• Johnson and Stein have officially failed to qualify for the first debate
    36 replies, posted
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/16/politics/johnson-stein-fail-to-qualify-for-first-debate/index.html[/url] [quote]Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein will not participate in the first presidential debate, and their running mates will not be in the vice presidential debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced Friday. The decision means Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump will be the only two candidates on the stage on September 26, and Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, their respective running mates, will be the only participants on October 4.[/quote]
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about Johnson failing. We need a third party, but we need one that isn't batshit insane. I also think you shouldn't have to reach a specific threshold of votes to participate, but simply be in the top three or four places. That way we always have more than just one democrat and one republican.
As expected.
I like to be optimistic about third parties, but I really don't think they will ever be allowed in a presidential debate as long as one of the top parties remain. The mainsteamers have way too much influence in the media and would never allow another party to debate. Even if they did get that threshold, they will find reasons to exclude the parties.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51064494]I like to be optimistic about third parties, but I really don't think they will ever be allowed in a presidential debate as long as one of the top parties remain. The mainsteamers have way too much influence in the media and would never allow another party to debate. Even if they did get that threshold, they will find reasons to exclude the parties.[/QUOTE] this election has been nonsense from start to finish, if the next one gets any crazier you could tell me a talking dog will be at the debates in 2020 and i'd believe it
[QUOTE=Megadave;51064494]I like to be optimistic about third parties, but I really don't think they will ever be allowed in a presidential debate as long as one of the top parties remain. The mainsteamers have way too much influence in the media and would never allow another party to debate. Even if they did get that threshold, they will find reasons to exclude the parties.[/QUOTE] Clinton stands to gain from seeing Johnson in the debates
Why isn't Johnson in the debate? He's on the ballot in 50 states. If I wasn't in my third year of college now, I would give serious consideration to leaving the country if Trump is elected.
[QUOTE=adamsz;51064713]Why isn't Johnson in the debate? He's on the ballot in 50 states. If I wasn't in my third year of college now, I would give serious consideration to leaving the country if Trump is elected.[/QUOTE] Because corruption. Money. Being bought off. Etc.
[QUOTE=adamsz;51064713]Why isn't Johnson in the debate? He's on the ballot in 50 states. If I wasn't in my third year of college now, I would give serious consideration to leaving the country if Trump is elected.[/QUOTE] Because you need like 15% poll numbers to get in the debates but in many states you only need like 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot. 500000/300000000 is less than one percent
Voters will be sorely disappointed to find Johnson garnering more than 1% of the popular vote this electoral season despite what's at stake. Not sure if he'll run again against an incumbent however, so we might not see him again until 2024.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51064463]Honestly, I have mixed feelings about Johnson failing. We need a third party, but we need one that isn't batshit insane. [/QUOTE] Isn't Johnson a bit more level-headed and moderate than most other libertarians? I mean libertarianism in general is pretty crazy but I'm pretty sure he isn't like a radical.
Until such a time as preferential voting is introduced for elections in the United States, why does it matter? Your whole election system is fucked up enough that no third party could ever be elected.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51064884]Isn't Johnson a bit more level-headed and moderate than most other libertarians? I mean libertarianism in general is pretty crazy but I'm pretty sure he isn't like a radical.[/QUOTE] In fact, I see shitloads of libertarians bitching about Johnson because he isn't a true Libertarian
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51064884]Isn't Johnson a bit more level-headed and moderate than most other libertarians? I mean libertarianism in general is pretty crazy but I'm pretty sure he isn't like a radical.[/QUOTE] A moderate libertarian is still fucking insane compared to what we have now in the world as they still generally call for almost total deregulation of everything. There's a reason we moved from deregulation in the first place, the "invisible hand of the free market" is a myth and without it corporations will just work together to ensure you have no other choice than to be fucked for vital services.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51064956]A moderate libertarian is still fucking insane compared to what we have now in the world as they still generally call for almost total deregulation of everything. There's a reason we moved from deregulation in the first place, the "invisible hand of the free market" is a myth and without it corporations will just work together to ensure you have no other choice than to be fucked for vital services.[/QUOTE] I'd be fine with regulations if they'd have a ma&pa shop exemption, this is where I think a lot of libertarians come from, they see regulations as hurting the small business' and ultimately making corporations more powerful.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51064967]I'd be fine with regulations if they'd have a ma&pa shop exemption, this is where I think a lot of libertarians come from, they see regulations as hurting the small business' and ultimately making corporations more powerful.[/QUOTE] Exemptions from what? Food safety regulations? Workers rights regulations? Taxation regulations? Customers rights regulations? What exactly should small shops be exempted from that wont harm the consumer in the end? The regulations may need reforms, potentially a shuffling around of what is and is not regulated. But totally abandoning them is not the answer. Thinking about it logically and analytically to find where regulations may be impacting small businesses, and working out what can be done to adjust that regulation [I]without undermining the point of it[/I] is much more constructive.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51064978]Exemptions from what? Food safety regulations? Workers rights regulations? Taxation regulations? Customers rights regulations? What exactly should small shops be exempted from that wont harm the consumer in the end? The regulations may need reforms, potentially a shuffling around of what is and is not regulated. But totally abandoning them is not the answer. Thinking about it logically and analytically to find where regulations may be impacting small businesses, and working out what can be done to adjust that regulation [I]without undermining the point of it[/I] is much more constructive.[/QUOTE] Exactly, not stripping it totally and working up, but working on what we have and making sure there are certain things to stimulate small businesses. Tax regulations would probably be the biggest point.
The Hillary team is probably worried it'll split the vote on their side.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51065044]The Hillary team is probably worried it'll split the vote on their side.[/QUOTE] Johnson would split the republican vote, not the democrat vote. Johnson appeals to fiscal conservatives who have issues voting for trump but still don't want to vote for Hillary.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51065055]Johnson would split the republican vote, not the democrat vote. Johnson appeals to fiscal conservatives who have issues voting for trump but still don't want to vote for Hillary.[/QUOTE] Plus, the more Republicans Trump will probably piss off won't vote for Hilary, and Jill is a no go for them.
There is, of course, Bernie Sanders supporters who see Johnson as socially liberal and trustworthy as a political outsider, however I think that there are far more republicans who would vote for Johnson than democrats who would vote for Johnson, since Johnson's economic views are diametrically opposed to Bernie's (socialized healthcare, free/subsidized college tuition, more financial regulation, etc.)
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51065080]There is, of course, Bernie Sanders supporters who see Johnson as socially liberal and trustworthy as a political outsider, however I think that there are far more republicans who would vote for Johnson than democrats who would vote for Johnson, since Johnson's economic views are diametrically opposed to Bernie's (socialized healthcare, free/subsidized college tuition, more financial regulation, etc.)[/QUOTE] You'd think so, but looking at the swathes of salty Bernie fans who switched to Trump shakes my faith in this.
"Officially"
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51064884]Isn't Johnson a bit more level-headed and moderate than most other libertarians? I mean libertarianism in general is pretty crazy but I'm pretty sure he isn't like a radical.[/QUOTE] Johnson is Libertarian-lite, I don't know how many times people will have to stress that. A large chunk of the party actually hates him and calls him democrat/republican-lite because he isn't batshit insane like them. Johnson supports the EPA as an example of good government, he gets booed at the debates and convention. Johnson says he would've signed the Civil Rights Act, he gets fucking booed. He can't say anything concrete about policies at the lib debates because if you say anything other than "all government is bad" you get gutted by the party.
It's rather bullshit that 60% of Americans want him in the debate but only 9-11% poll for him and they go with the latter number when figuring it out. They're all official candidates for president, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be there even if they polled at 1% each.
wtf there are 3 parties on the ballot in every state this year (democrats, republicans and libertarians) i can understand not allowing the greens to debate, but johnson is estimated at 8% of the popular vote, that's too high to simply ignore
Gary Johnson released a statement: [quote]My statement regarding the Commission on Presidential Debates announcement: I would say I am surprised that the CPD has chosen to exclude me from the first debate, but I’m not. After all, the Commission is a private organization created 30 years ago by the Republican and Democratic parties for the clear purpose of taking control of the only nationally-televised presidential debates voters will see. At the time of its creation, the leaders of those two parties made no effort to hide the fact that they didn’t want any third party intrusions into their shows. [B] The only time a third candidate has been allowed on the stage was 1992, when both parties wanted him on the stage for their own purposes. It should be noted that, when Perot was allowed on the stage, polls showed his support to be in single digits, below where Johnson and Weld are currently polling.[/B] The CPD may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states. Yet, the Republicans and Democrats are choosing to silence the candidate preferred by those millions of Americans. Americans are tired of rigged systems, and the monopoly on debates created by the CPD is a prime and skillfully executed example. Bill Weld and I will continue to fight to provide a voice and an alternative for independents, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats, Millennials and others who aren’t satisfied with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as their options. It is unfortunate that the CPD doesn’t believe such a voice should be heard. There are more polls and more debates, and we plan to be on the debate stage in October.[/quote]
[QUOTE=adamsz;51064713]Why isn't Johnson in the debate? He's on the ballot in 50 states. If I wasn't in my third year of college now, I would give serious consideration to leaving the country if Trump is elected.[/QUOTE] Read Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny by Theresa Amato
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51065080]There is, of course, Bernie Sanders supporters who see Johnson as socially liberal and trustworthy as a political outsider, however I think that there are far more republicans who would vote for Johnson than democrats who would vote for Johnson, since Johnson's economic views are diametrically opposed to Bernie's (socialized healthcare, free/subsidized college tuition, more financial regulation, etc.)[/QUOTE] True, but you're forgetting about the people who usually vote for republicans who are voting for clinton this year because they don't want trump. Johnson will pull more from clinton than you think.
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51064463]Honestly, I have mixed feelings about Johnson failing. We need a third party, but we need one that isn't batshit insane.[/QUOTE] It's a shame, Johnson seems like a real stand up guy. But Libertarian policies are Trump-level of terrible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.