No third party at the debates. To whose advantage?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Sep 16, 2016.

?

No third party at the debates. To whose advantage?

Poll closed Sep 26, 2016.
  1. Clinton

    7 vote(s)
    46.7%
  2. Trump

    3 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. Johnson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Stein

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. No one

    5 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. yaxomoxay macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #1
    There is not going to be any third party at the debates. Who do you think will be advantaged by this decision? Why?
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    Clinton, why? will she survive the debate w/o a medical emergency ?
     
  3. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    I think that Johnson should've been allowed to the debate.
     
  4. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #4
    The voting public is the winner. The 3rd party candidates have no ope and by focusing on only the 2 frontrunners, all the time can be spent on their qualifications or lack thereof.
     
  5. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    I don't think either Clinton or Trump benefit.
     
  6. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Candidates who put in the paperwork should be allowed to debate. Not just Johnson, not just Stein, but all who run for office that get their paperwork in. That's a core tenet of a Republic or Democracy.
     
  7. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #7
    I think clinton will benefit. at least gary johnson was a governor previously and had policy plans who could argue with clinton about things.

    trump has no policy experience and can just shout off buzz words like a trained ape or go off script and make literally no coherent sense. hes going up against a person who, on paper, is the most qualified to be president based on job experience alone. she's been doing stuff like this for 25 years

    of course anything can happen, but unlikely imo
     
  8. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    What an evil, corrupt system we have. Of course Hillary benefits. Gary Johnson would only take votes from Trump.
     
  9. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #9
    uh if johnson takes votes from trump, why would it be rigged to have him not be in the debate LOL
     
  10. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    Do you realize that they wouldn't fit on a stage, right ?
     
  11. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #11
     
  12. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #12
    Evan McMullin (and btw you might have included him in the poll since he's backed by some establishment Republicans as an alternative to the official GOP ticket; it's not like he's just some ordinary "independent" party pick).

    Reason why McMullin benefits: He'll never have to answer questions in front of a bigger audience than a live rally or whoever happens to tune into a talkshow where he's the guest. Yet he's getting some ads and some airtime. It's not enough to let him win, of course, but then his mission, since he was put up by the #neverTrump camp, is simply to help defeat Trump. Not having to debate Trump is a plus in this regard. Not having to debate Clinton is a huge plus.

    Johnson and Stein have pretty much finished themselves off. Could say that about Trump as well but hate to be a spoiler. Oh, did I leave off the spoiler mask?
     
  13. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #13
    Last presidential election, there were like 9 or 10 candidates on the ballot in Colorado. Should they all have been allowed to debate?
     
  14. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #14

    LOL if we can extrapolate from 2016 GOP primaries' South Carolina debate... big no.
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #15
    Exactly my point. Only Trump or Clinton have a chance to win, no need to have others up there to serve as distractions.
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    I'll give you that the debates are not sponsored by what I could possibly call disinterested principals any more. "Bipartisan" is not the same as "independent" management of the presidential debates. The principals today are thoroughly of the Republican and Democratic party machines, even though just calling themselves the Commission on Presidential Debats, (CPD) and they are not the least bit interested in having any but their own two candidates on that stage.

    If the debates were still sponsored by the League of Women Voters, or some other clearly independent organization, the rules would surely be different and I'd be happier about the debates in general.

    Still I'm not sure about having people who can't consistently poll above some number ( not as high as the 15% the CPD insists on now) take up the same stage as the major candidates in the autumn debates. I'd say 3% would be a decent offer. That's enough people to change an election's turnout so seems to me it's enough to let the whole electorate hear what they have to say.
     
  17. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #17
    • Barring media coverage for a non-viable party and then expecting that third party to become viable without media coverage is a nice catch-22 to keep the current duopoly in power forever.
    • Winning is not necessarily the goal. The very presence of alternative candidates with different ideas can moderate and change the policies of the two major parties, plus it can increase the stature of the third party for future growth and recognition. (i.e. try to win policy changes now, and elections later).
    • Gary Johnson has a higher percentage of voters than Ross Perot did, and Perot was allowed to debate. So we've already established a historical precedent for a threshold and now we're ignoring someone that has passed that same threshold.
    I've also heard in the past that third parties shouldn't be included because they have "crazy" ideas. I notice with Trump in the race nobody can say that any more.
     
  18. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    gary is the only one with a different FP. of course we can't have any of that.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    Well that is the line of the CPD, right? And it is why the LWV withdrew back in 88, right. The parties want to preserve their power. They haggle with each other but they never discuss anything like gee let's get the libertarians and greens and independents up here for contrast to our good ideas. Someone else's good idea is a distraction, not a good idea...

    I'm not saying it's not ok for the fall debates to keep the clutter down to a dull roar. But I don't really see the harm of having people polling better than 3% up there. You're not going to end up with more than 5 people on stage, max, at least not in the next 20, 30 years. It forces moderators to think about their questions harder. And it does offer the minor parties a chance to advance their platform, which is more like what we say we are, i.e. democratic, equal opportunity.
     
  20. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #20
    Big win for the moderators of the debates.
     
  21. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #21
    I bet the truth of that matter is that 3% of voters don't mean much to either party.
     
  22. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #22
    Heh, depends where they live... part of the strategy of McMullin candidacy is a hope to throw the election into the house. He probably didn't make enough of the right ballots to make that a possibility but you never know how the electoral paths shake out for the two major candidates. It can happen that one state's electoral votes withheld from a major candidate cause neither major to have an electoral victory and there you are.
     
  23. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #23
    Her body double will be at the debate.
     
  24. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #24
    Actually my number was way high. It wasn't even 1.5% in 2012.

    Wiki Link
     
  25. impulse462 macrumors 68000

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #25
    tell us about your other delusions
     

Share This Page