On Aug. 6, 2015, the Fox News Channel will have two debates to be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.

One will take place in prime time at 9 p.m., which will favor the top 10 candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States measured by select national polls chosen by Fox. The remaining seven candidates will be cast down to attend the “children’s table” of debate notoriety. They will be relegated to attend the 5 p.m. debate of the seemingly expendable and rendered possibly irrelevant.

The two-tiered format of these announced candidates’ stratified participation already devalues the 5 p.m. participants even before they have uttered one debate response. Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and Fox News president Roger Ailes have, by virtue of these debate structures, condemned the seven lower-tier candidates to likely eventual oblivion. This system is unfair to the 5 p.m. candidates, and is on its face inequitable.

Certainly, all of the 17 aspirants for the nomination will have to try to define themselves, their standpoints, and present themselves lucidly. Additionally, the lower-tier candidates will have to, in some outstanding manner, present themselves in a memorable fashion. In a field that is chock full of diverse political personalities, the hefty job of the moderators – Fox News anchors Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Megan Kelly – will have to reign in the effusively extemporaneous candidates like Donald Trump and simultaneously appear to address all the participants with the same degree of respect and relevance. To some of the candidates, especially the lower-tier ones, the task of seeming important to the process might be insurmountable.

Although we do not concretely know who will participate in which level of debate forum, we can suppose who may be seen where contingent upon the latest public political polling. First and foremost, billionaire candidate Donald Trump will undoubtedly be in the 9 p.m. event. He leads most polls with his bombastic assertions about illegal immigrants, trade deficits, and the waning middle class. Quick with a quip and entertaining with his outlandish ostentatious manner, Trump “sucks the air” out of any room with his showmanship. However, what are lacking in his campaign thus far are any policy specifics, pertinent plans, or even clear pathways to achieve his wild promises. His ever-apparent, extraordinary self-confidence propels him to simply say he can solve any of our nation’s woes without ever explaining how. For instance, when CNN asked the Donald if he were able to force the repeal of the Affordable Care Act what would he replace it with, he stated: “I’d replace it with something terrific.”

Also, probably in the top 10 is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who resides in second place in most polls. Jeb must accomplish two objectives. First, he must come across as the reasoned alternative to the tempestuous Trump by presenting practical policies that can be implemented. Second, he must compare his actual stewardship of Florida’s government with Trump’s autocratic management of his company. Moreover, he must show that as the chief executive, one cannot rule by dictum and that the dictatorial Donald would be ineffective in a governmental environment.

Another Florida resident and mentee of Bush is the young U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. The senator is borderline in the polls in regard the tier into which he may be cast, yet his “rising star” quality has caused speculation that he is actually running for a vice-presidential slot. Rubio must project confidence and a maturity beyond his years. He must explain that as both senator for the last four years and as Florida’s speaker of the House, he has a wealth of cogent and applicable experience. Also, he has an interesting backstory regarding his immigrant family. This tale will endear him to many, providing he does not go overboard with the emphasis on the rags-to-riches aspect of his family’s history. As we all remember, Angel Taveras, the former mayor of Providence, alienated many and possibly sabotaged the nomination by constantly reminding voters in the Democrat primary for governor last cycle that he went from “Head Start to Harvard.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will most probably be seen in the 9 p.m. debate. Christie’s “bull in a china shop” style of loud and blunt speech will not sell well in a debate forum. He will need to quell his usual impolite and pugnacious manner and keep to the issues about which he has well-defined, stated opinions. If he stays on point in a more gracious way, he could bolster his tepid poll numbers.

Another governor with a strong personality is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. The difference between Kasich and Christie is that Kasich has been eminently successful as governor, where Christie has not. Through Kasich’s leadership, Ohio has gone from astronomical deficit to surplus. He has reorganized his state’s administration and streamlined the manner in which Ohio operates. He has made strides with state unions to manage escalating pension liability. In addition to these achievements as governor, he can cite his years in Congress as a deficit hawk and budget wonk. If Kasich can demonstrate how his government portfolio applies federally, he can increase his standing substantially.

Also probably in the top tier will be Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has prevailed against hard union adversaries as well as a recall election. He is seen as a durable candidate who might bring a positive fighting spirit of new republicanism to the podium. If he can display this attitude to the debate audience across the country, he could gain traction.

Perhaps also in the top tier might be Tea Party darling Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; outrageous but brilliant Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; and studious looking former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. These three candidates face almost insurmountable malingering public perceptions.

For Paul, he has made many speeches about reducing the federal government to a town committee and withdrawing from any foreign affair, thus rendering our country to abject isolationism. He has tried to dial those strident standpoints back somewhat of late to seem more palatable. Whether he can do so in this debate is questionable.

Cruz is seen as a rogue element in the Senate who has made many embarrassing displays, so much so that Sen. John McCain once famously referred to Cruz as a “Wacko Bird.” Cruz’s seemingly inability to cooperate with his fellow Republicans certainly makes him seem the longest of long shots. He would need to present an attitude of reasonability thus far unseen to continue forward in this quest for the nomination.

After a stunning display of ignorance in a last election cycle debate, Perry has a new pair of glasses and hopefully he has brushed up on the mechanisms and structure of our federal government. Since the debate debacle versus erstwhile nominee Mitt Romney, Perry has been purportedly practicing. He will have to show a great deal of prowess to change perceptions. Eyewear will not do it.

Defined by their placement, the bottom tier will most likely be inhabited by Dr. Ben Carson, businesswoman and Hillary-basher Carly Fiorina, former governor of Virginia Jim Gilmore, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the ultra-right former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and the anti-abortion activist and former senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. These candidates, no matter how galvanizing their performance may be, have been relegated and discounted by their likely placement to the lower-tier children’s table.

If the idea of all 17 candidates on the same stage is cumbersome, then a lottery of sorts with two prime time events would have been more egalitarian; this two-tiered system picks winners and losers by perception.

No matter what the event, no one ever remembers who was sitting at the kid’s table!