• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Gary Johnson sues the Commission on Presidential Debates

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
The polling figures were changed when Perot ran. It was lower but after seeing the damage that was done both parties agreed to block anyone else from debating. If anyone polled the 15 percent needed they would probably raise it to 35 percent and give a big fuck you to the rest of America.
Yet they conveniently leave out that Obama got only 30% of eligible voters in the election and McCain only got around 20%. No no, polls from CNN and Pew matter oh so much more than what the turnout shows.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
A quick google check shows Gary Johnson is polling at about 6%. What does he hope to accomplish by getting into the debates (or even running for that matter)?

What does he think the likely consequences of his presence in the race will be?

I imagine there are Obama supporters who may contribute to Johnson's campaign.

Johnson must realize he has no chance to win, and his running only helps Obama. Why do it?

Fern
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
A quick google check shows Gary Johnson is polling at about 6%. What does he hope to accomplish by getting into the debates (or even running for that matter)?

What does he think the likely consequences of his presence in the race will be?

I imagine there are Obama supporters who may contribute to Johnson's campaign.

Johnson must realize he has no chance to win, and his running only helps Obama. Why do it?

Fern
Because he believes he can be elected and I believe he could be too. I believe he would get far greater penetration into the minds and hearts of Americans if he was included in these debates. I believe the Jill Stein would also pull from the two major parties if she was introduced. This is a fight against the stealing of our Government by parties that do not represent the people. The Republicans and Democrats have stolen from us what is rightfully ours. I know it sounds silly that I think these other two should be allowed in, but if they've put in the painstaking effort to get on the ballot and have a mathematical chance of winning if they get votes, then it is sheer anti-competitiveness on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats that they aren't included.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
What would happen if Obama and Romney died before the election takes place. Biden would finish out Obama's term as president, but since he's not on the ballot as president or Ryan either, would the person with the highest vote totals win? Possibly Johnson? Just curious if they can cancel the election so new candidates can be chosen. What are the mechanics of it?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Because he believes he can be elected and I believe he could be too. I believe he would get far greater penetration into the minds and hearts of Americans if he was included in these debates. I believe the Jill Stein would also pull from the two major parties if she was introduced. This is a fight against the stealing of our Government by parties that do not represent the people. The Republicans and Democrats have stolen from us what is rightfully ours. I know it sounds silly that I think these other two should be allowed in, but if they've put in the painstaking effort to get on the ballot and have a mathematical chance of winning if they get votes, then it is sheer anti-competitiveness on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats that they aren't included.
The bold portion is most definitely the wrong answer. He polls at roughly 6% but third parties do worse in the actual votes than they poll, and this is quite consistent over the years.

A better answer is that he wants to get his message out because it may pave the way for future third party candidates, or for his ideas to find their way into the platforms of the major parties.

If you really think he can win this, I don't know what to say...
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
The bold portion is most definitely the wrong answer. He polls at roughly 6% but third parties do worse in the actual votes than they poll, and this is quite consistent over the years.

A better answer is that he wants to get his message out because it may pave the way for future third party candidates, or for his ideas to find their way into the platforms of the major parties.

If you really think he can win this, I don't know what to say...
I think he could win this if he was given similar coverage to Obama or Romney. I believe he and Jill Stein would both swing the polls wildly if they were allowed into these debates. Then again, I don't limit myself to only the two most dominate trains of political thought in this nation and reach out to learn from all of them. So maybe I'm a little "starry eyed" about this whole thing, but it is very clear to myself and others that the Dems and Reps have setup a system that doesn't allow entry to anyone not willing to play their game. That's wrong, abusive and tyrannical. The Dems and Reps are no better, philosophically, than Assad or the Iranian Regime.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
What would happen if Obama and Romney died before the election takes place. Biden would finish out Obama's term as president, but since he's not on the ballot as president or Ryan either, would the person with the highest vote totals win? Possibly Johnson? Just curious if they can cancel the election so new candidates can be chosen. What are the mechanics of it?
Good question. I ran a natural language Google on this and found this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/dead_by_election_day.html

In a nutshell, the DNC and RNC can pick a new candidate. Each party seems to have different rules. One way is to convene another convention, at which presumably one of he other primary candidates would get the nomination.

If there isn't time because, say, they both die one day before the election, then apparently the Electoral College can cast their votes for someone else, even someone not on the ballot, though this gets murky because it can be affected by state election laws.

- wolf
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Good question. I ran a natural language Google on this and found this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/dead_by_election_day.html

In a nutshell, the DNC and RNC can pick a new candidate. Each party seems to have different rules. One way is to convene another convention, at which presumably one of he other primary candidates would get the nomination.

If there isn't time because, say, they both die one day before the election, then apparently the Electoral College can cast their votes for someone else, even someone not on the ballot, though this gets murky because it can be affected by state election laws.

- wolf
Thanks Woolfe.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I think he could win this if he was given similar coverage to Obama or Romney. I believe he and Jill Stein would both swing the polls wildly if they were allowed into these debates. Then again, I don't limit myself to only the two most dominate trains of political thought in this nation and reach out to learn from all of them. So maybe I'm a little "starry eyed" about this whole thing, but it is very clear to myself and others that the Dems and Reps have setup a system that doesn't allow entry to anyone not willing to play their game. That's wrong, abusive and tyrannical. The Dems and Reps are no better, philosophically, than Assad or the Iranian Regime.
The thing about the media coverage is that it's a chicken and egg problem. Are the third party candidates not polling well because the media doesn't cover them, or does the media not cover them because they aren't polling well? It's some of latter and some of the former, but the latter problem is really the trump card here.

Improved media coverage would likely help them. However, Ross Perot got plenty of it and still lost by a large margin, much larger in fact than some of his polling numbers suggested. That is because there is a perception that a third party cannot win in our system, which is reinforced by the long history of it. No amount of media coverage can completely negate that perception. At this point we'd have to reform our electoral system to make third parties truly viable.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-snip-
If there isn't time because, say, they both die one day before the election, then apparently the Electoral College can cast their votes for someone else, even someone not on the ballot, though this gets murky because it can be affected by state election laws.

- wolf
I don't see anything in the Constitution that mandates the election be held on Nov 6. Without getting into unnecessary detail, it appears it could be changed (change in federal law, change by the states, or consensus to defeat the quorum rules in the Constitution).

My point is I think the election could be delayed.

I think as a practical matter it entirely do-able. Just make sure it is held in time to inaugurate the President timely. I do not think the inauguration could be postponed without causing considerable Constitutional problems.

Anyhoo, that's my guess as to the question.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Because he believes he can be elected and I believe he could be too.
-snip-
I think it far, far too late in the election for him make much progress, and at 6% he needs a lot of progress.

At this late date, too many people have made firm decisions on their vote. Once people have their minds made up it's terribly difficult getting them changed, especially for something this important.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-snip-

A better answer is that he wants to get his message out because it may pave the way for future third party candidates, or for his ideas to find their way into the platforms of the major parties.

If you really think he can win this, I don't know what to say...
Yes, the most obvious answer as to why he insists on running/debating with zero chance of winning is for him to have a platform to get his ideas out.

But I find that both narcissistic and cavalier. He really thinks he is 'all that'? He's been running and promoting his ideas for about 1.5 years (Since April '11). They will suddenly be 'respected' just now? He will suddenly become persuasive?

And IMO, he is being cavalier by ignoring the ramifications of his quest for the spotlight. A 'damn the consequences' kind of thing.

If a billionaire like Ross Perot couldn't pave the way for 3rd parties, Johnson's a narcissistic fool if he thinks he can. The problem for a 3rd party is structural, not some lack of a charismatic bright personalty.

The party platforms are set. They were approved at the conventions. They will not be changed. If he's hoping to change/influence them he should do so in the future because 2016 is the only party platforms he could possibly influence.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I think increased visibility for Johnson would solidify Obama's lead and put the election out of reach for Romney.
Probably so, but none of us has an obligation to protect Romney. As long as it's only two extra parties, the dog-and-pony show debates would be much better for the inclusion, regardless of whether Romney suffers disproportionately. The voting public would be better served regardless of whether the GOP suffers.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
BTW I'm glad there's been civil posts in this thread, I was actually thinking it might turn ugly.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Probably so, but none of us has an obligation to protect Romney. As long as it's only two extra parties, the dog-and-pony show debates would be much better for the inclusion, regardless of whether Romney suffers disproportionately. The voting public would be better served regardless of whether the GOP suffers.
Again, I'm not disagreeing here at all. I'm just addressing the likely implication toward the outcome of the election. I'm not in favor of Romney winning, so by all means, please bring Johnson into the debates.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
This needs to happen. I don't think it will make an iota of difference for this election cycle, but we need valid alternatives to the two party system we're mired in now. The Democrats and Republicans are both awful, awful parties, and we're never going to see a viable alternative if they get shut out of the major debates.
Agreed. The faster the average American realizes that there are alternatives, the better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY