Could we have 3 people in the Presidential debate

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Could we have 3 people in the Presidential debate
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 23, 2016 7:11 PM
Apparently the hurdle is polling @ 15% nationally. Recent Fox poll has Gary Johnson currently at 10%.

Could be a really big moment for the Libertarian party if he gets on stage with many people tuning in for the Trump/Clinton clownfest...and learning about the Libertarian platform for the first time.
May 23, 2016 7:11pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
May 23, 2016 7:51 PM
gut;1796795 wrote:Apparently the hurdle is polling @ 15% nationally. Recent Fox poll has Gary Johnson currently at 10%.

Could be a really big moment for the Libertarian party if he gets on stage with many people tuning in for the Trump/Clinton clownfest...and learning about the Libertarian platform for the first time.
What is the requirement to get on stage for a presidential election?
May 23, 2016 7:51pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 23, 2016 8:16 PM
like_that;1796815 wrote:What is the requirement to get on stage for a presidential election?
About 15%...but like convention rules, it appears to be a "conveniently" moving target, no doubt designed to preserve the establishment.
May 23, 2016 8:16pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
May 23, 2016 8:26 PM
It would be nice, but like you said they will do what they can to preserve the establishment. It would be interesting to see Gary Johnson's approach. Would he join the shit fest Trump would start with Hillary or, would he just be the one normal person on stage and talk about why the libertarian route is the way to go.
May 23, 2016 8:26pm
BRF's avatar

BRF

Senior Member

8,748 posts
May 23, 2016 9:49 PM
No
May 23, 2016 9:49pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
May 23, 2016 9:57 PM
...not this election.
May 23, 2016 9:57pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
May 24, 2016 10:02 AM
gut;1796817 wrote:About 15%...but like convention rules, it appears to be a "conveniently" moving target, no doubt designed to preserve the establishment.
It used to be 5% but now the goal posts are moved again.

We won't see a 3 person debate in my lifetime.
May 24, 2016 10:02am
S

superman

Senior Member

3,582 posts
Jun 26, 2016 8:43 PM
sleeper;1796921 wrote:It used to be 5% but now the goal posts are moved again.

We won't see a 3 person debate in my lifetime.
Confirmed. Sleeper is under 24. Explains a lot.
Jun 26, 2016 8:43pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jun 27, 2016 1:43 PM
superman;1801565 wrote:Confirmed. Sleeper is under 24. Explains a lot.
I was about to say something. It could be that he was just too young at the time to remember Ross Perot.
Jun 27, 2016 1:43pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 27, 2016 2:10 PM
Let's not forget the Green Party Candidate Jill Stein!!!
Jun 27, 2016 2:10pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jun 27, 2016 2:28 PM
Con_Alma;1801608 wrote:Let's not forget the Green Party Candidate Jill Stein!!!
This is actually true. While I know that anecdotes aren't credible representations of the public at large, I've known several Bernie acolytes who are opting to put their support behind Jill Stein for this election. Granted, I don't know where she started in this whole mess, but there does seem to be an awful lot of hostility for Clinton, even among a larger-than-usual portion of vocal Democrat voters.

It probably won't happen, but there's grounds for thinking it's possible.
Jun 27, 2016 2:28pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jun 27, 2016 4:13 PM
She's been a proponent of Mr. Sanders.
Jun 27, 2016 4:13pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jun 29, 2016 1:30 PM
Granted, I don't know where she started in this whole mess, but there does seem to be an awful lot of hostility for Clinton, even among a larger-than-usual portion of vocal Democrat voters.
She's a weak candidate with lots of negatives, that's why this election should have been a slam dunk for Republicans. All they had to do was not do something stupid...like nominate Donald Trump. Half the guys on the stage at the beginning debates could have beat her. People will look for anybody other than the presumptive nominees, whether it will be Stein or Gary Johnson.
Jun 29, 2016 1:30pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jun 30, 2016 11:40 AM
HitsRus;1801781 wrote:People will look for anybody other than the presumptive nominees, whether it will be Stein or Gary Johnson.
One poll said over half, I think, of respondents thought NEITHER Trump nor Hillary would be good Presidents......aaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddddd yet Gary Johnson only polls 8% with Stein getting 4%.

So we have a case of either "who the hell is Gary Johnson" or "I hate Trump, but I'm still voting Repub" or "I hate Hillary, but I always vote Dem".
Jun 30, 2016 11:40am
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Jun 30, 2016 11:47 AM
gut;1801889 wrote:One poll said over half, I think, of respondents thought NEITHER Trump nor Hillary would be good Presidents......aaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddddd yet Gary Johnson only polls 8% with Stein getting 4%.

So we have a case of either "who the hell is Gary Johnson" or "I hate Trump, but I'm still voting Repub" or "I hate Hillary, but I always vote Dem".
I think it's the ugly side of the 2-party system, where everyone looks at voting third party as "wasting your vote", so people gravitate towards the lesser of two evils when the two parties are unable to manufacture candidates they feel they can actually support. Which tends to lead to blind party line voting along the lines of "I don't like this candidate, but, fuck, it's better than letting their dipshit in!"
Jun 30, 2016 11:47am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jun 30, 2016 12:10 PM
Heretic;1801891 wrote:Which tends to lead to blind party line voting along the lines of "I don't like this candidate, but, fuck, it's better than letting their dipshit in!"
Just saying if people knew Gary Johnson and saw him getting momentum....if half the voters hate BOTH Trump and Hillary, then there's potential for Gary Johnson not just to be competitive but actually win.

I think the biggest hurdle for him is the media (many polls don't even include him, I don't think). And then if he can't get in the debates he's got no chance.
Jun 30, 2016 12:10pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jun 30, 2016 3:42 PM
gut;1801897 wrote:Just saying if people knew Gary Johnson and saw him getting momentum....if half the voters hate BOTH Trump and Hillary, then there's potential for Gary Johnson not just to be competitive but actually win.

I think the biggest hurdle for him is the media (many polls don't even include him, I don't think). And then if he can't get in the debates he's got no chance.
RCP actually has a running 4-way poll average...pretty interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Jun 30, 2016 3:42pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jun 30, 2016 5:13 PM
Heretic;1801891 wrote:I think it's the ugly side of the 2-party system, where everyone looks at voting third party as "wasting your vote", so people gravitate towards the lesser of two evils when the two parties are unable to manufacture candidates they feel they can actually support. Which tends to lead to blind party line voting along the lines of "I don't like this candidate, but, fuck, it's better than letting their dipshit in!"
Here's the part I don't get:

We don't get brownie points for voting for the candidate that wins. It's not like the incumbent is coming to [insert your city here] to go, "Alright, bitches. Whoever voted for me gets to come hang at a killer party we're having. Fuck the rest of you. You get to pay all the taxes and live next to the people who own automatic weapons."

So, unless we think that this election is going to be won by a single vote in the electoral college that was, in turn, based on a single vote in the general election, isn't any one vote essentially of equal value, regardless of who ends up winning?
Jun 30, 2016 5:13pm
R

rocketalum

Senior Member

268 posts
Jul 1, 2016 9:56 AM
I think it's the fear of letting the other side win. We've become so partisan and divided that rather than vote in our best interest or vote for a candidate we actually believe in, instead we're voting to stop those evil libs/republicans. Thought process is basically "I like Johnson but I can't stand Hillary so I need to vote Trump and use my vote to cancel out some libs vote for Hillary" It's not so much the two party system itself that's at fault, it's more the division and borderline hatred that's been created between those of opposing ideologies that's to blame for the lack of any 3rd party traction.
Jul 1, 2016 9:56am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 1, 2016 2:26 PM
rocketalum;1801988 wrote:I think it's the fear of letting the other side win. We've become so partisan and divided that rather than vote in our best interest or vote for a candidate we actually believe in, instead we're voting to stop those evil libs/republicans. Thought process is basically "I like Johnson but I can't stand Hillary so I need to vote Trump and use my vote to cancel out some libs vote for Hillary" It's not so much the two party system itself that's at fault, it's more the division and borderline hatred that's been created between those of opposing ideologies that's to blame for the lack of any 3rd party traction.
The problem with this thought is that it places a subjective and shifting value on a single vote. When the vote is for X or Y, it has one value. When the vote is for Z, it has another value.

This seems counterintuitive. If a vote is worthless by itself, then it is worthless by itself no matter to whom it goes.

But beyond this, the whole thing seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many insist on only voting for someone who "has a chance," but the only way anyone "has a chance" is if people vote for them. It's cyclical. In essence, anyone complaining about the two parties would seem to be a hypocrite if they were to continue to choose their vote exclusively from the pool of said two parties. Doing so merely perpetuates the very thing they claim to not like.

Obviously, you're absolutely right that the reason given for doing so is to keep the evil bad guy from winning, but it seems like that is becoming the narrative every single election. I assume there has to be SOME limit to the levels to which people will play this game, but I'm starting to question it. At some point, it won't matter who wins, but I'm afraid that same narrative will still keep people from voting outside their long-established affiliations.
Jul 1, 2016 2:26pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Jul 1, 2016 2:29 PM
rocketalum;1801988 wrote:I think it's the fear of letting the other side win. We've become so partisan and divided that rather than vote in our best interest or vote for a candidate we actually believe in, instead we're voting to stop those evil libs/republicans. Thought process is basically "I like Johnson but I can't stand Hillary so I need to vote Trump and use my vote to cancel out some libs vote for Hillary" It's not so much the two party system itself that's at fault, it's more the division and borderline hatred that's been created between those of opposing ideologies that's to blame for the lack of any 3rd party traction.
I agree a lot with that. I know that, on this site, the people I've seen in the past post about "wasting your vote" if going for a third-party guy have been some of the more partisan people here. Kind of tying in with what O-Trap posted, I think the diehard poli types almost look at things like elections as big sporting events where the key is to CRUSH the opponent. Not whether your candidate necessarily represents your beliefs, but just that he/she is not on the other side. It just leads to both sides being over-the-top in demonizing each other to the point where people think it's (at most) one step above being a criminal to lean the other direction.

For a "fun" game, pick a left-leaning and right-leaning site (for example, Gawker and Breitbart). Find a topic of conversation. Read an article on both sites about it and see how different the tone is. Then take a couple shots to steel yourself and dip into the comments and realize you're watching two groups of hate-filled assholes spewing all sorts of exaggerated garbage about the other side, which seemingly actually thinking they're "doing their part". If I wasn't living in the same country as those fucks, it'd be absolutely hilarious. Instead, it's really kind of scary.
Jul 1, 2016 2:29pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 1, 2016 2:32 PM
Heretic;1802022 wrote:If I wasn't living in the same country as those fucks, it'd be absolutely hilarious. Instead, it's really kind of scary.
Reps for this part.
Jul 1, 2016 2:32pm