Is it legal for the Repubs to deny some candidates access to the debate stage?

[Matty]

Why not just pick the  5 serious ones and let them debate?

[The Other Castro]

First they would need to find 5 serious Republican candidates.

[SteveRogers]

To answer your thread title: yes of course it is, obviously.

To answer your question: Lol, who are the five serious candidates?

[Potus]

This would royally backfire.

[Averroës Nix]

Has the idea of randomly splitting the field into separate debates received any attention? It seems like the only logical answer if the field really does grow to include a dozen or more semi-credible candidates. There has to be some point at which there simply isn't enough room on the stage for more, assuming you give everyone at least a few minutes in total to speak.

[cinyc]

This would royally backfire.

No it wouldn't. 

There may be some debates where candidates have to exceed a polling threshold (perhaps 5%) in a particular state in order to be included in the debate.  That has happened in past primary debates and wouldn't be unusual.  The debate stage simply isn't going to be big enough for the large number of declared candidates.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

They denied Gary Johnson and everyone that polled lower than him.

Right, and he polled ~1-2. So, let's take everyone polling higher than 1% on huffpost Pollster:

Bush
Walker
Paul
Cruz
Huckabee
Rubio
Carson
Christie
Perry
Graham
Kasich
Santorum

That's 12 candidates. However, the party brass wants Fiorina on stage, so she'll be invited no matter how low she polls. So, that's 13. If they included Jindal despite him polling at 1%, that'd be 14.

At this point, with 13-14 candidates on stage, either you have to make the debate 3 hours in length instead of 1.5-2, or you have to randomly divide the candidates between two debates held within a couple days of each other. This field isn't really suitable for the standard 1.5-2 hour debate.

[Likely Voter]

I don't think they can make the criteria arbitrary so they can invite a <1% person but ignore other 1% people, that would show party favoritism and could possibly be even seen as an FEC violation. I suspect the first debate will have a fairly easy criteria (like 1%+ in 5 polls) but then it will get harder and harder until the final debates.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't think they can make the criteria arbitrary so they can invite a <1% person but ignore other 1% people, that would show party favoritism and could possibly be even seen as an FEC violation. I suspect the first debate will have a fairly easy criteria (like 1%+ in 5 polls) but then it will get harder and harder until the final debates.

The criteria will be probably be worded "x% in x polls guarantees entrance. Exceptions can be made.". An exception WILL be made for Fiorina, even if she is polling at 0%, as the party wants a woman on stage.

[Mister Mets]

They'll find some way. But it's unlikely to be limited to five.

Jeb, Rubio, Walker, Kasich and Snyder are the serious candidates.
Huckabee, Cruz and Paul have fanbases the party doesn't want to piss off.
Christie, Jindal and Graham are difficult to exclude as sitting statewide officeholders.
Carson and Fiorina add diversity that is attractive to the party.

Perry and Santorum are the ones they'd be happiest not including.

[Mr. Morden]

As The Hill reported last week:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/240590-rnc-faces-primary-dilemma

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Potus]

If the RNC announced that it would be excluding a single one of these joke candidates from the debates, you can guarantee that person a huge bump in the polls.

"THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS DECIDED: CARLY CAN'T ATTEND THEIR DEBATE. SO WE'RE HAVING OUR OWN, GIVE TODAY TO SHOW THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT WE THE PEOPLE MUST COME FIRST."

Anti-establishment nonsense like this. If the effort is to create less of a clowncar, debate exclusion fails extraordinarily.

[bobloblaw]

Why not just pick the  5 serious ones and let them debate?

It is perfectly legal. Say a 5% treshold.

[bobloblaw]

They'll find some way. But it's unlikely to be limited to five.

Jeb, Rubio, Walker, Kasich and Snyder are the serious candidates.
Huckabee, Cruz and Paul have fanbases the party doesn't want to piss off.
Christie, Jindal and Graham are difficult to exclude as sitting statewide officeholders.
Carson and Fiorina add diversity that is attractive to the party.

Perry and Santorum are the ones they'd be happiest not including.

Snyder isnt serious right now. ZERO name recognition and no constituency.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Perry and Santorum are the ones they'd be happiest not including.

Santorum came in second last time, so they'd have a hard time excluding him.

[Torie]

For what would otherwise be the first debate at least, I kind of like the idea if there are say 15 candidates, to break it down into say three cohorts, with 5 in each debate, chosen randomly. Culling at this stage I think is a mistake. Long shots who are not clear joke candidates, should have their best shot to gain some traction. The random choosing further gives the long shots a chance to be matched up against a first tier candidate or two in the cohort in which they participate (including the higher ratings it would garner over a cohort debate of just the long shots).

[Lief 🗽]

It's definitely legal. (source: just took a final exam on the law of political process)

[PPT Spiral]

Relevant article. I myself quite like this proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SteveRogers]

They'll find some way. But it's unlikely to be limited to five.

Jeb, Rubio, Walker, Kasich and Snyder are the serious candidates.
Huckabee, Cruz and Paul have fanbases the party doesn't want to piss off.
Christie, Jindal and Graham are difficult to exclude as sitting statewide officeholders.
Carson and Fiorina add diversity that is attractive to the party.

Perry and Santorum are the ones they'd be happiest not including.

Snyder isnt serious right now. ZERO name recognition and no constituency.

Ok, but Kasich is only considered a more legitimate candidate than Snyder by virtue of having called dibs on it first.

[Mister Mets]

They'll find some way. But it's unlikely to be limited to five.

Jeb, Rubio, Walker, Kasich and Snyder are the serious candidates.
Huckabee, Cruz and Paul have fanbases the party doesn't want to piss off.
Christie, Jindal and Graham are difficult to exclude as sitting statewide officeholders.
Carson and Fiorina add diversity that is attractive to the party.

Perry and Santorum are the ones they'd be happiest not including.

Snyder isnt serious right now. ZERO name recognition and no constituency.

Snyder's a guy who can become serious. He has a conventional resume, and there's no major portion of the party opposed to him. His main difficulty is standing out, which is part of what the debates are for.

It would also be tough to deny a reelected sitting large state Governor.

Perry and Santorum are the ones they'd be happiest not including.

Santorum came in second last time, so they'd have a hard time excluding him.

This is true.

The main argument they can make is that Perry and Santorum's poor showing in polls despite high name recognition demonstrates limited room for growth.

[136or142]

To answer your thread title: yes of course it is, obviously.

To answer your question: Lol, who are the five serious candidates?

My guess is if they tried to keep Donald Trump out of the debates (assuming he actually runs) we'll find out if it is legal or not.

Personally, I think it makes sense for them to have everybody in the debates.  According to most polls and the way things seem to be going, it's unlikely Carly Fiorina and probably Ben Carson would meet the polling criteria.  Would the Republican Party really want to drop their only woman and African American from the debates?

My suggestion to them would be to have a mix of debates where in some only the top tier debate, and in others all the likely 18 candidates debate.  The easy way to do the 18 candidates would be in a two hour debate, to have 3 segments of 40 minutes each where there are six candidates appearing.

[IceSpear]

I don't think they can make the criteria arbitrary so they can invite a <1% person but ignore other 1% people, that would show party favoritism and could possibly be even seen as an FEC violation. I suspect the first debate will have a fairly easy criteria (like 1%+ in 5 polls) but then it will get harder and harder until the final debates.

There's also the fact that sometimes the only reason people wouldn't meet that criteria is because pollsters won't include them. Could Ehrlich, Gilmore, or Bolton crack 1% if they were included in polls? Who knows?

[IceSpear]

Relevant article. I myself quite like this proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is going to want to watch a four hour debate.

[Ebsy]

How many campaign destroying gaffes could the clown car fit into a four hour debate?

[136or142]

Relevant article. I myself quite like this proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is going to want to watch a four hour debate.

The four hour debate reminds me of the three hour tour.