Carson will be invited to 11th Republican Debate

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No idea why, but Fox is letting Carson participate. Also no guarantee Trump will be there, as Kelly will help moderate again:

https://m.facebook.com/FoxNews/photos/a.184044921335.134777.15704546335/10154095200056336/?type=3&source=54

[cinyc]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

Just in case you weren't aware, Trump can't reach 1237 (number needed to win nomination) tomorrow. A majority of Super Tuesday delegates would only place him at 282 - hardly impossible to catch up to over time, especially with the March 15 bastion coming up. So if these rumors are true, it could backfire very effectively just like it did in Iowa.

[cinyc]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

Just in case you weren't aware, Trump can't reach 1237 (number needed to win nomination) tomorrow. A majority of Super Tuesday delegates would only place him at 282 - hardly impossible to catch up to over time, especially with the March 15 bastion coming up. So if these rumors are true, it could backfire very effectively just like it did in Iowa.

I meant a majority of the delegates pledged tomorrow, not a majority of the pledged delegates.

[Likely Voter]

In theory they could just invite just the top 3 but Kasich still has support in the Establishment so FOX isnt going to cut him and then can't see them inviting Kasich and not Carson. They are both around the same place in delegates and polling so they are a package deal. Plus, racism.

[cinyc]

In theory they could just invite just the top 3 but Kasich still has support in the Establishment so FOX isnt going to cut him and then can't see them inviting Kasich and not Carson. They are both around the same place in delegates and polling so they are a package deal. Plus, racism.

In practice, Fox News published a neutral criteria to be in the debate - >3% in the last 5 national polls, IIRC - and stuck with it.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

There is a precedent for him not doing any more debates. In 2008 and 2012, there were no debates held after Super Tuesday. And in both of those cases, you had a candidate who was clearly ahead (McCain and Romney) but there were still other candidates who hadn't gotten out of the race (Huckabee in '08; Gingrich and Santorum in '12) and the leader hadn't "clinched" the nomination.

He could use the argument that the networks just want more debates so they can make more money off of the primary process.

And if people protest, he could argue that he is being held, yet again, to an unfair standard by the Republican Establishment.

[cinyc]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

There is a precedent for him not doing any more debates. In 2008 and 2012, there were no debates held after Super Tuesday. And in both of those cases, you had a candidate who was clearly ahead (McCain and Romney) but there were still other candidates who hadn't gotten out of the race (Huckabee in '08; Gingrich and Santorum in '12) and the leader hadn't "clinched" the nomination.

He could use the argument that the networks just want more debates so they can make more money off of the primary process.

And if people protest, he could argue that he is being held, yet again, to an unfair standard by the Republican Establishment.

Trump may whine otherwise, but there is no unfair standard by anyone.  A Fox News debate has been scheduled for March 2016 since at least January 2015.   Trump announced his candidacy after that debate schedule was released.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

There is a precedent for him not doing any more debates. In 2008 and 2012, there were no debates held after Super Tuesday. And in both of those cases, you had a candidate who was clearly ahead (McCain and Romney) but there were still other candidates who hadn't gotten out of the race (Huckabee in '08; Gingrich and Santorum in '12) and the leader hadn't "clinched" the nomination.

He could use the argument that the networks just want more debates so they can make more money off of the primary process.

And if people protest, he could argue that he is being held, yet again, to an unfair standard by the Republican Establishment.

I'm not familiar with the '08 debate schedule, but in 2012, the fact was that there were no debates on the calendar after Super Tuesday in the first place - so you would have had to get Romney to agree to new debates that were never originally going to take place - The February 22 debate was the last one scheduled, there was never going to be another one after that. There was speculation about adding debates, sure, but no network ever actually scheduled a March Debate.

This is different because there are already three announced debates for March, not just speculation of debates. Trump would be essentially asking networks, the party, and voters, to spare him from debates that were already scheduled before Super Tuesday - as opposed to Romney, who (if anything) merely asked to not have any new ones scheduled.

[pho]

I don't mind. Carson's stoner logic is always good for a laugh. He only gets to talk for like 2 minutes anyway.

[Asian Nazi]

Proof that the Republican Party supports torture.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The rumor is that if/when Trump wins big tomorrow, he's going to refuse to participate in all future debates.  So he still won't face Megyn Kelly.

That's unfortunate - and could backfire if he doesn't win a majority of the delegates tomorrow.

There is a precedent for him not doing any more debates. In 2008 and 2012, there were no debates held after Super Tuesday. And in both of those cases, you had a candidate who was clearly ahead (McCain and Romney) but there were still other candidates who hadn't gotten out of the race (Huckabee in '08; Gingrich and Santorum in '12) and the leader hadn't "clinched" the nomination.

He could use the argument that the networks just want more debates so they can make more money off of the primary process.

And if people protest, he could argue that he is being held, yet again, to an unfair standard by the Republican Establishment.

I'm not familiar with the '08 debate schedule, but in 2012, the fact was that there were no debates on the calendar after Super Tuesday in the first place - so you would have had to get Romney to agree to new debates that were never originally going to take place - The February 22 debate was the last one scheduled, there was never going to be another one after that. There was speculation about adding debates, sure, but no network ever actually scheduled a March Debate.

This is different because there are already three announced debates for March, not just speculation of debates. Trump would be essentially asking networks, the party, and voters, to spare him from debates that were already scheduled before Super Tuesday - as opposed to Romney, who (if anything) merely asked to not have any new ones scheduled.

Trump Logic (in Trump-esque speech): Those late debates were back when nobody knew who the hell the nominee was gonna be, okay? I mean, you had all these guys - you had Jeb! So you had to have that there in case it was still really up in the air. Look, I'm gonna be the nominee. I've won ___ out of 16 primaries. And you want me to get on a stage with these guys, Cruz has won, what, two states? There are guys getting like 5, 6 percent in the polls? It's a waste of everyone's time. Look, John McCain didn't do any debates after he got this far. Mitt Romney didn't do any debates after he got this far. We have said everything that needs to be said. Now, I'm going to get out there and talk directly to the American people and leave the media out of it because they just want to make money off of this whole thing.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The Megyn Kelly thing cost Donald credibility in Iowa.

I think Trump should calm down and start presenting some level of normalcy.

As for Ben Carson, it defies logic that he does not have a stronger standing in the polls.

I guess he is a medical person with a non-political personality. He does not speak with passion.

[Mr. Morden]

Trump might opt out of future debates, but he would present it so that it doesn't sound like a definitive ban on debate participation.  He'd just come up with some ridiculous conditions for his participation (like demanding an "appearance fee", which he's floated before) that he knows will never be met.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I heard that he gave a sermon at a church and said that he will drop out when God tells him to.

Maybe he could use the Lord's message.

[PeteB]

Normally I would say that Trump will be at the debate, after the fiasco in Iowa, when he boycotted it. However, if he strongly wins ST, he may get too cocky and try to show Kelly and Fox News a thing or two, by boycotting it. If that happens he will pay dearly as he is where he is because of the free media exposure!

[Vega]

If I was Trump, and I won big on Tuesday, there is no way I would show up.

[MK]

Why do more debates with Cruz and Robio essentially teaming up with attacks like hired hitmen?

If he Sweeps super Tues day then the only reason to do more debates is to slay Rubio for good.  Cruz is pretty much finished. After the March 11Th then no more debates.