• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Johnson, Stein fail to qualify for first debate

Dittohead not! said:
It has more to do with the fact that few people know who the green or libertarian candidates are, what their platforms are, what they stand for, and that even those that are aware that there actually are more than two parties understand that the third party candidates have no chance of winning anyway. They can't win because no one will vote for them because they can't win. It's a catch 22.

So, the best we can hope for is enough third party votes to wake up the major parties to the fact that most voters find neither of the candidates to be acceptable.
Click to expand...

That's probably true. I follow politics far more than the average citizen, and I know almost nothing of the 3rd party candidates.

My view is that if a candidate is on the ballot in a majority of states, then that candidate should be on the stage.
 
Praxas said:
The reason you don't see that is the left does not want Trump as president. He is dangerous, ignorant, egotistical and surrounds himself with yes men. All qualities that the left (even those against Clinton) see him as a national security threat.
Click to expand...

:shrug: a good section (probably a solid majority) of the NeverTrumpers are also NeverHillary. No one on the Left seems interested in standing on their principles.
 
Cardinal said:
Um, what? That's just conspiracy theory BS? What do you think the 15% number is?
Click to expand...

A pretty decent number actually. It keeps crazies like the Constitution and Communist parties from taking part. It makes sure that the people who get to debate actually have any shot in hell of actually winning. Unless you can get 15% of the American public to say they are voting for you, and that honestly can't be that hard, then why should you get on television?

What is it about the Republicans and Democrats, the two largest money-raising political organizations in the country, whose message "resonates" with the American people?
Click to expand...

And they are that way because they've earned it. You know? Meritocracy? Now I wouldn't expect you to have the slightest idea what that term means, but libertarians certainly ought to, yet when it doesn't work to their advantage, they whine. If you want it, you have to EARN it. Third parties have no EARNED it.
 
Simpleχity;1066323774 said:
Johnson, Stein fail to qualify for first debate




Neither Johnson nor Stein satisfied the 15% support-threshold of the five polls recognized by the the Commission on Presidential Debates . The first televised debate (NBC/Lester Holt) is scheduled for September 26. VP candidates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence will debate on October 4.

It is possible that Johnson and/or Stein will meet the debate criteria (or revised criteria) to qualify for the second scheduled presidential debate (CNN/Anderson Cooper and ABC/Martha Raddatz) on October 9, or the third scheduled presidential debate (Fox/ Chris Wallace) on October 19.
Click to expand...

Well that's a damn shame. I really hoped that Johnson could make it. Now I'm stuck watching one fraud debate another.
 
cpwill said:
Johnson sold himself and Weld to the LP by arguing that he had the name recognition to get on the ballot everywhere, get in the debates, and bring in national media.

Then the LP watched their ticket talk about the need to limit the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, and how wonderful Hillary was.

Bet some folks today have some serious buyers remorse.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the media really jumped on Johnson's "Aleppo" gaffe and pundits on both sides immediately declared him unfit for office. Never mind that Obama had many more such gaffes when he was campaigning in 2008--it's the old double standard so obvious to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I am a Gary Johnson fan personally--I like him a lot--but cannot support him wholeheartedly for President. But geez I wish we could expect some kind of objectivity and fair play from the media and pundits and social media and message boards across the land. Would it be possible to once again hang people for crimes they actually commit instead of those invented by their opponents? I wonder if we have lost ethics and objectivity forever?
 
Simpleχity;1066323774 said:
It is possible that Johnson and/or Stein will meet the debate criteria (or revised criteria) to qualify for the second scheduled presidential debate (CNN/Anderson Cooper and ABC/Martha Raddatz) on October 9, or the third scheduled presidential debate (Fox/ Chris Wallace) on October 19.
Click to expand...

No its not, the system is gamed. They won't. Watch.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Not to mention that the media really jumped on Johnson's "Aleppo" gaffe and pundits on both sides immediately declared him unfit for office. Never mind that Obama had many more such gaffes when he was campaigning in 2008--it's the old double standard so obvious to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I am a Gary Johnson fan personally--I like him a lot--but cannot support him wholeheartedly for President. But geez I wish we could expect some kind of objectivity and fair play from the media and pundits and social media and message boards across the land. Would it be possible to once again hang people for crimes they actually commit instead of those invented by their opponents? I wonder if we have lost ethics and objectivity forever?
Click to expand...

Yup. The idea that, when both the major party candidates stumble from dumpster fire disaster to dumpster fire disaster, asking "what is Aleppo" is disqualifying is so stupid, only our media could come up with and pitch it.
 
cpwill said:
Yup. The idea that, when both the major party candidates stumble from dumpster fire disaster to dumpster fire disaster, asking "what is Aleppo" is disqualifying is so stupid, only our media could come up with and pitch it.
Click to expand...

Most especially when EVERYBODY, including Johnson, Trump, and Clinton's critics, has those temporary brain farts when you're thinking about one thing and something doesn't immediately register. I have never in any discussion of Iraq used the word "Aleppo" I don't believe, and I'm not sure that would have immediately registered with me when the TV interviewer threw it out there. I always says "Syria" when I am discussing Syria. I do know what the capital of Syria is and it might have rung an immediate bell and it might not have. But disqualifying? Not at all.

Barack Obama in 2008 frequently stated the UN should do this or do that when it had no authority to do so. He said he would pull Arabic translators from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan where they were needed more. Nobody in Afghanistan speaks Arabic. And his infamous shout out to his pastor who he subsequently threw under the bus when he became a political liability: "“And then I’ve got to give a special shout out to my pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ.”

Hillary Clinton said "(Pervez Musharraf) could be the only person on the ballot. (In Pakistan.) I don’t think that’s a real election.” Musharraf wasn't running in that election. In a Feb. 26, 2008, Democratic debate against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton just could not get the future Russian President's name right when asked by moderator Tim Russert. "Dmitri Medvedev" proved too difficult for Clinton to say; instead, she opted for "Medavedeva ... whatever."

There have been countless incidents like that. The media reports it and then immediately drops it and moves on. Not so much Democratic opponents on the GOP or Libertarian side.

Like I said, all pretense of ethics and/or objectivity have been absent from the MSM for quite some time now.
 
Henrin said:
What is it about Republicans and Democrats that the people like?
Click to expand...

IMO most Democrats and Republicans like their party because their party is not the other party.
 
Cephus said:
No, I think people know, they just don't like them.. i know exactly who the Libertarians and Greens are, I just wouldn't be caught dead voting for either of them.

And the Libertarians have been hoping for that mythical 5% of the vote for more than 40 years and have never even come close. Then they make excuses and come up with conspiracy theories why they fail. They fail because nobody likes them. It isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
If they can't reach that threshold this time, given the candidates the major parties have nominated, then they may as well give it up.
 
cpwill said:
I dunno. I think that there is a significant contingent of Republicans who are refusing to back Trump (though that number is falling). I don't see a comparable movement in the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

I think that number is falling because it looks more and more like Trump may actually prevail, and not be a disaster for the Republican Party (at least not until after the election), but there still are Republicans who realize that Trump's platform is not that of the party.

Democrats are backing Clinton because she actually is a Democrat and because she has a good chance of winning.
 
Simpleχity;1066323774 said:
Johnson, Stein fail to qualify for first debate




Neither Johnson nor Stein satisfied the 15% support-threshold of the five polls recognized by the the Commission on Presidential Debates . The first televised debate (NBC/Lester Holt) is scheduled for September 26. VP candidates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence will debate on October 4.

It is possible that Johnson and/or Stein will meet the debate criteria (or revised criteria) to qualify for the second scheduled presidential debate (CNN/Anderson Cooper and ABC/Martha Raddatz) on October 9, or the third scheduled presidential debate (Fox/ Chris Wallace) on October 19.
Click to expand...

Johnson could make it on the 2nd debate if Hillary and Trump are just that bad and turn voters off to both of them.
 
Cardinal said:
Where does the 15% figure come from anyway? The only way that number could be more specific is if it was "13.67%"
Click to expand...

it is set by the Presidential debate board. They set all the criteria. It was 10% and they raised it to 15%.
they could raise it to 30% if they wanted to. it is totally up to them what the criteria is set at.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: a good section (probably a solid majority) of the NeverTrumpers are also NeverHillary. No one on the Left seems interested in standing on their principles.
Click to expand...

Oh please, many Trump supporters just like the memes without actually thinking. Trump isn't going to get any of that **** done because it isn't within his power to do.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Not to mention that the media really jumped on Johnson's "Aleppo" gaffe and pundits on both sides immediately declared him unfit for office. Never mind that Obama had many more such gaffes when he was campaigning in 2008--it's the old double standard so obvious to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I am a Gary Johnson fan personally--I like him a lot--but cannot support him wholeheartedly for President. But geez I wish we could expect some kind of objectivity and fair play from the media and pundits and social media and message boards across the land. Would it be possible to once again hang people for crimes they actually commit instead of those invented by their opponents? I wonder if we have lost ethics and objectivity forever?
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be a refreshing change though.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The two parties have no interest in letting the public hear from any third party candidate, not in this debate or the next debate, not ever.

So, I suppose Trump will have to step up and actually participate in this debate, or Clinton will have the stage all to herself.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If they got close, you can depend on the Commission on Presidential Debates moving the goal-posts. It's a given.
 
Cardinal said:
Where does the 15% figure come from anyway? The only way that number could be more specific is if it was "13.67%"
Click to expand...

The CPD says it came from a standard set by the League of Women Voters back in the day when they used to hold the debates. Which is pretty much a false-hood.
 
Cephus said:
It is nobody's fault but the third parties that their platforms don't resonate with a larger portion of the American people. This has nothing to do with the Democrats and Republicans, it has everything to do with the utter failure that is the Libertarian and Green parties.
Click to expand...

You're just selling a catch 22.

If they got in the debate they would be heard, but to get in the debate they have to have already been heard.

Nobody hears a third party's message so nobody knows a third party's message. They don't have 24 hour news networks dedicating the bulk of their time to third party candidates like they do Dems and Gopers.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If they can't reach that threshold this time, given the candidates the major parties have nominated, then they may as well give it up.
Click to expand...

But they won't. They'll just make excuses for why they failed miserably once again and next time, they'll swear that this time, they'll make it. And next time. And the time after that. And the time after that. Funny how the Libertarian Party isn't actually improving in their showing at the polls, after more than 40 years.
 
poweRob said:
You're just selling a catch 22.

If they got in the debate they would be heard, but to get in the debate they have to have already been heard.

Nobody hears a third party's message so nobody knows a third party's message. They don't have 24 hour news networks dedicating the bulk of their time to third party candidates like they do Dems and Gopers.
Click to expand...

They have to have a core constituency that will support them financially so they can get their message out. They do not have that, no matter what they claim. Nobody is giving them money, unlike the Democrats and Republicans. Why do you think that is?

Oh wait, because the majority of people who say they are libertarians don't actually have any money to give, they're young kids without jobs who don't know any better.
 
Cephus said:
They have to have a core constituency that will support them financially so they can get their message out. They do not have that, no matter what they claim. Nobody is giving them money, unlike the Democrats and Republicans. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Entrenched systemic advantage of being making the rules that everyone else must play by.

Oh wait, because the majority of people who say they are libertarians don't actually have any money to give, they're young kids without jobs who don't know any better.
Click to expand...

Many are. Many rich people as well. Libertarian philosophy appeals to them as well.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/06/07/libertarians-step-into-the-big-money-spotlight/
 
poweRob said:
Entrenched systemic advantage of being making the rules that everyone else must play by.
Click to expand...

The Libertarian Party has been around for more than 50 years. If that's not entrenched, I don't know what is. If people haven't heard about them in 50 years, something is wrong.

Many are. Many rich people as well. Libertarian philosophy appeals to them as well.
Click to expand...

Yet they don't vote that way, do they? They certainly don't funnel millions of dollars to the Libertarians like the wealthy do to the Dems and Reps, do they? Wonder why.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think that number is falling because it looks more and more like Trump may actually prevail, and not be a disaster for the Republican Party (at least not until after the election), but there still are Republicans who realize that Trump's platform is not that of the party.

Democrats are backing Clinton because she actually is a Democrat and because she has a good chance of winning.
Click to expand...

It is true that Trump isn't following the dictates of the Republican Party but his platform is very much mostly appealing to a great many Republicans as testified to by the record number of Republican votes he received in the primary elections. Yes he is not a politician and therefore has made a number of errors on the political correctness front, and he thinks out loud that requires him to walk back some of his comments. And some will hate him because a) he is opposing Hillary, b) he is not your typical liberal, c) he is rich, famous, and successful, and isn't reluctant to acknowledge that.

He is giving Hillary a run for the money because so many Republicans (and others) are sick of political speeches and promises that are never delivered on if even remembered once a Republican gets nominated. Of course it is the same for Democrats, but Democrats set the bar very low for their candidates and it is sufficient that their candidate has a D after his or her name. Republicans, as a rule, expect more from those they entrust with the power of government. So yes, we will allow Trump to be Trump and to be more of a guy at the coffee shop instead of a political icon. We don't like his screw ups or misspeaks either, but we prefer those to intentional, poll tested, and carefully scripted empty rhetoric that has been the rule more than the exception from the permanent political class that makes up most of the leadership in both parties.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The two parties have no interest in letting the public hear from any third party candidate, not in this debate or the next debate, not ever.
Click to expand...

Aw, sour grapes! Maybe if your party had worked its way up to relevancy by winning lower seats, and developing a record that interested people could look at, and then putting up an actual serious candidate, instead of a dope smoking clown that doesn't even know what Aleppo is....Believe me, I am playing the world's smallest violin for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom