It's time to cut the GOP 'Happy Hour' debates. They serve no useful purpose anymore.
On Wednesday, CNBC announced the roster for the next Republican presidential debate, slated for Wednesday in Boulder, Colo. I suppose I should write "rosters" (plural) since there will, yet again, be an undercard event featuring lower tier candidates.
The main stage will feature the same cast of characters as before, minus Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who dropped out of the race shortly after September's CNN debate.
The happy hour contenders - those who are polling above 1 percent, but who aren't cracking the required 2.5 percent to join the featured act - will be Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham.
Really, are there that many people out there who aren't directly tied to those guys' campaigns who think the bottom tier debates are needed anymore? It's hard to justify them at this point, because, let's be honest, none of those candidates stand a snowball's chance at winning the Republican nomination.
No way. No how.
This isn't to say that the happy hour debates haven't served a purpose so far. They have to an extent. Especially the first one, by giving viewers the chance to get more familiar with former HP chief executive Carly Fiorina. Since her first debate showing, Fiorina has lodged herself solidly in the top cadre of GOP candidates.
Aside from Fiorina's bump, however, the opening act hasn't provided much usefulness. Case in point, during the last JV debate, the candidates spent valuable time discussing Donald Trump's antics. Why? Trump would end up getting his own three hours in the limelight later. Essentially, the undercard telecast operated as a teaser for the primetime showdown.
I'm getting to a larger point here: that it might be time to do more than simply phase out the bottom tier debates. Maybe those candidates should go ahead and fold the tent on their entire presidential campaigns.
They're all accomplished statesmen. There's no doubt about that. They've done (or, are currently doing) capable jobs in their various elected positions, and under different circumstances they might stand a better chance in the 2016 race.
Yet they're just distractions. Afterthoughts. Also-rans.
It's understandable that they'd hang around after the first debate in August. There was still a chance that jockeying could be done. That they could work their way into the top tier. That, like Fiorina, they'd get their own bump.
"Just stick around. Keep fighting," the optimistic candidate might think. "My time will come."
Now, more than two months later, it's become clearer and clearer that Santorum, Pataki, Jindal and Graham don't have what it takes to escape what numerous pundits have referred to as the "kids table" debates. And it's not just that they're stuck at the kids table for the debates. The whole of their campaigns are at the kids table. Instead of growing up and joining the "adults" at the big table, though, it's likelier that some of the primetime candidates will soon be joining the kids crew. The main stage won't feature 10 contestants forever.
Presidential campaigns are time consuming, physically exhausting affairs. And that's just for the voters keeping up at home. The instant candidates realize they don't stand a serious chance at winning their party's nomination - that they're just part of the sideshow - they need to do everyone a favor and end their run.
By keeping the happy hour debates around, the RNC is providing false hope that maybe, just maybe, one of those wilting campaigns might end up flourishing.
But they won't, and the sooner we cut the undercard debates, the sooner those candidates will realize they need to bow out.
David Allen Martin is a syndicated columnist who writes from Chattanooga. Email him at davidallenmartin423@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DMart423.