Donald Trump is a joke/vanity candidate with exactly zero chance of winning. He just happens to be representing a party traditionally considered “major.”
William Weld?
I thought the VP nominee was Tuesday Weld! It makes a little more sense now.
You say you want them both in; just pointing out that while this is a perfectly fine argument for Johnson, it isn’t an argument for Stein, who is nowhere near 10% and in fact has a level of support that makes it hard to distinguish her from a “ridiculous” candidate.
I’m not so sure that a 3rd party candidate couldnt catch a wave from a debate.
Years ago in Minnesota they decided to let reform party candidate Jesse Ventura and his honest, open candor really shut down the other 2 and he went on to win the governorship. Granted that didnt turn out well but it shows the possibility of what could happen.
Look, both dems and reps LIKE their monopoly. They dont want to be like Europe with their coalition governments made up of groups that can easily turn on each other.
To be nitpicky, that’s incorrect. Blacks represent 12% of eligible voters, not under 10%. And indeed a candidate that appealed to Black voters and only Black voters would not be a serious candidate for the general election. 12% is not enough to have a realistic chance of winning the general.
If I was going to write a set of rules for a future cycle’s debates I think I’d be willing to take a low bar for the popular polling numbers (maybe 8 or even 5%) but also require having gotten on the ballot and/or otherwise demonstrating actual organization and support, in some minimum number of states (plus D.C.). Not all of them, that is too high of a bar, but a solid majority of them anyway. I do like the initial op suggestion that invitation to a second debate would require having hit a higher polling threshold as well.
In that format a Johnson would likely qualify in the future. I do like the initial OP’s suggestion that after invitation to a second and/or third debate would require a higher bar, perhaps the 15% metric.
Broad but not particularly organization and very modest financial resources therefore earn the opportunity to have a swing at bat to appeal to the general populus on the big soapbox but if they fail to connect with enough voters to be a more serious contender after that then the voters get to use the debates as the means to find out more about the ones that actually have a reasonable chance of winning.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant if every Black voter in the country was polling as a BLM independent supporter, that candidate would still not qualify under the current rules.
And to be more clear: I was focused on whether such a candidate should have a place in a national leadership debate. Not whether he is likely to win the presidency. I don’t think that’s the same question, imho.
Which gets to the question of course of what the general presidential debate is for. I appreciate your perspective but differ from it. The general election debate stage IMHO should not be the place for a gadfly representing a small fraction’s POV to gain a soapbox in an attempt to have impact on the discussion between those who actually might lead but is a place for voters find out more about the actual potential leaders of the country. “Likely” is not required, but “a realistic long shot possibility of” should be.
Isn’t that what the debate’s questioners are taking? Trying to test and draw out the contenders, to make them face issues and angles they may not have chosen in their own campaign activities?
The lock that the Democratic and Republican parties collectively hold on discussions such as debates and town hall style meetings is appalling, going to the ridiculous.
The non-partisan Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is hosting a town hall style discussion for the candidates on September 7 with the subject matter limited to military issues faced by a Commander-in-Chief.
Johnson leading in an admittedly unscientific poll of active military service-members, and with both major party candidates having 60+ % unfavorables among this group but still Johnson is not invited.
Reminds me of the Douglas Adams penned lizard vignette from SLATFATF.
Gotta pick your lizard.
Would anyone televise or stream a debate between Johnson and Stein?
Or, if Trump were to decide to not debate Clinton, would Johnson step in?
I am quite sure that you understand the difference in the criteria for being invited as a moderator and as a candidate and the in the role that a moderator plays to the stage in comparison to a candidate on the stage.
Cute quote from Adams, but the words “admittedly unscientific” need to be bolded, underlined, and italicized–a poll that is “admittedly unscientific” is meaningless.
Even if it were a meaningful figure, and Americans in the military really were inclined to support Johnson in a big way, I’m not sure it matters. There just aren’t that many active military personnel. Forty percent of active military, assuming they all voted, is something like 500,000 votes. Not exactly a tsunami of support.
Our military are not the Praetorian Guard.
Of course they have the right to vote–this must be made easy for those “away from home.” But I don’t see that they should have more influence than the rest of the citizenry.
Minor parties need to build from the ground up, not show up every four years & complain.
Just to put the 15% cutoff into a little perspective, In 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote.
Of course. But I was thinking about the practical function, not the criteria.
Is it so unimaginable that we might be better served by a process in which the perspectives to challenge the leading candidates originate on the stage?
Yeah, but that was quite a bit different. Wallace got over 60% in Alabama and Mississippi, over 40% in Louisiana and Georgia, and 38% in Arkansas (the last three were more than enough in a 3 person race), but very low amounts in the rest of the country (a bit more in other southern-ish states to 1% in Maine).
If you had a third party who was truly just a regional candidate then maybe it would have an impact.
I think that theoretically Johnson belongs in the debate, because the LP is serious enough to get him on the ballot in every state, none of the other candidates manage anything like it. I don’t think the major party candidates are required to debate him, though, and the 15% threshold is not unreasonable on it’s face. I think Johnson being in the debate would actually hurt his numbers unless the major candidates, because libertarianism has a lot of problems working in the real world or getting broad appeal.
I mostly posted, though, to point out the irony of Libertarians complaining that it’s wrong they’re not included in the debate, when Libertarians favor removing anti-discrimination restrictions on the ‘right to free association’ in the workplace and market which would allow people to refuse to hire women or put up ‘no blacks allowed’ signs.
We might be, but so what? The debate terms are set by the campaign teams. Yeah, they choose to do so via a second-hand “commission” that they control. So what?
The point is, unless the debates are favorable to the major party candidates they won’t show up. Just the act of appearing onstage along with Clinton and Trump would be a major boost for Stein or Johnson. And that’s why they aren’t going to be allowed to appear. It’s all upside for the crank candidates and all downside for the major candidates.
And if in the future there is some organization that sets up a debate that allows crank candidates to appear onstage, then the major candidates are simply not going to appear at that debate. They’ll either hold their own debate or there won’t be a debate that year. A candidate might look like a coward for ducking out on the debate against their major party rival, but that doesn’t apply to not showing up for a circus of crank candidates.
Yeah, Perot got himself on stage. And the major parties are never going to allow that to happen again, and will craft the “rules” of the “debate commission” such that it won’t happen.