Gary Johnson up to 13%

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Ok, I can't paste a link so if you want to read anything about it, just put "Gary Johnson at 13%" in Google and the articles will show up.

By the way, when did the bar go up from 10% to 15% to allow a third party candidate into the debates?

Also, who sets the bar and why can't a major network just go ahead and include a third or fourth candidate in the Presidential Debates? Is it because a major candidate might pull out of the debate?

It would be wild to see Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in a Presidential Debate.

[CKwi88]

(07-24-2016, 12:31 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Ok, I can't paste a link so if you want to read anything about it, just put "Gary Johnson at 13%" in Google and the articles will show up.

By the way, when did the bar go up from 10% to 15% to allow a third party candidate into the debates?

Also, who sets the bar and why can't a major network just go ahead and include a third or fourth candidate in the Presidential Debates? Is it because a major candidate might pull out of the debate?

It would be wild to see Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in a Presidential Debate.

I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I'm yet to see a better explanation. The debate rules are established by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Who is in charge of the CPD? The democratic party and the republican party. Since neither party stands to gain anything from a third party presence, they can at least agree in a bipartisan manner to help each other out in that regard.

As for the 15 percent rule, I think that was back in 2000, after the last presidential election that had a third party candidate participate in the debate (Ross Perot for the reform party) Hell, when it was Gore v Bush the CPD barred Nader from even entering the venue, let alone debate

The GOP and DNC don't want a third party in the debate.. So why would the organization they control then do anything to help out a third party? Heck, if Johnson does pass 15%, I expect nothing less than new rules next cycle.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-24-2016, 12:49 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I'm yet to see a better explanation. The debate rules are established by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Who is in charge of the CPD? The democratic party and the republican party. Since neither party stands to gain anything from a third party presence, they can at least agree in a bipartisan manner to help each other out in that regard.

I think that's all correct, although I think the rule may have been implemented back in '96 after Perot "bought" his way on stage in '92 and ended up with nearly 20% of the popular vote.

And it's even worse than you described - it's not just 15%, but an average of 15% in 5 polls chosen by - you guessed it - the CPD.  I think it goes even further to qualify something vaguely about "chance of winning", or at least taking a few states.  One such qualitative criteria is being on the ballot in most states (Johnson expects to be on the ballot in all 50).

I believe Gary Johnson is suing to contest those CPD rules.  Certainly some level of qualification is entirely reasonable, but do the current criteria amount to a more unreasonable "barrier to entry"?

Things could change, but as of right now I would say Gary Johnson belongs on the stage and should in court.  On the other hand, just based on primary votes Sanders would be at least 10% if he could get in as an independent.  So maybe 15% is not terribly unreasonable.

To me, "fair" would be:
1) Must not have run as a Dem or Repub in the primaries - you tried, you lost, you're done
2) Must be on the ballot in over 80% of states
3) Must be polling at least 5% nationally - to get into the debates...let's add a 4th Presidential debate and after the first if you are not in the top 2 and still below 15% THEN you're done.

[JustWinBaby]

I really want to see Gary Johnson on that stage. Not necessarily because I'm a huge fan (though I will be voting for him), but because I want to see how the country reacts with polarized right and left-wing air bags advocating rather radical change....and then here comes Gary Johnson with a very calm, very practical and reasonable view of the world.

Except the general electorate responds to bullies in these debates....Clinton and Trump will bludgeon Gary Johnson, and then the media will bury him saying "he must have been too stoned to fight back".

[BmorePat87]

We won't see Stein in the debates. Johnson is a more attractive candidate, and, realistically, there's only enough uncommitted voters to give one of them 15%.

She has some slight support now because Bernie bots who didn't know who she was in 2012 suddenly found out about her. Johnson is arguably more experienced than Clinton and making the rounds on all major media outlets right now. We could see him at 15%.

[Rotobeast]

I'm happy to see a Gary Johnson thread.
I almost posted about this, but I have been pretty busy.

Can anyone tell me any negative facts about Johnson ?

#feelthejohnson

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 01:12 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Can anyone tell me any negative facts about Johnson ?

He's not a good public speaker. 

That's all I got.

[Rotobeast]

(07-24-2016, 01:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He's not a good public speaker. 

That's all I got.

He does seem a little awkward, but I think after you adjust to his sense of humor he's very likable.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2016, 01:39 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: He does seem a little awkward, but I think after you adjust to his sense of humor he's very likable.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

He's likable, yea.