CNN Undercard Republican Debate: Live Coverage

Q: Having an “undercard debate” persists in highlighting the unfairness and idiocy of this year’s Republican political process. Each of these forums (they’re not really debates) should’ve been managed by random selection: a fairer process and one that would mix up who gets to challenge whom. — Commenter Matthew Bond A: It’s tricky: I’m not a huge fan of having so much of the debate lineups determined by polling, but I’m also not a huge fan of making America listen to Jim Gilmore for two hours at a time. In my perfect world, I suppose you’d have had more debates but also more liberal rules about what form they take. Some could mix and match the candidates, some could invite a smaller group, some could use a “Survivor” format, or what have you. Perhaps those extra debates would have helped to winnow down the field more by now.

Santorum and Huckabee are too socially conservative and economically liberal (or populist), and the Republican nominee isn’t likely to be a social liberal. Pataki is too liberal. Graham has his own problems.

I’d agree on Graham, but his net favorability isn’t great. Huckabee’s is best, but he’d only work paired with the right top of the ticket.