At what point is it fair for networks to drop the “kiddie table” debate? If we’re not there yet, it can’t be far away. Yes, the entire format of prime-time and under-card debates was stupid and unfair to the lesser-known candidates. [We cut 9,000 words of Jim ranting about Bobby Jindal never getting a prime-time appearance. — the Editors.] Presidential candidates were never required to have a national name ID and level of support to participate in the debates before; certainly long or longer-shot candidates like Bill Clinton might never have risen if this system was in place in previous cycles.

(“Think what it could have saved us!” cry the Clinton critics.)

Tonight, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki will participate in the undercard debate. Collectively, they’re at 2.9 percent nationally, 3 percent in Iowa, and 1.9 percent in New Hampshire. Lindsey Graham is at 2.3 percent in his home state of South Carolina. Huckabee and Santorum are collectively at 2.6 in the Palmetto State. In the entire cycle, only one poll registered any support for Pataki in South Carolina, a July poll putting him at 1 percent.

Huckabee and Santorum supporters will cry, “but our man won the Iowa caucus two/one cycle ago!” Yes, and they’re at 2 percent and .7 percent respectively in Iowa right now.

Lesser-known candidates always argue that the media never gives them a fair shake and they never get the time on the national stage they deserve. At what point is it no longer unfair for media covering the race to stop treating them like serious candidates?