again.
Hearing the hue and cry of conservative activists, the RNC, and even other candidates, CNN wisely changed their formula:
CNN is amending the criteria for its Republican presidential debate on September 16, possibly opening the door for Carly Fiorina to join the other top-tier candidates on the stage.
The cause: a lack of national public polling following the August 6 debate has so far provided only three new polls to determine the lineup for the Reagan Presidential Debate, according to a CNN statement.
As a result, CNN reevaluated its criteria and decided to add a provision that better reflects the state of the race since the first Republican presidential debate in August, the network announced Tuesday.
Now, any candidate who ranks in the top 10 in polling between August 7 and September 10 will be included.
The adjustment may result in additional candidates joining the top-tier debate, but the final podium placements will not be known until the eligibility window closes on September 10.
CNN can’t say that Fiorina’s in for sure since two new polls are expected before the deadline. But if the eligibility window closed today, the line-up would include the former Hewlett-Packard CEO. Her Twitter-happy deputy campaign manager celebrated the move:
We’re so grateful to the thousands of grassroots supporters and conservative activists around the country…(1/3)
— Sarah Isgur Flores (@whignewtons) September 1, 2015
…who weren’t afraid to take on the political establishment and challenge the status quo to make this happen. (2/3)
— Sarah Isgur Flores (@whignewtons) September 1, 2015
We look forward to watching @CarlyFiorina debate the other front runners at the Reagan Library. (3/3) — Sarah Isgur Flores (@whignewtons) September 1, 2015
CNN offered no speculation on whose place Fiorina will be taking. I’m hoping to see all 11 candidates show up and Reince Priebus walk over to, say, Chris Christie, and extinguish his torch. Or, since the front-runner is a reality show host, perhaps Trump can shout “you’re fired” at Rand while handing a rose to Carly.
UPDATE: Alert commenter Rico notes that, despite CNN’s confusing commentary about limiting the debate to the top ten, they will not be booting anyone from the stage. Expect 11 candidates and no reality show moment.
Published in General
Thanks for the reality check but I know how things are done. The question is: other than talk, where is the track record? and what have you heard that does qualify her?
Then you should know that a bank’s asset management arm has a fiduciary legally binding responsibility to do what is best for investors, right? Not what corporate finance or M&A i-bankers tell them what to do. Right?
Even if she dorked up the merger — I don’t want America merged. Ya-a-ay Carly!
One of my main criteria for the next President is that America’s enemies feel a little loose in the bowels when the President responds to threats. Currently, America’s enemies stomachs do hurt hearing from Obama, but that’s because they ache from laughter.
I may be able to be convinced of other more important downsides, but, for the moment, she’s still on my list of possibles.
My definition of ‘effective’ is that she effected something. If you believe that what she did during her stint as HP CEO had such an effect on their stock and their fortunes, then I think you’ll have to agree.
In my book, “effective” may or may not mean “successful” or “good.” We can debate about whether the effects she had were successful or good (either in the short-term or long-term), but not that she had them, I think.
As to your other question, we can start with, umm . . . Compaq? All the companies you mention have had their ups and downs, their stock splits, buy-ins and buy-outs. I wouldn’t consider most of them to have been serious HP competition at the time we’re talking about. If you read my comment, you’ll see I was talking about ‘technology companies, both large and small.’ I think there’s enough data out there to support what I’m saying if you Google around a bit, but I can think of Gateway and AST Reasearch to begin with. 3Com did not actually go out of business, but went from being a behemoth in the server market to almost nothing, and was bought by–HP–in 2009.
As for Carly Fiorina, as I ‘ve said before, if she started her tenure as President by firing 30,000 federal employees, like she’s supposed to have done before, I think that would be a very good start.
And perhaps effective.
It is my understanding that he tried to open up a lemonade stand but then his own regulators shut it down.
That is very amusing. Similarly, I am going to start calling myself effective at not doing something that I am expected to do, mainly because I have no clue how to do it.
The latest, however, is that he appointed one of his Chicago buddies as head of the FDA. Following that, he received a $500M minority green-energy grant for innovative lemon production techniques. It was all on-paper, however, and the company never actually produced anything before filing for bankruptcy due to “poor market conditions.”
No-one has been able to find or account for any of the half-bil, however.
With regard to track records, I suppose one could say the same about Carson or Trump. We can all assess for ourselves whether we believe that attaining the highest levels of corporate leadership, becoming a respected and reknowned leader in the healthcare field, or inheriting one’s father’s real estate empire and becoming a reality TV star constitute achievement indicative of potential success in the top spot of the U.S. political arena. With regard to Fiorina’s “talk”, I’ve seen her interviewed a number of times and I’m hard-pressed to recall anything she said that I disagreed with. Therefore, by my own definition, she is brilliant.
What if Ronald Reagan had not had a particularly successful governorship, or had not been governor at all? Given his studies and beliefs, would he not have been just as successful a president?
As someone once said: “Thanks for the reality check but I know how things are done.” Sometimes what is best for investors is for the bank to agree to do that which a customer has “strong-armed” the bank into doing. Right?
Well, if you did that for the South Carolina Presidential Preference Primary using the latest SC polling you would eliminate: Christie, Graham, Paul, Pataki and Gilmore.
Trump would be sitting pretty with a a +30 point favorable/ unfavorable. (+58/-28)
But, if we threw out anyone who had a greater than 50% “no opinion” rating we could get rid of Kasich too!
Glad to have provided you with a source of amusement. I think you’re funny too.
Time Magazine (who reads that anymore, anyway?) has used the same criteria I’m suggesting, for selecting its Man/Person/Thing of the Year for decades–“The M/P/T which most affected the events of the year, for better or worse.” Because they believe in the effectiveness of the effect, no matter the affect, as well.
Isn’t that hilarious??
Regarding the allegation that Fiorina improperly pressured Deutsche Bank into voting in favor of the HP-Compaq merger, it is important to keep in mind that the Delaware Chancery Court judge who heard the case brought by Walter Hewlett found that he failed to prove that HP management improperly enticed or coerced the bank into supporting the deal.
I have no doubt that Fiorina did exert pressure, but as I said before, it’s what CEOs do. The Deutsche Bank decision-makers were big boys who considered the pros and cons and exercised their free will to reverse their decision. No one had a gun to their heads. They decided that the bank’s returns associated with supporting the transaction outweighed the risks.
Whether or not you agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that Fiorina’s decisions were the right ones, it is clear that the woman has guts. What happens when a U.S. president does not have the guts to stand up to the opposing side? You get deals like the one with Iran.