“Note: passion is not the same as radicalness. One can be passionate about medical marijuana or one can advocate complete legalization of all drugs in boring legalistic jargon.”
See: Mary Ruwart.
Nexus
July 6, 2008
“the ONLY legal standard for admission to debates is ballot status sufficient to allow a win”
Yes, but we all know the true purpose of those standards. That isn’t likely to change this cycle.
Arthur Torrey
July 6, 2008
IMHO the ONLY legal standard for admission to debates is ballot status sufficient to allow a win… This should be the case regardless of the level of candidate.
Yes sticker campaigns are theoretically enough to win on, but I think it’s reasonable to say that you need to get your name on the ballot at a minimum.
I think he did better than he did on Fox. But still, he sounds too much like a lawyer. Too many big words, not enough passion.
Note: passion is not the same as radicalness. One can be passionate about medical marijuana or one can advocate complete legalization of all drugs in boring legalistic jargon.
If I get the Green nomination, that might be enough to pursuade a libertarian to join the ticket making it a fusion ticket. Or if the Green nominee tries to recruit a libertarian.
Agreed that debates should include all candidates with possible 270 electoral votes. An either/or would get BOTH in. Nader over 5% (6%) & Barr should have 270 soon. That might also get the Green in too. But the requirement for minimum polling is what excludes almost all third party/independents. Only COMBINING polling by fusion ticket can get by this barrier for progressives which is why Nader with his leftist vp is not polling well enough(10%) & Barr/Root is too rightist for most progressives. Or, an exceptional centrist (Reform, populist, Unity08) party or independent including super rich. Which doesn’t seem to be happening this year.
Anti-Corporate
July 6, 2008
It’s good that Barr and Nader are getting lots of mainstream media exposure (this makes two weekends in a row). But what they really need is debate-access. There is a website, now, for the Google / YouTube debate on September 18:
Unfortunately, to be included, a candidate must be at 10% in national polls. This is better than the CPD debates (15%). But it still probably leaves out Barr and Nader. All third-party supporters should go to the debate site and click on the “Contact Us” link at the bottom. Push them to change the criteria.
5% would be more reasonable. Or better yet, just being on enough ballots to have a chance at 270 electoral votes.
“Note: passion is not the same as radicalness. One can be passionate about medical marijuana or one can advocate complete legalization of all drugs in boring legalistic jargon.”
See: Mary Ruwart.
“the ONLY legal standard for admission to debates is ballot status sufficient to allow a win”
Yes, but we all know the true purpose of those standards. That isn’t likely to change this cycle.
IMHO the ONLY legal standard for admission to debates is ballot status sufficient to allow a win… This should be the case regardless of the level of candidate.
Yes sticker campaigns are theoretically enough to win on, but I think it’s reasonable to say that you need to get your name on the ballot at a minimum.
I think he did better than he did on Fox. But still, he sounds too much like a lawyer. Too many big words, not enough passion.
Note: passion is not the same as radicalness. One can be passionate about medical marijuana or one can advocate complete legalization of all drugs in boring legalistic jargon.
And here’s a URL to the video …
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5316945
If I get the Green nomination, that might be enough to pursuade a libertarian to join the ticket making it a fusion ticket. Or if the Green nominee tries to recruit a libertarian.
Agreed that debates should include all candidates with possible 270 electoral votes. An either/or would get BOTH in. Nader over 5% (6%) & Barr should have 270 soon. That might also get the Green in too. But the requirement for minimum polling is what excludes almost all third party/independents. Only COMBINING polling by fusion ticket can get by this barrier for progressives which is why Nader with his leftist vp is not polling well enough(10%) & Barr/Root is too rightist for most progressives. Or, an exceptional centrist (Reform, populist, Unity08) party or independent including super rich. Which doesn’t seem to be happening this year.
It’s good that Barr and Nader are getting lots of mainstream media exposure (this makes two weekends in a row). But what they really need is debate-access. There is a website, now, for the Google / YouTube debate on September 18:
http://www.neworleansdebate.org
Unfortunately, to be included, a candidate must be at 10% in national polls. This is better than the CPD debates (15%). But it still probably leaves out Barr and Nader. All third-party supporters should go to the debate site and click on the “Contact Us” link at the bottom. Push them to change the criteria.
5% would be more reasonable. Or better yet, just being on enough ballots to have a chance at 270 electoral votes.