• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debates Are On

geni said:
Michael Badnarik
David Cobb
Ralph Nader
and Michael Peroutka

are all candiates in enough sates to win (with the posible exception of nader)
Click to expand...

I knew it was 15 percent of something, I thought it was states. Apparently, it 15% of the electorate, as determined by opinion polls.

From the CPD http://www.debates.org

Indicators of Electoral Support


The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

Edited to add--the irony being if they could get into the debate, they might get higher ratings in the opinion polls.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Could you translate that into english please?
Click to expand...

Any Debates that are held outside the one held my the dems and reps will not get as much media coverage.

In short, since any debate Nader could possible attend would not get the extensive media coverage, the general population will get more information on Bush/Kerry than anyone else.

Maybe in a debate with Bush/Kerry it would turn out that Nader is not a moron. We will never know.

Nader could be interchanged with any 3rd party candidate.
 
merphie said:
Any Debates that are held outside the one held my the dems and reps will not get as much media coverage.

In short, since any debate Nader could possible attend would not get the extensive media coverage, the general population will get more information on Bush/Kerry than anyone else.

Maybe in a debate with Bush/Kerry it would turn out that Nader is not a moron. We will never know.

Nader could be interchanged with any 3rd party candidate.
Click to expand...

All true. But if two idiots from Trailerparkville, Alabama want to debate, do you think they should be included too?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
All true. But if two idiots from Trailerparkville, Alabama want to debate, do you think they should be included too?
Click to expand...

If they represent their party, yes. (Assuming they have completed all necessary paper work)
 
geni said:
Michael Badnarik
David Cobb
Ralph Nader
and Michael Peroutka

are all candiates in enough sates to win (with the posible exception of nader)
Click to expand...

Actually, Nader's made impressive progress here lately:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

Unfortunately, this site doesn't total up the electoral votes each candidate has, but I'm quite certain 44 states is more than enough to have a potential 270 electoral votes. It looks like the Constitution Party has probably made it, too. I don't know about the Green Party. They only have 29 states, but as long as they're not primarily small states they should have enough, too.
 
merphie said:
If they did it would get near the coverage the others would and therefor present a bias opinion to the general public.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that they did run the Presidential debates before the CPD was formed specifically to kick them out and take over it themselves (because they kept wanting to include these pesky third party candidates).
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Edited to add--the irony being if they could get into the debate, they might get higher ratings in the opinion polls.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but one of the Board members is with Gallup—and Gallup has refused to include Michael Badnarik in their polls even though he meets their criteria for inclusion. How can he get 15% in the polls if they won't even include him?
 
shanek said:
Let's not forget that they did run the Presidential debates before the CPD was formed specifically to kick them out and take over it themselves (because they kept wanting to include these pesky third party candidates).
Click to expand...

Maybe just for the morallity of the cause we should all write letters to the 2 parties and complain.
 
shanek said:
Actually, Nader's made impressive progress here lately:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

Unfortunately, this site doesn't total up the electoral votes each candidate has, but I'm quite certain 44 states is more than enough to have a potential 270 electoral votes. It looks like the Constitution Party has probably made it, too. I don't know about the Green Party. They only have 29 states, but as long as they're not primarily small states they should have enough, too.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they do see link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_U.S._presidential_election,_2004
 
shanek said:
Actually, Nader's made impressive progress here lately:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

Unfortunately, this site doesn't total up the electoral votes each candidate has, but I'm quite certain 44 states is more than enough to have a potential 270 electoral votes. It looks like the Constitution Party has probably made it, too. I don't know about the Green Party. They only have 29 states, but as long as they're not primarily small states they should have enough, too.
Click to expand...

See? Once again it will be just the two on the Oklahoma Ballot.
 
merphie said:
If they represent their party, yes. (Assuming they have completed all necessary paper work)
Click to expand...

You realize, of course, that there are dozens, if not hundreds of political parties? So you are proposing a debate with, oh let's say, 50 candidates on stage? What, would each candidate get 5 seconds to answer a question?
 
shanek said:
Let's not forget that they did run the Presidential debates before the CPD was formed specifically to kick them out and take over it themselves (because they kept wanting to include these pesky third party candidates).
Click to expand...

And they can run them again, anytime they want. Maybe they could sponser a "Third Party Loonies" debate. Comedy Central could cover it.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You realize, of course, that there are dozens, if not hundreds of political parties? So you are proposing a debate with, oh let's say, 50 candidates on stage? What, would each candidate get 5 seconds to answer a question?
Click to expand...

I suggest skip the questions and go for wrestling. A Presidential nominee smack-down. Last one standing wins. It's at least as good as what we have now.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
And they can run them again, anytime they want. Maybe they could sponser a "Third Party Loonies" debate. Comedy Central could cover it.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

Both major parties decide where to spend and/or influence spending of a gazillion $$s each election cycle. And if you think they don't hint that if a network covers any proposed LOVW that a lot of that money will go elsewhere, you must not believe that political maxim, "Follow the money."
 
Lisa Simpson said:
I suggest skip the questions and go for wrestling. A Presidential nominee smack-down. Last one standing wins. It's at least as good as what we have now.
Click to expand...
Better yet, how about a game of "Jeopardy!"?

Mad Magazine once suggested deciding the 1968 presidential campaign by a beauty contest. (In the question-and-answer part of the program, Hubert Humphrey said "Well, it is my firm belief..." before even hearing the question. In the talent part of the program, Richard Nixon came out in a clown costume and played the crying clown from "Pagliacci." In the formal dress part of the program, Nixon returned to the stage still wearing his clown costume, complaining that someone had hidden his tuxedo and he didn't think it was funny at all.)
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
A steel cage match!!!
Click to expand...
Thunderdome!!

"Two men enter! One man leaves...
Two men enter! One man leaves...
Two men enter! One man leaves..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom