fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
Avatar
mb
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/16/debate-commission-blocks-g...

Next question: Who is there in power that can bring Johnson and/or Stein to the front-door of these debates and demand to be let in? Because there is a not-so-veiled threat which I've bolded in red.

Gary Johnson wrote:
I would say I am surprised that the CPD has chosen to exclude me from the first debate, but I'm not. After all, the Commission is a private organization created 30 years ago by the Republican and Democratic parties for the clear purpose of taking control of the only nationally-televised presidential debates voters will see. At the time of its creation, the leaders of those two parties made no effort to hide the fact that they didn't want any third party intrusions into their shows.

The only time a third candidate has been allowed on the stage was 1992, when both parties wanted him on the stage for their own purposes. It should be noted that, when Perot was allowed on the stage, polls showed his support to be in single digits, below where Johnson and Weld are currently polling.

The CPD may scoff at a ticket that enjoys "only" 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states. Yet, the Republicans and Democrats are choosing to silence the candidate preferred by those millions of Americans.

Americans are tired of rigged systems, and the monopoly on debates created by the CPD is a prime and skillfully executed example.

Bill Weld and I will continue to fight to provide a voice and an alternative for independents, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats, Millennials and others who aren't satisfied with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as their options.

It is unfortunate that the CPD doesn't believe such a voice should be heard. There are more polls and more debates, and we plan to be on the debate stage in October.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bummer, having all four democrats on stage would have been epic !
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
bummer, having all four democrats on stage would have been epic !


Jeremy you should run for labeler in chief since you seem to be such an expert....and it seems so important to you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank F
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
IF YOU WANT IT
badge
Please investigate a resource based economy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The monetary system only ever offers you two choices, bad and worse. You have no genuine options.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nader wasn't even allowed in the building.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
surprise They should hold their OWN here in Geek Chat during this other "ongoing" and we'll compare notes upon WHATEVER were 'addressed' instead of their "publaloblob-pablum" and 'HardBIGballs'-query, so we can determine WHOM had the UTMOST "biggiest-MAN-hands"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Hopkins
United States
Converse
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think there should be one debate with all serious candidates (on the ballot in enough states to get to 270).

But only one. I think it is reasonable and logical to spend the majority of the time and questions on the candidates that can actually win.

*ducks*
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kissa
United States
flag msg tools
La vie est un jeu
badge
Panem et Circenses
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
flamespeak wrote:
chopkins828 wrote:
I think there should be one debate with all serious candidates (on the ballot in enough states to get to 270).

But only one. I think it is reasonable and logical to spend the majority of the time and questions on the candidates that can actually win.

*ducks*


I think it should just be a cage match to the death.
ONLY THE STRONG SHALL LEAD!
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If only there was some system of (Ohh I do not know lets call it society) that took power out of the hands or private bodies so as to make it fair for all, damn it why does know such system exist.

But yrs, given how many people hate the two main candidates) for once they should be there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Lol, it's almost like you think a third party matters.
No, I just believe in informed democracy. I dislike the way the major parties act like they are the only choice we get to chose (yes it is the same in the UK, we just have three of them).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hoffman
United States
Briarcliff Manor
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, neither Stein nor Johnson has any chance of being elected. Including them in the debate with Clinton and Trump would only take time away from the two actual candidates. It's nice to be informed and all that, but isn't it more important to be informed about people who might have a chance of actually being elected?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ohbalto wrote:
Well, neither Stein nor Johnson has any chance of being elected. Including them in the debate with Clinton and Trump would only take time away from the two actual candidates. It's nice to be informed and all that, but isn't it more important to be informed about people who might have a chance of actually being elected?
Except this time I am not so sure that is true. Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's Hilary apparently as according to legit sources - she is already dead.

You cannot kill what does not live!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Don't be humble... you're not that great."
Avatar
mbmbmb
The debates are going to be nothing but a mud slinging circus. I think Johnson is better off not wallowing in that mire.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.


No, it's impossible. About 75% of the electorate is completely and unshakably locked into their vote at this point, and Johnson and Stein are only polling as well as they have because neither has had to actually seriously compete. In a debate Clinton waxes either of them without trying hard (and as much as I loathe Trump I think his brand of dominance politics would work well against both), because most of the flirting-with-Johnson voters don't know most of his positions - like, seriously, the guy wants to raise Social Security eligibility to *72*, that's a rock-solid model for getting 2% of the vote - and because Stein advocates for a lot of woo-woo things and has said an incredible amount of dumb shit, and because it's easy to look like a viable Presidential candidate when nobody's campaigning against you.

We've already seen other candidates with the political skill of Johnson and Stein this year. They were all gone by the end of the third primary.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.


No, it's impossible. About 75% of the electorate is completely and unshakably locked into their vote at this point, and Johnson and Stein are only polling as well as they have because neither has had to actually seriously compete. In a debate Clinton waxes either of them without trying hard (and as much as I loathe Trump I think his brand of dominance politics would work well against both), because most of the flirting-with-Johnson voters don't know most of his positions - like, seriously, the guy wants to raise Social Security eligibility to *72*, that's a rock-solid model for getting 2% of the vote - and because Stein advocates for a lot of woo-woo things and has said an incredible amount of dumb shit, and because it's easy to look like a viable Presidential candidate when nobody's campaigning against you.

We've already seen other candidates with the political skill of Johnson and Stein this year. They were all gone by the end of the third primary.



And, of course, the "ownage" would only happen in one direction, right? Would some of their flaws get exposed? Sure. But Hillary and Trump both have flaws of mammoth proportions. But why doesn't anyone take them seriously? Because "But the other guy is worse" is the new "Abra Kadabra" where saying it makes things disappear.

Why don't any of Hillary's supporters have serious qualms about her ethical shortcomings? Because Trump. Why don't any of Trump's supporters have serious qualms about his total inexperience in governing? Because Hillary. The very act of him being on stage would add a legitimacy that would give an alternative that people either didn't know about or consider seriously.

Even if he got crushed in the debates, the very act of being on stage would be enough to get him a massive number of points. But you and your ilk have already pre-decided that a two-term governor isn't qualified to be president and would get dismantled so let's not even bother. And for you, the reason is simple. Because Trump. And if jeremy was to say the same thing, his reason would be Because Hillary.

Fear legitimizing.
3 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
'advocate & 'institute' were as 'differing' of in WHAT either/both major Party Legislators already HAVE, and shall repeatedly 'inflict & infect', our very "governing bodies" with their ongoing incompetent maleficence. Perhaps, we required a RESET *Option* beginning with immediate ouster of those 'incumbents' continuing their "disservice of society" through theirs. NONE felt nor believed themselves 'culpable' beyond their VOTE of these into office, since, whenever any had been FOUND 'criminally negligent', why, those that PLACED them into the 'position' initially are not equally as 'responsible'? FELONS 'lose' their RIGHT of 'vote', EXCEPT, apparently, you-all?
shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
bummer, having all four democrats on stage would have been epic !


More like the opening line to a joke:

"Two Democrats, a Socialist, and a Populist walk into a bar...."



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
bummer, having all four democrats on stage would have been epic !


More like the opening line to a joke:

"Two Democrats, a Socialist, and a Populist walk into a bar...."



Ferret
Good, I hoped they all got concussion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sure it is very unlikely, but it's not impossible (given how odious the two main candidates are) that we could see an upset.


No, it's impossible. About 75% of the electorate is completely and unshakably locked into their vote at this point, and Johnson and Stein are only polling as well as they have because neither has had to actually seriously compete. In a debate Clinton waxes either of them without trying hard (and as much as I loathe Trump I think his brand of dominance politics would work well against both), because most of the flirting-with-Johnson voters don't know most of his positions - like, seriously, the guy wants to raise Social Security eligibility to *72*, that's a rock-solid model for getting 2% of the vote - and because Stein advocates for a lot of woo-woo things and has said an incredible amount of dumb shit, and because it's easy to look like a viable Presidential candidate when nobody's campaigning against you.

We've already seen other candidates with the political skill of Johnson and Stein this year. They were all gone by the end of the third primary.


If one of them can take just one state, it's not impossible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
Ferretman wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
bummer, having all four democrats on stage would have been epic !


More like the opening line to a joke:

"Two Democrats, a Socialist, and a Populist walk into a bar...."



Ferret
slatersteven wrote:
Good, I hoped they all got concussion.
THAT 'required' the actual BRAIN being present for 'susceptible effects', hence they're; "SAFE!"
zombie ~"D`oh! Calls ME 'Starvin` Marvin'!"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Nader wasn't even allowed in the building.

Nader was and is a loon.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
And, of course, the "ownage" would only happen in one direction, right? Would some of their flaws get exposed? Sure. But Hillary and Trump both have flaws of mammoth proportions.


You're creating a false equivalence because my point is: most of Johnson and Stein's support in polling is soft, because they're largely unknown quantities. I mean, former Sanders supporters who are considering Johnson aren't doing it because Sanders and Johnson have anything close to equivalent policy viewpoints.

Trump and Clinton have flaws, sure. Lots of them. But their flaws are largely known. People who support Clinton and Trump know about their flaws already; it's essentially impossible not to do so. Lots of people who support Johnson or Stein don't know that Johnson's compromise position on Social Security is increasing eligibility age to 72, or that he's pro-TPP, or that he opposes minimum wage laws in their entirety, or that he wants to eliminate the estate tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Lots of them don't know that Stein is antivax, or that she has a bonkers plan to eliminate student debt through qualitative easing, or that she's praised Russia's human rights record.

How is Johnson or Stein gonna get up on stage and "own" Hillary? Get up there and say, what, what Trump and tons of conservatives have been saying for months/years/decades? Or is this the magic bit where you decide that Johnson and Stein are secretly policy mavens and wizard public speakers despite a near-total lack of evidence?

Quote:
Why don't any of Hillary's supporters have serious qualms about her ethical shortcomings? Because Trump.


Or because they consider the accusations regarding her ethical shortcomings to be overblown.

Quote:
Why don't any of Trump's supporters have serious qualms about his total inexperience in governing? Because Hillary.


Or because they've decided that his inexperience is actually a plus.

Quote:
Even if he got crushed in the debates, the very act of being on stage would be enough to get him a massive number of points.


Look how well it worked for Ross Perot!

Quote:
But you and your ilk have already pre-decided that a two-term governor isn't qualified to be president


No, the American people as a whole have decided that Johnson (and Jill Stein) isn't worth having in the debates. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have had over a year apiece to try to convince the American electorate that they should be considered as serious options to the main two parties in a year where the two major parties have chosen candidates who each have remarkably high net-disapproval ratings. They've both had a remarkable amount of press coverage as compared to most third-party candidates - they've each gotten live coverage of multiple events and speeches on major news networks, and Johnson's national ceiling was around eight percent and Stein's less than four.

There's being qualified to do the job of president. There are a lot of people who are qualified to be President, frankly - a lot of smart people with the general intelligence (both analytical and emotional/social), managerial skill and stamina needed for the job. Being qualified for the job of President isn't the same thing as qualifying for a debate, which is a different question entirely: that qualification is about convincing a sufficient number of voters that you deserve to be advertised freely to the wider electorate as someone with a decent chance at becoming President.

Johnson and Stein have each had a year with two of the most unpopular Presidential candidates ever and much more press coverage/free advertising than Libertarian and Green candidates usually get, and they can't crack even two-thirds of the standard requirement to enter a national debate. These two schmucks simply don't make the grade, and I find it hilarious that most of the people complaining about Johnson's non-inclusion are people who usually claim that affirmative action is immoral, because that's what they're advocating for with Johnson - except, of course, that what they're advocating for with Johnson is what they actually imagine affirmative action to be, rather than the reality of what it is.
5 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To your "Look how well it worked for Ross Perot" comment, I would ask what kind of numbers do you think he would have gotten had he not been involved in the debates? While he only scored votes in the low teens (by my recollection, I don't care to look up the precise numbers), I would suggest that were he not in the debate, he wouldn't have done nearly as well. Why? Because the debate legitimizes the candidate.

So your argument is that these candidates can't get on in the debates because the American public has decided it should be that way, and yet they decide based in part on who the system gives credence to. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:
There's being qualified to do the job of president. There are a lot of people who are qualified to be President, frankly - a lot of smart people with the general intelligence (both analytical and emotional/social), managerial skill and stamina needed for the job. Being qualified for the job of President isn't the same thing as qualifying for a debate, which is a different question entirely: that qualification is about convincing a sufficient number of voters that you deserve to be advertised freely to the wider electorate as someone with a decent chance at becoming President.


So we have the personification of "Where there's smoke, there's fire" and we have Nero. And these two people are those who deserve to be advertised freely. Why? Because it has been predetermined that only a Democrat or a Republican can be a serious candidate; not because of the candidates themselves, but because of the weight of parties behind them. That's it. That is the only reason to exclude another candidate at this point. As you yourself pointed out, the support for the Dem and GOP candidates is pretty much in the shitter. So why aren't more people looking outside them? The illusion of legitimacy. The two-party system has a monopoly on it. And if it got lent out to anyone else, then that monopoly is gone.

You mention that Johnson's policies would get him thrown into an abyss. Well, let's see it. I am certain that everybody would have issue with at least one of his stances, quite possibly more. And yet, I think that more than a handful of Americans would vote for someone with some stances they don't appreciate as compared to two people they find loathesome.

Reading your post, I feel like I'm watching the end of "Twelve Angry Men."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
To your "Look how well it worked for Ross Perot" comment, I would ask what kind of numbers do you think he would have gotten had he not been involved in the debates? While he only scored votes in the low teens (by my recollection, I don't care to look up the precise numbers), I would suggest that were he not in the debate, he wouldn't have done nearly as well. Why? Because the debate legitimizes the candidate.


Discounting the early ballooning of popular support (which collapsed over time because Perot was an imperfect candidate, to say the least), Ross Perot had poll numbers consistently before and after the debate that were in line with his final result of 18% of the vote. The debate didn't create any significant change, which is all the more remarkable considering he was widely considered to have won it.

As for "the debate legitimizing the candidate," I have more experience with this theory than you do because I live in Canada, where for decades the Green party desperately tried to be included in the national debates. They were finally included in the 2008 and 2011 election cycles in the national debates and Elizabeth May was widely considered to be the most successful (or at least one of the ones who did well - certainly nobody thought she did poorly) at those debates. The result of this was that in 2008, the Green party saw a spike of all of two percent in the popular vote (from four to six), which disappeared in 2011 (when they pulled in less than four) and worsened in 2015 (when they dropped to less than three point five).

The debates are, ultimately, just one instance of advertising for candidates that happen to also serve as an opportunity to highlight policy differences and potentially embarrass opponents. If a party can't advertise itself successfully before a debate, the debate isn't going to change that much. The debates don't legitimize the candidates - the candidates legitimize the candidates.

Quote:
So your argument is that these candidates can't get on in the debates because the American public has decided it should be that way, and yet they decide based in part on who the system gives credence to. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Well, yes. You have a two-party system. That's what first-past-the-post electoral systems create. That's not argument, that's just math in action. Bernie Sanders ran as a Democrat after having been one for all of two months because he knew perfectly well that third-party campaigns were a waste of time for actually creating change.

Quote:
So we have the personification of "Where there's smoke, there's fire" and we have Nero. And these two people are those who deserve to be advertised freely. Why? Because it has been predetermined that only a Democrat or a Republican can be a serious candidate; not because of the candidates themselves, but because of the weight of parties behind them. That's it. That is the only reason to exclude another candidate at this point. As you yourself pointed out, the support for the Dem and GOP candidates is pretty much in the shitter.


Well, no. Hillary Clinton is quite popular with Democrats. Democrats like her, and there are a lot of Democrats. They want her to be President, and if you don't like it, nobody's making you vote for her. Trump is massively unpopular outside of the GOP, but inside it he has significant support and most of those who don't like him have swallowed their dislike in the hopes of electoral success or the fear of their base, and that's politics too.

You're complaining about a rigged system, but - and we've had this discussion a few times before - it's not rigged so much as it is the subject of inevitable math. First-past-the-post systems tend to create and empower two-party systems because math states that this is the most efficient answer to the electoral problem in question, and presidential governance systems exacerbate this tendency by weakening smaller parties by creating one major office (the Presidency) that they effectively never have access to. Political evolutions and shifts happen within the parties rather than externally - what's happened to the GOP over the last decade is actually a great example of a party reacting to its base in a responsive and democratic fashion. Granted, they reacted to become insane and racist, but so is their base so you can't say it's antidemocratic.

Quote:
So why aren't more people looking outside them? The illusion of legitimacy.


You're put on quozl's tinfoil hat at this point. More people aren't looking outside the big parties because most people recognize that it's easier to redirect the party from within. Again: this is exactly what happened to the GOP over the last decade. Their base prioritized certain things, and actively worked against anybody in the party who didn't share those priorities. There's no fucking conspiracy here.

Quote:
You mention that Johnson's policies would get him thrown into an abyss. Well, let's see it.


Here's the issue with that: where do you stop? You want the Libertarians in there. How about the Greens? The Constitution Party? Reform? Peace and Freedom? The Workers' World Party? Does Vermin Supreme get to appear? And if you say not, why not?

The answer to "why not," incidentally, is pretty simple. Debates originated as a way for two opposing positions to be presented in opposition to one another, which is why they work reasonably well in two-party systems. The more positions - or candidates - you introduce, the less useful the debate becomes and the less that can be determined about each position/candidate. A big reason Donald Trump was able to "win" so many debates is because he would just wait for other candidates to attack each other, then get his moment and say something inflammatory and populist, and he would never get challenged on it because there were eight other people fighting just to be noticed.

Quote:
I am certain that everybody would have issue with at least one of his stances, quite possibly more. And yet, I think that more than a handful of Americans would vote for someone with some stances they don't appreciate as compared to two people they find loathesome.


Funnily enough, there's a remedy for that via the current debate structure! It's called "have a candidate with 15% popular support." 15% is not a lot of support. It's three people out of twenty. It's less than the percentage of people who think environmentalists fake oil spills (24%) or that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (23%) or that lottery tickets are a sound financial plan (20%) or that the Sun resolves around the Earth (18%). And Johnson couldn't even manage that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.