BREAKING: Gary Johnson Will Not Be Included in Presidential Debates

term paper for history resources real essays by susan anker go to site see https://www.dimensionsdance.org/pack/5216-cialis-cheap-no-prescription.html informative suprise essay pitbull pay to write film studies application letter follow popular letter writing sites for school money evil essay writing service for research paper thesis acknowledgement department http://www.cresthavenacademy.org/chapter/tempaper-reviews/26/ top essay writing service affects of past due date viagra sexteblet https://pacificainexile.org/students/college-essays-for-sale/10/ cheap discount viagra argument paper topics https://dvas.org/pillgenerics-11152/ go to link dissertation phd how long is a 2000 word essay source link ms thesis topics wireless communication e learning business plan bfa creative writing buy diplomatico rum writing vectors viagra ice cream effects cialis mastercard accepted Liberty Viral, September 16th, 2016:

It has been announced by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) that Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and their running mates are the only candidates who will participate in the first debates, excluding Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and Green party candidate Jill Stein.

The commission required that candidates register an average of 15 percent support in five recent polls selected by the CPD, and neither candidate achieved these thresholds.

Here is the CPD’s press release about the invitation:

screen-shot-2016-09-16-at-2-28-50-pm

91 thoughts on “BREAKING: Gary Johnson Will Not Be Included in Presidential Debates

  1. JamesT

    Well I’m making the world’s hugest troll face for all you Weld apologists. Watch him not even get 1% now. Honestly they’d just change the rules if he ever hit 15%.

  2. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    JamesT, I think Warren was probably right in saying 2%. I say 3%, but that’s because I’m being generous. It’s extremely likely JWeld won’t beat Nader’s 2000 result – and Nader was on the ballot in….43 states.

    Maybe the LP will learn after this election cycle ? Maybe they will go back to their radical roots? Or maybe Weld and Charles Peralo will be the ticket for 2020? I have no idea.

    I wish the rank and file LP activist well, especially the ones who fought tooth and nail against JWeld. They did manage to get JWeld to two ballots instead of one, after all. That was something.

    I’ll vote for the two LP Illinois s statewide candidates, but I’m fully, 100% aboard the Trump Train. In my opinion, Jill Stein deserves to outpoll JWeld – I hope Darcy Richardson is right – and Castle deserves to at least get 200,000 votes, though that likely won’t happen.

    One race to watch is Libertarian Party U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller. I bet everything he is going to be the top LP U.S. Senate candidate in terms of percentage of vote received.

  3. Tony From Long Island

    Wait a second? Trump? Seriously? You’re kidding right?

    You can call yourself a Libertarian and vote for Trump – the border guy? The know nothing about any policy? The guy who offends everyone and turns politics into a joke circus?

    Really? The guy who tell the Generals to their face that the generals are a “disaster?”

    The guy who claims that the President was born in Kenya?

    The guy who told audiences a fake story about dipping bullets in pigs blood before killing muslims?

    The guy who would attack Iran over a gesture he didn’t like?

    Really? Wow. The one thing I thought I could avoid on this board were Trump voters. I just hang my head and become even more sad.

    Have a good weekend everyone (except Andy)

  4. langa

    One race to watch is Libertarian Party U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller. I bet everything he is going to be the top LP U.S. Senate candidate in terms of percentage of vote received.

    Fortunately, Miller (another LINO, much like Johnson/Weld) is up in Alaska, which means 95% of the country will be paying no attention to him.

  5. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Tony, I no longer identify with the libertarian label. It’s just not for me.

    But I wouldn’t be surprised if Murray Rothbard would be writing columns praising Trump if he was still alive today.

  6. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Miller is a neocon on foreign policy it seems to me – he identifies with Sens. Lee & Cruz – but I don’t think he’s nearly as bad as JWeld, and he’s right-wing -maybe the LP Alaska will push him in the right direction on foreign policy?

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Kryzysztof, I no longer identify with the LP either . . . but TRUMP?

    The guy is really seriously clueless. He says as many words as possible to say absolutely nothing.

    Go back and actually READ his responses during the Military forum thing from last week. Don’t listen – READ. It’s embarrassing. Why would someone who is clearly intelligent and well informed as you are vote for such a buffoon?

    (I really am leaving this time for the weekend)

  8. Chuck Moulton

    I’m disappointed, but not surprised. Kudos to Johnson/Weld for getting their polls up as high as they did and the full court press for debate inclusion. Thanks to all the volunteers who busted their asses to get this far!

    I hope the campaign goals will shift from debate inclusion to getting the libertarian message out and building the LP for future elections. To that end, Johnson ought to debate Stein after the Clinton / Trump debates have concluded.

  9. George Phillies

    Sun rises at horizon. Some are baffled.

    So now: Choose between the border dude and the sweet old lady who will give us a gun grabber Supreme Court.

    A fair part of the Great Wall of Trump has already been built.

    These choices do several things that cannot be repeated in polite company.

  10. langa

    But I wouldn’t be surprised if Murray Rothbard would be writing columns praising Trump if he was still alive today.

    He probably would. As much as I like Rothbard, he had a penchant for making bizarre endorsements. For example, if I’m not mistaken, he endorsed LBJ over Goldwater. (Of course, Goldwater was terrible on foreign policy, but he was actually quite good on most domestic policy issues, while LBJ was almost as bad as Goldwater on foreign policy, and far, far worse on domestic policy.)

  11. 789

    The headline is not, strictly speaking, accurate. The announcement today is only that he wasn’t invited to the first debate; not that he necessarily won’t be in any of them.

  12. langa

    Miller is a neocon on foreign policy…

    I haven’t looked at him too closely, but from what I can tell, he’s not really libertarian on much of anything. At best, he might be one of the “Tea Party” conservatives, who’s libertarian-leaning on a handful of issues, but mostly just a typical Republican.

  13. langa

    Upon further investigation, Miller appears to be libertarian on guns, certainly much more so than the “TeamGov” ticket. He also seems fairly libertarian on most economic issues (although he seems to like so-called “free trade” agreements).

    On the other hand, he takes non-libertarian positions on drugs, capital punishment, and immigration. And he is ridiculously hawkish on foreign policy.

    Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Miller.htm

  14. Matt Cholko

    No surprise here.

    As for getting into the subsequent debates, that seems highly unlikely. Once J/W miss out on the news cycle around the first debate, I expect their numbers will take the standard third party dip that happens as we approach election day. I hope I’m wrong about that. But, history tells us I’m right.

  15. Andy

    “langa
    September 16, 2016 at 15:18
    Phew! Looks like the LP dodged a major bullet.”

    Yeah, I am generally strongly in favor of allowing more candidates into the big debates, however, in this case Libertarians should be glad that Johnson and Weld will not be on national television misrepresenting the Libertarian Party and philosophy to millions of people, and making fools out of themselves, and of the rest of us for being associated with them.

  16. Andy

    Is anyone out there surprised by this? I am not. I think that the “powers that be” did not was to set the precedent of allowing more candidates into the debate, because it may pressure them to include candidates that they’d actually be afraid of debating in the future, plus even if Johnson/Weld did poorly in the debates, they do not really want to bring more attention to the Libertarian Party, because if they do, more people will look into it, and we still have enough real libertarians in the party to where more people finding out about us could pose a threat to the state.

  17. dL

    “Upon further investigation, Miller appears to be libertarian on guns, certainly much more so than the “TeamGov” ticket. He also seems fairly libertarian on most economic issues (although he seems to like so-called “free trade” agreements).

    On the other hand, he takes non-libertarian positions on drugs, capital punishment, and immigration. And he is ridiculously hawkish on foreign policy.”

    In other words he is a conservative…of course noting that the characterization of “libertarian” on economic issues is a superficial one that falls apart when actually examining conservative positions on economic issues.

  18. Richard Winger

    As 789 says, there is still a chance Johnson could get into the 2nd or 3rd debate. If the first debate is a disaster for either of the two major party nominees, that could cause Johnson and Stein to rise in the polls and possibly qualify for the later debates. Also being in the 2nd debate would be slightly less difficult for Johnson to prepare for, because he and all of us would have seen the first debate. Honestly, I cannot imagine or predict what the 1st debate will be like. Will it be highly personal?

  19. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Although I prefer Castle or Stein, I can see voting for Trump.

    Trump’s no libertarian, but he is an anti-establishment sledgehammer. He’ll break things up a bit. Not a whole lot, but somewhat.

    Trump won’t be perfect, by far. But he’ll be better, by far, than Hillary.

  20. Dave

    I do think an argument could be made that a Trump win would be best for the LP (though perhaps not for the country) The growth in the party this year is likely caused by many NeverTrumpers disgusted with his nomination. Should he win the presidency, I think that would be the tipping point for many conservatives who dislike the populist direction he’s taking their party. I expect the LP would continue to grow, and it might even get sitting federal or state officials to defect to the party. Whereas if Clinton wins, I think the growth would stop and many of these voters would stick with the GOP.

    Of course, most of these new members would be more aligned with Johnson or Peterson than the more radical wing of the party, so that could cause some friction down the line.

  21. Jill Pyeatt

    The problem is that Hillary can’t risk another medical episode, as one more public display of poor health will undoubtedly be the nail in the coffin of her campaign. How will that be handled? Will they talk for half an hour, break for half an hour, then debate again? Remember, she walked off the stage during a debate with Bernie, and was gone 20 minutes. I’m still willing to bet there won’t be a debate between Hillary and Trump.

  22. Deran

    Trump is a crypto-mafia and/or crypto-fascist. Which is why all the “white nationalists” adore him.

    Seriously, you people really need to get over your fetish abt firearms. Frankly you sound like the liberals who get so hysterical abt firearms from the opposite angle.

    Johnson/Weld will easily garner more votes then Nader in 2000. These are different times. People are much more alienated from the corporate political duopoly then they were then. Heck, Madame Wall Street is not only frantic about the popularity of Stein. But even more frantic abt Johnson/Weld. Lots of people who would not vote for a Libertarian are seriously thinking of doing so this time to protest the duopoly or even break it. Crikey, you all sound like Maoists on the Left with all your bellyaching abt Johnson and Weld not holding the correct political line (yes, the term “politically correct” was originally a term used by purist Maoists). There is a very real chance Johnson/Weld could get 5%> and become an actual third party. And all you all do is whine abt firearms. You’ve got a chance for something big here. Seriously.

    And a shiny penny says Trump won’t get even 200 EVs. I don’t think Clinton will sweep the board like Reagan in ’84 or Nixon in ’72. If Democrats had nominated Kane for POTUS I think they could sweep, there just aren’t enough angry white men to give Trump a win.

    Ignore Nate Silver, Frontloading HQ is run by this Georgia statistician and it seems clear to me Madame Wall Street will win because she is seen as the Lesser Evil.

  23. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Deran: Trump is a crypto-mafia and/or crypto-fascist. … Seriously, you people really need to get over your fetish abt firearms.

    I can see voting for Trump — and I’ve never owned or shot a gun in my entire life.

    Never owned a gun. Never did drugs, not even pot. Don’t smoke. Don’t drink alcohol (except for communal wine at Sunday Mass.)

  24. Andy

    “Deran
    September 16, 2016 at 17:30
    Trump is a crypto-mafia and/or crypto-fascist. Which is why all the ‘white nationalists’ adore him.”

    They must be overlooking the fact that Donald Trump has pledged support for Israel, and that his daughter married a Jewish guy, and that his grandchild is being raised Jewish, and that Trump’s other kids are apparently currently dating Jewish women (except for his youngest son, who is only 10 or somewhere around that age).

  25. William Saturn

    “And a shiny penny says Trump won’t get even 200 EVs.”

    If you look at the current polls, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware could all be at play. Trump is starting to run away with Ohio and Iowa. He currently leads in Florida, Nevada, and Colorado. He could easily win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    D: you all sound like Maoists on the Left with all your bellyaching abt Johnson and Weld not holding the correct political line

    Me: love it!

  27. Deran

    Trump is a crypto-fascist not a crypto-nazi. Imo

    Root’s Teeth… There still aren’t enough angry whitemen, even if you add in the sober, tobacco free non-firearm owning ones.

    The real point is that the Libertarian Party has a real chance of hitting 5% this round. And a lot of people commenting IPR are bemoaning that Johnson/Weld are impure.

    And I’d like to point out that Trump’s economic policies are much more like Nixon’s than Reagan’s. Part of what makes Trump a crypto-fascist are his corporatist neo-Keynesian economic policies. imo

    Instead of being hysterical abt “gun grabbing statists” watch Citizen Four and be very afraid of what the governments of the world are actually doing to control our lives. Besides, the US is awash with firearms, ammunition and “angry patriots” and the government is still building up the national security state. And neither Clinton or Trump seem concerned abt that. In fact, quite the opposite it seems to me.

  28. Deran

    Mr Saturn that is nprittle prattle. Check out Frontloading HQ via the link I provided above. Current polling shows Georgia, South Carolina and Arizona are in play. Tell me that’s not a bad sign .

  29. Deran

    And I’m voting for Johnson/Weld, even though I consider my self some sort of open source socialist, and yes, a Marxist as far as an analysis of economics go. But I want to see the political duopoly broken. And if that means voting Libertarian I am going to do it and try and convince my Leftist friends to do the same.

  30. George Phillies

    “There is a very real chance Johnson/Weld could get 5%> and become an actual third party. ”

    >5% nationally has no effect on whether we are an actual 3rd party, as witness Wallace ’68.

  31. William Saturn

    “Current polling shows Georgia, South Carolina and Arizona are in play. Tell me that’s not a bad sign .”

    Georgia is close, but Trump currently (in today’s polls) has a 4 to 6 point lead. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5968.html

    South Carolina is not in play. The latest poll showed Trump up 15.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6093.html

    Arizona is the closest of the three, but Trump has a 2-4 point lead in the recent polls there.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6087.html

  32. Matt Cholko

    Getting several percent of the vote will help some with ballot access in some states. So, it is good for the party to get as many votes as possible. For that reason, I hope the ticket does well. However, if they do well, it may tend to help wishy washy candidates for future POTUS nominations, to the detriment of more consistent ones. That concerns me.

  33. Jill Pyeatt

    I don’t think Clinton is doing nearly as well as the Mainstream Media keeps telling us. She only sold about 2100 units of her new book during its first week, and there are not usually many people at her rallies. The lack of transparency in her health is far more important to many more Americans than is being portrayed. Unless he makes a serious misstep, I think Trump will win.

  34. Deran

    I agree Clinton is a very weak candidate. But I think Trump is much weaker. I’m more worried abt all the angry white men will do when their last best hope loses.

    I think if Trump were any sort of real threat the neocons would be pouring money into McMullin’s campaign. Or even more realistic imo the neocons would have had a Senator or Governor of some stature as their not Trump Rightist candidate.

    I don’t know anything about the veracity of Real Clear Politics statistical model. I do know Frontloading HQ was right on the money last time. And with out the taint of being Clintonites like Nate Silver.

    I do think if the GOP had nominated Pence or someone more mainstream Rightist then Clinton would be in big trouble.

    I understand that 5% nationally does not secure ballot status for state parties, but I have little doubt if the LP got the national recognition and FEC acknowledgement (and a few millions?) it would seem to me to go a long way toward building the LP?

  35. Jim

    William Saturn “If you look at the current polls, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware could all be at play.”

    William Saturn “South Carolina is not in play. The latest poll showed Trump up 15.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6093.html

    Why is South Carolina not in play when Trump is up by 15 in the last poll, but Connecticut IS in play even though Clinton is up by 15 in the most recent poll there?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ct/connecticut_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5959.html

  36. Joseph Buchman

    I’m going to make a wild prediction, former Governor Mitch Daniels, current president of Purdue University, current member of the CPD, will run for the LP nomination in 2020 with a promised guarantee that he will get into the debates.

    I’m posting this here so I can point to it 3 years and six months from now if I’m right.

  37. Bondurant

    I’d take Trump over Hillary but I won’t vote for the guy. I’ll only be voting in November to vote against Sheriff Joe.

    Johnson being excluded from the debates is not a shocker. The real shock is that people actually thought the The Party would let him in.

  38. William Saturn

    Jim,

    That particular Connecticut poll was taken before Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” comment and 9/11 fainting incident/cover up. The nationwide trend has been favoring Trump since then and I assume the same for Connecticut. If you notice from the map I linked, I still list Connecticut as “lean Democratic.”

  39. Mr. Brown

    The crypto-nazi piece of shit Drumpf is not doing well with his half-assed renouncing of racist birther sewage that he has been spewing for years. I can’t stand Hillary Clinton but let’s be real, he is much much worse. It’s literally like backing Hitler because the Weimar Republic sucked….if Hitler had had nuclear weapons. It’s been said and is very true, if Trump is elected he will start an argument with other world leaders about who is fat and ugly over twitter and then it will escalate into a nuclear war. If Trump is president we will be lucky if any form of life on earth higher than a cockroach survives his presidency. However that’s no reason to lose sight of the fact that Clinton is also a total piece of garbage and not at all to be trusted. I just rate her as somewhat less likely to blow us all up.

  40. Mr. Brown

    The basket of deplorables comment was 100% accurate and right on the money. Clinton was an unprincipled political jellyfish and backed away from it but she was completely right the first time.

  41. Mr. Brown

    Contra George Phillies:

    Libertarian Party May be Ballot-Qualified in 37 or More States on November 9, 2016
    Posted on September 4, 2016 by Richard Winger

    If Gary Johnson polls 4% of the vote in every state on November 8, 2016, and if in certain states other statewide Libertarians also poll 4%, the Libertarian Party will be ballot-qualified in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut (for President and U.S. Senate), Delaware, D.C., Florida, Georgia (for statewide office), Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

    With a 5% showing, Illinois (for statewide office), Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington would also be on the list, for a total of 43 (counting D.C. as a state). The Maine law on how a party remains on the ballot is in transition, and Maine might also belong on the list.

    After November 1996, the Reform Party was ballot-qualified in 32 states. Perot polled over 5% in every state, but unfortunately for the Reform Party, Ross Perot had qualified as an independent, instead of the Reform Party nominee, in Alabama, Delaware, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

    No party, other than the Republican and Democratic Parties, has been ballot-qualified in at least 40 states at any time since the 1910’s decade. After the 2012 election, the Libertarian was on in 31 states. After the 2000 election, the Green Party was on in 22 states.

  42. Mr. Brown

    And yes, it would also mean millions of additional dollars a year for the national LP if Johnson gets 5%.

  43. robert capozzi

    Assuming lightening doesn’t somehow strike and GJ doesn’t break through, my slight preference would be that HRC would win over DJT. I see no upside with HRC, just more drift. DJT I could imagine some upside, but the downside risks are too great.

    Mostly, either way, I feel the most likely outcome is continued downward drift, sad to say.

  44. Darcy G Richardson

    The CPD’s 15 percent polling threshold is both arbitrary and exclusionary by design.

    The fact that Gary Johnson is polling an average of 8.4 percent — an impressive figure exceeding all but a handful of past third-party candidates for the White House — should have obviously warranted his inclusion in the first debate. Given her 3.2 percent polling average, the same thing could be said of the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

    Most regulars here at IPR know that I’ve been highly critical of Gary Johnson’s candidacy, but given that he has consistently polled impressive numbers throughout this election cycle, Johnson’s inclusion should have been obvious to anybody but the most partisan defenders of the duopoly.

    Given the massive level of discontent in the country and the staggering unpopularity of the two major-party candidates, this could be played to Johnson’s benefit if it’s handled in a bold and imaginative manner — the kind of creativity that it’s going to take to finally open the political process in this country.

    (Johnson, of course, hasn’t done himself any favors by repeatedly saying that his only chance of winning the White House rests entirely on appearing in the debates.)

  45. Be Rational

    The best back-up plan for Johnson and Stein is to debate each other, but no one else. They should quickly find a location and hold their debate immedaitely following the CPD debate. They can have the same questions posed to them with time to answer, this can be livestreamed so everyone on the Internet has a chance to watch and look for coverage from as many networks and stations as possible.

    If Johnson tries to respond alone, it wont be as effective. But no POTUS candidate besides Johnson and Stein is in the same ballpark.

    Take this as an opportunity.
    Fight back against the CPD and the duopoly.
    Smash the “two-party” system.

    *

    As to the campaign, it’s advertising by targeting key states on major network broadcast TV that will yield the most free coverage and the best final results. Target to win as many states as the budget will allow, ignoring the rest. Saturation advertising in the smaller and more L states as layed out before. Had they targeted from June on major network broadcast TV, we’d be over 20% and in the debates.

  46. Robert Capozzi

    Snickers, I don’t think that’s the plan. Hopefully, GJ will answer the same questionsize, they edit him into the debates, and they promote the shit out of that edited video.

    JS lacks the stature GJ has. She diminishes him,

  47. Thomas Knapp

    “JS lacks the stature GJ has. She diminishes him”

    Barr tried to play that idiotic bullshit vis a vis the Ron Paul press conference with McKinney et al.

    Didn’t gain him squat.

  48. Be Rational

    Yes, an edited video of Johnson alone could be produced and run forever on YouTube etc. Then excluding Stein would make sense. It would be a Johnson commercial, so it should include GJ along with Clinton and Trump or GJ answering alone. No problem.

    But, to get the media to actually show the video directly following the CPD debate, they could do a Johnson / Stein followup debate with both of them answering – immediately following the Clinton / Trump event. This should result in some stations, possibly C-Span or a network carrying the 2nd debate to counter the CPD’s obviously biased, self-serving decision to exclude Johnson. They’re not likely to carry Johnson alone.

    It is true, that a multi-3rd-party debate with any of the others would hurt Johnson, and even a debate with Stein at any other time might seem to diminish him, but not one that happens immediately following the CPD debate. This would garner attention that would help both Johnson and Stein. Their performances would show that they should have been included (or confirm that their exclusion was warranted).

    They need an agreement, a venue, a system to replay the original question, and a committment by C-span or some network or stations to broadcast live … and they need all of this fast. Hopefully they’ve been preplanning their response since being left out has long been likely.

    If they have a large bankroll, the GJ campaign could buy 5, 10, or 15 minutes of airtime nationwide, or, far cheaper, in several targeted states on every network carrying the debate in the target states, to follow the CPD debate with well-written, prerecorded Johnson speech or reply.

    Just running a reply on YouTube is not enough.

  49. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    Somewhat different circumstances — but not in a way that reflects well on Johnson. Barr really DID seem to disdain McKinney. Johnson fears Stein. And he should.

  50. robert capozzi

    tk, I see you have developed mind-reading abilities. Good for you! Quite the skill…probably comes in handy in day-to-day life! 😉

  51. Brad

    Darcy said : “The CPD’s 15 percent polling threshold is both arbitrary and exclusionary by design.”

    I agree totally. If they said 5%, then Johnson & possibly Stein would make it. But since this commission is filled with D’s & R’s, they have no interest in threatening their hold on American politics.

  52. Joseph Buchman

    If they had invited Governors Johnson and Weld, would they not then have also had to include some Libertarians on the Commission itself? Become (at least) Tri-partisan rather than bi?

    The idea of having a Libertarian or two (Dr. Lark perhaps?) crash their party is probably too much for them to bear.

  53. dL

    “JS lacks the stature GJ has. She diminishes him.”

    To whom? Objectively, I think most would consider that statement as evidence of psychological bipolar disorder of delusions of grandeur. And I’m not being facetious. Get help. They have drugs to treat that condition these days.

  54. robert capozzi

    dL, fair question. It is of course subjective. Should HRC, DJT, and Jill Stein “debate” Vermin Supreme? Or does VS diminish them?

    Now, personally, I am vastly amused by VS. I’d find his inclusion in a debate wildly entertaining. But my guess is that those other candidates could well conclude that it’s not in their interest to appear on stage with a boot on his head.

    Get it?

    Your apparent understanding of bipolar disorder differs greatly from mine. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think it’s “bipolar” to not want to appear on stage with VS.

    Similarly, I would not say it’s indicative of delusions of grandeur for a candidate to not want to appear on stage with VS, if it’s avoidable.

    “Objectively” is a rather subjective thing. Based on which “objective” standards, and how are those standards “objectively” determined? Isn’t this the whole point of the CPB? Their “objective” standard is arbitrary and way too high.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thane,

    The difference between Paul Stanton and Augustus Invictus on debates is that Stanton actually debated, while all Invictus did was whine that he wanted a debate and then duck out as soon as he was offered one.

  56. ATBAFT

    Jill Stein isn’t running to compare her ideas with Gary Johnson and Gary isn’t running to compare his ideas with Jill. They are both running to compare their ideas with Clinton and Trump. Therefore, they don’t need to waste money setting up a debate between themselves. They need to spend money contrasting their views with those of Clinton and Trump.

  57. Thomas Knapp

    As if they couldn’t use a debate between the two of them to each contrast their views with those of Clinton and Trump.

    As more than one person has suggested, such a debate would best run immediately after the Clinton/Trump debate and consist of the same questions (at least in substance — obviously if a Big Debate question went something like “Hillary Clinton, here is your record, what about X?” the secondary debate question could either about Clinton’s record on X, or about the candidates’ own positions on X, or both).

    Would such a debate be risky? Sure — both candidates (Johnson more so than Stein) runs the risk of performing badly, embarrassing hirself, etc. Of course they’d run the same risk, even more so, in a debate with Trump and Clinton. Bigger risk, bigger prize.

    To the extent that I care one way or another, I’d rather not see Johnson debate Stein for the same reason I’m glad he didn’t make the Trump/Clinton debates. The farther he stays from cameras, the better for the party (and probably the better for the ticket’s vote totals).

  58. Andy

    “ATBAFT
    September 18, 2016 at 08:49
    Jill Stein isn’t running to compare her ideas with Gary Johnson and Gary isn’t running to compare his ideas with Jill. They are both running to compare their ideas with Clinton and Trump. Therefore, they don’t need to waste money setting up a debate between themselves. They need to spend money contrasting their views with those of Clinton and Trump.”

    Oh this is complete bullshit and an excuse. They both SHOULD BE RUNNING to complete against all other candidates for the presidency. Now I could see not taking the time to debate candidates who are not on enough ballot to even have a theoretical chance at winning, but Ms. Stein is going to be on the ballot the the vast majority of the country, and the party for whom she is a nominee, the Green Party, IS a nationally organized party, it is not just some fringe party that only exists in a few states.

    The cost of having such a debate are trivial. I think that Christina Tobin is trying to put together another Free and Equal Presidential Debate. The last Free and Equal Presidential Debates were funded by Free and Equal. Any costs incurred by the candidates was trivial (like maybe they spent a little bit of money on travel to get to these debates, but that was it). Heck, for that matter, the debate could be conducted over live stream video, so the candidates would not even have to travel for them, so in this case the costs would be zero.

    If Johnson refuses to debate Stein then he will just further expose himself as a hypocrite and a coward.

  59. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp
    September 18, 2016 at 08:58
    As if they couldn’t use a debate between the two of them to each contrast their views with those of Clinton and Trump.”

    Another good point.

  60. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    September 18, 2016 at 04:42
    dL, fair question. It is of course subjective. Should HRC, DJT, and Jill Stein ‘debate’ Vermin Supreme? Or does VS diminish them?”

    If Vermin Supreme were to get on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance at winning the election, I would say yes, they should debate him, if not, I would say no.

  61. Thomas Knapp

    “If Vermin Supreme were to get on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance at winning the election”

    How many times to I have to point out that that number of ballots is ZERO before you stop using it as a criterion?

  62. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp
    September 18, 2016 at 13:37
    “If Vermin Supreme were to get on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance at winning the election”

    How many times to I have to point out that that number of ballots is ZERO before you stop using it as a criterion?”

    Tom, the reason that I am using it is a basis for criteria for debate inclusion is because it is a way to show that a candidate has their act together, as in to weed out the candidates who have some support and are serious about running, from the non-serious and highly disorganized.

    Candidates can run write in campaigns, but there are a few states that do not count write in votes (Oklahoma is one of them), so it is impossible for a candidates to get votes from all 50 states plus DC if they are just running a write in campaign. Also, as everyone here should know, write in campaigns almost never go anywhere, as in they have less impact than candidates who are actually listed on the ballot.

    The Libertarian Party has for years made the claim that all candidates who are on enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance at winning the election out to be included in the debates, and I think that we should stand by that statement.

  63. Thomas Knapp

    “Tom, the reason that I am using it is a basis for criteria for debate inclusion is because it is a way to show that a candidate has their act together”

    How does not being on any ballots show that a candidate has their act together? Because not being on any ballots is how many ballots you have to be on to be able to theoretically win the election.

    Once again: ZERO is the number of ballots a candidate has to be on to theoretically win the election.

    If your criterion for debating is being on enough ballots to theoretically win the election, then anyone who is on at least one ballot, or who has registered as a write-in candidate in at least one state, is in.

  64. Robert Capozzi

    AJ, since I no longer challenge the cult, that alleged longstanding position has no bearing on ME. But even if I was in the LP, I would reserve the right to disagree with that assessment, just as YOU disagree with the nomination of GJ/WW. Fair?

    It strikes me it is up to the campaign as to whether debating JS is in the campaign’s interest or not. The assessment is not discernible from the NAP or other Holy Tablets that I am aware of.

    Please do correct me if I am WRONG, vs us having a mere difference of opinion over tactics.

  65. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “It strikes me it is up to the campaign as to whether debating JS is in the campaign’s interest or not. The assessment is not discernible from the NAP or other Holy Tablets that I am aware of.”

    There is currently nothing binding that says that the candidates have to participate in debates, but I think that as a matter of honor, and to help spread their message to as many people as possible, they SHOULD participate in debates against the other candidates who have jumped through the necessary hoops to qualify for enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance at winning the election.

    “Robert Capozzi
    September 18, 2016 at 14:15
    Vermin COULD win. So could Stein.

    Next…..”

    Stein is going to appear on the ballot in most of the country, I think that she has ballot access in 44 states plus DC, and I know that she has official write in status at least some of the states that require some hoops to be jumped through in order to have write in votes counted (I know that Oklahoma is one exception, because Oklahoma does not allow write in votes at all, and Stein is not on the ballot there).

    Vermin Supreme is not going to a appear on the ballot in any state or in DC. He will only be a write in candidate, and I am pretty sure that he did not submit the necessary paper work to have write in votes counted in the states that have this requirement for write in candidates (North Carolina and Texas being two examples).

    I think that Jill Stein merits debate inclusion, and that Vermin Supreme does not.

  66. Be Rational

    “… candidates who have jumped through the necessary hoops to qualify for enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance at winning the election. ”

    should be

    “… candidates who have jumped through the necessary hoops to qualify for enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance at winning 270 votes or more in the Electoral College as announced on TV on election night … ”

    … because, as TK keeps pointing out, you can THEORETICALLY be elected President without appearing on any state ballots …

    You can even be elected POTUS without being a declared write in candidate, and without getting a single vote in the November election …

    The Electoral College chooses the President and theoretically they can elect anyone they want to (who meets the qualifications to hold the office) in December.

  67. Andy

    Be Rational said: “… because, as TK keeps pointing out, you can THEORETICALLY be elected President without appearing on any state ballots …”

    Yeah this is true, but then this plays into the argument that we’d end up with every yahoo who declares that they are running for President, whether they just appear on one state ballot, or a small handful of state ballot, or just run write in campaigns, would get to be in the big debates, and then we’d end up with some ridiculous, unmanageable number of candidates, like 50, or 100, or something like that.

    So I think that there has to be some way to narrow the field down without narrowing it down so much that the only candidates in the big debates are the Democrats and the Republicans (which is what we have now).

    I think that a candidate qualifying for enough state ballots to where the Electoral College candidates from those states comes out to 270 would be a good way to narrow the field down, without shutting everyone but the Democrat and the Republican out.

    I suppose that they could also lowering the polling criteria, say maybe down to 5% or 3%, or whatever, but even then polls can be rigged pretty easily, and there could be arguments about what the polling criteria should be and how those polls should be conducted, and who gets to administer those polls.

    This is why I think that obtaining ballot access in enough states to represent 270 Electoral College votes is a better way to go, but there is no perfect solution.

  68. Thomas Knapp

    Andy,

    What does that have to do with anything?

    The number of ballots you have to be on to theoretically win the presidential election is zero. That’s a fact. It’s a fact all day long. It’s an irrefutable fact. It’s a fact whether you like it or not, and it will remain a fact whether you pay attention to it or ignore it.

    So when you say that anyone on enough ballots to theoretically win the election should be invited to debate, you ARE saying that anyone who says he or she is running for president should be invited to debate.

    If that’s not what you mean, why keep saying it? Why not say what you actually mean, whatever that is?

  69. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp
    September 18, 2016 at 16:49
    Andy,

    What does that have to do with anything?”

    I am just wondering what your suggestion is for getting more inclusive debates. Do you have any suggestions?

  70. Thomas Knapp

    I have some suggestions, but I don’t know how good or informed they are.

    The anti-trust litigation route seems to have failed. A different route might be to sue based on the campaign finance laws that the Big Two have imposed on everyone else but aren’t following in this case — that is, the CPD sponsors and television networks are making illegally large campaign contributions when they provide a 90-minute commercial for the two major party candidates, but no others.

    Another route might be to raise the money to go toe-to-toe with CPD — that is buy airtime on one or more large TV presences and announce that there’s going to be a debate in prime time whether the Big Two show up or not. Free and Equal seems like the organization to do that if it can be done. I don’t know that it can be. That’s a lot of money.

    Of course, pressuring the CPD sponsors to either drop out or insist on a rules change is a good idea.

    Probably the best idea is running campaigns that get to 15% in the polls. While that’s an arbitrary standard that I disagree with, meeting it would certainly show some campaign credibility. Real campaign credibility, not the cheerleading bullshit we always get from the LP’s cargo cult faction.

  71. robert capozzi

    aj: …with every yahoo who declares that they are running for President, whether they just appear on one state ballot, or a small handful of state ballot, or just run write in campaigns, would get to be in the big debates, and then we’d end up with some ridiculous, unmanageable number of candidates, like 50, or 100, or something like that….This is why I think that obtaining ballot access in enough states to represent 270 Electoral College votes is a better way to go, but there is no perfect solution.

    me: Excellent. There is no perfect solutions seems quite right. Determining who is “yahoo” and who is not, whether debating advances one’s chances for having an impact on the elections and the electorate is a SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT CALL. I’m glad we agree!

    My guess is the decision will be made by GJ, with RN and WW having input. Without enough information, I have no opinion and you obviously do. Which decision is more “honorable” strikes me as a judgment call. If it isn’t, if it’s objectively discernible, make the case, please.

  72. Brad

    I’m more in favor of 5% instead of 15%.

    That or… start with the top 4 in the first debate, then 3 in the 2nd, & 2 in the last debate. Just a thought

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *