Gary Johnson suing to be included in debates (1 Viewer)

[Rayderr]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

Not correct at all. I'll explain when I'm not driving.

Sorry, hearing your position is a distraction.

 

[SacramentoBob]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

Not correct at all. I'll explain when I'm not driving.

Sorry, hearing your position is a distraction.

 

[timschochet]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

OK, briefly, because I won't have time to discuss this later:1. I am not brilliant. I am an elitist, I suppose, because I believe that we would be better off if only informed people made political decisions. But anyone is capable of being informed, if they want to. A better word to describe me is "pluralist."2. I am not against every citizen having a vote. Don't know where you get that. I do believe it's reasonable to show some form of ID at the voting booth. But some of these other attempts, mostly by Republicans, to restrict voting are terrible and I am opposed to almost all of them. 3. But the accusation that I am in favor of the status quo is largely correct. I believe that a two party system is preferable to a mulit-party, parliamentary system. Simply put: two parties means the extremists are weeded out, and it is also difficult for populism (my main enemy) to gain too large a foothold. Not impossible, but difficult. 4. When I wrote that most of the people who are watching the debate know nothing about the two candidates, that was an overstatement. What I meant to say is that they know far less than you and I do (anyone reading this post). They are not to be confused with the majority who doesn't know, doesn't care, and won't vote. The people I'm talking about think they know, but in reality all they have is the most superficial understanding possible.

 

[Sarnoff]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

OK, briefly, because I won't have time to discuss this later:1. I am not brilliant. I am an elitist, I suppose, because I believe that we would be better off if only informed people made political decisions. But anyone is capable of being informed, if they want to. A better word to describe me is "pluralist."2. I am not against every citizen having a vote. Don't know where you get that. I do believe it's reasonable to show some form of ID at the voting booth. But some of these other attempts, mostly by Republicans, to restrict voting are terrible and I am opposed to almost all of them. 3. But the accusation that I am in favor of the status quo is largely correct. I believe that a two party system is preferable to a mulit-party, parliamentary system. Simply put: two parties means the extremists are weeded out, and it is also difficult for populism (my main enemy) to gain too large a foothold. Not impossible, but difficult. 4. When I wrote that most of the people who are watching the debate know nothing about the two candidates, that was an overstatement. What I meant to say is that they know far less than you and I do (anyone reading this post). They are not to be confused with the majority who doesn't know, doesn't care, and won't vote. The people I'm talking about think they know, but in reality all they have is the most superficial understanding possible.

You're one of the worst humans that's ever lived.

 

[ren hoek]

I see there's a lot of disagreement, which I anticipated. That's fine, but I'm not fishing here.What you guys don't seem to, or don't want to realize, is that the vast majority of people watching these debates know almost nothing about either Obama or Romney. They are not the "informed public." They need to learn about Obama and Romney in order to even have the pretense of making an educated choice. No matter how rehearsed, how superficial the answers are, it's still better for the public to learn something. Most of these people don't watch the news, they don't listen to speeches; this will all be new to them. I think it's easy for those of us who discuss politics in this forum to forget that we are incredibly informed: we pay attention. We know a zillion times more than the average voter. if the debate were being held for our viewership, then I would have no problem with Johnson participating; in fact I would insist upon it, if I had any say. But we are not the primary viewers. Before you can teach algebra to a third grader, you need to teach them basic math.

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. People still considering voting for either of Obama or Romney deserve every bit of the totalitarian police state they end up with.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

The public doesn't need to hear more words from Obama and Romney. The public needs to hear more meaningful words from Obama and Romney.Including someone like Gary Johnson who would challenge both candidates on stuff they can't effectively challenge either other on (since they're both lousy at them) would help.

Obama has been a huge disappointment on civil liberties issues, but Romney can't challenge him effectively because he'd probably be even worse. Johnson, however, could clobber him.

Romney is really lacking a coherent budgetary or fiscal plan, but Obama can't challenge him effectively because — look at the current deficit. Johnson, however, could clobber him.

Johnson could also put pressure on both candidates on stuff like the War on Drugs.

An Obama-Romney debate would be far, far better if it included Johnson as well — even if we really cared only about Obama's and Romney's views.

Completely agree, which is why both candidates are probably squarely against it.

 

[Biabreakable]

I see there's a lot of disagreement, which I anticipated. That's fine, but I'm not fishing here.What you guys don't seem to, or don't want to realize, is that the vast majority of people watching these debates know almost nothing about either Obama or Romney. They are not the "informed public." They need to learn about Obama and Romney in order to even have the pretense of making an educated choice. No matter how rehearsed, how superficial the answers are, it's still better for the public to learn something. Most of these people don't watch the news, they don't listen to speeches; this will all be new to them. I think it's easy for those of us who discuss politics in this forum to forget that we are incredibly informed: we pay attention. We know a zillion times more than the average voter. if the debate were being held for our viewership, then I would have no problem with Johnson participating; in fact I would insist upon it, if I had any say. But we are not the primary viewers. Before you can teach algebra to a third grader, you need to teach them basic math.

Why is it that the "vast majority of people know almost nothing about Obama and Romney" ? Isn't it because they are both so full of disinformation? What could possibly cause them to go off script and talk about real issues? Someone outside the 2 parties who will take them to task on real issues forcing them to respond with substance. The 1992 election we saw this and the influence that Ross Perot had on the debate was in my opinion a very positive one. It resonated all the way into the next election before issues such as the debt and campaign finance reform were slowly swept back under the rug. Do you think we would have had as much movement towards reducing our debt as we saw following the 1992 election without Ross Perot making such an issue about it? I don't. As far as you thinking that people who post here are more informed than Joe Public, your attitude is very arrogant and treats everyone outside of this forum as 3rd graders. That you think this or think that we are not smart enough to see straight through it is proof enough for me that your assertion is nothing more than a dirigible pig floating across the skyline.

 

[the moops]

Actually, there is. Said candidate must simply meet their requirements. One of those is 15% support in national poll. There are surely others. They're very restrictive.

I think the 15% in the national polls is the only requirement.What Gary Johnson is proposing is much better, IMO. "All constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more".Nader would have been invited for 2 elections under this rule. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be this year.

 

[Ursa M]

Simply put: two parties means the extremists are weeded out

Really? I guess if you look at PR in Europe and the presence of Neo-Nazi and neo-Communist parties in some parliaments, you have a case. That said, the GOP seems to be home for some serious crazies and the Democrats aren't exactly free of loonies either.

 

[roadkill1292]

Maybe adding a third rail to the fence makes it harder for Tim to straddle it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

OK, briefly, because I won't have time to discuss this later:3. But the accusation that I am in favor of the status quo is largely correct. I believe that a two party system is preferable to a mulit-party, parliamentary system. Simply put: two parties means the extremists are weeded out, and it is also difficult for populism (my main enemy) to gain too large a foothold. Not impossible, but difficult.

I would be more with you if there was any real difference between the two parties. All we have is people who want to tax the crap out of the citizens and predictably increase government control - who cares if one supposedly supports business/free market and one supposedly favors the social programs if nothing really works and the programs don't do their intended jobs. A different perspective is far overdue.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm willing to bet that if a person "knows nothing" about Romney and Obama at this point they are not voting in November.

This I don't agree with. I know a handful of people that just go vote the same way every year - I doubt they could tell me anything about what either candidate's positions are.

 

[Jobber]

I'm willing to bet that if a person "knows nothing" about Romney and Obama at this point they are not voting in November.

This I don't agree with. I know a handful of people that just go vote the same way every year - I doubt they could tell me anything about what either candidate's positions are.

Except that Obabma is a Socialist gay-lover, and Romney is a Fascist who hates poor people.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm willing to bet that if a person "knows nothing" about Romney and Obama at this point they are not voting in November.

This I don't agree with. I know a handful of people that just go vote the same way every year - I doubt they could tell me anything about what either candidate's positions are.

Except that Obabma is a Socialist gay-lover, and Romney is a Fascist who hates poor people.

Yes, besides these obvious facts.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Actually, there is. Said candidate must simply meet their requirements. One of those is 15% support in national poll. There are surely others. They're very restrictive.

I think the 15% in the national polls is the only requirement.What Gary Johnson is proposing is much better, IMO. "All constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more".Nader would have been invited for 2 elections under this rule. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be this year.

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

 

[NCCommish]

Actually, there is. Said candidate must simply meet their requirements. One of those is 15% support in national poll. There are surely others. They're very restrictive.

I think the 15% in the national polls is the only requirement.What Gary Johnson is proposing is much better, IMO. "All constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more".

Nader would have been invited for 2 elections under this rule. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be this year.

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

 

[Sarnoff]

Actually, there is. Said candidate must simply meet their requirements. One of those is 15% support in national poll. There are surely others. They're very restrictive.

I think the 15% in the national polls is the only requirement.What Gary Johnson is proposing is much better, IMO. "All constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more".

Nader would have been invited for 2 elections under this rule. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be this year.

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

He wins one state, the other two split down the middle, no one gets 270, and the vote is thrown to Congress and the one-state winner wins there.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

Then I retract my

 

[timschochet]

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

Discussing the chances of either only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of this whole topic.

 

[Fennis]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

technically anyone eligible can get elected president. An electoral vote can be cast for me even if I don't appear on any ballots.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

Discussing the chances of either only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of this whole topic.

I don't think the topic is absurd. I'd like to see Johnson in the debates for the reasons Maurile expressed earlier. It's just that I can't come up with a good argument for why he should be included over every other fringe candidate on the ballot in at least one state. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it seems like the most sensible line to draw is after Obama and Romney. Because right now the odds of each candidate becoming President are something like:Obama 70%Romney 30%Johnson 0%Stein 0%Goode 0%"Rent-is-too-damn-high" guy 0%

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

technically anyone eligible can get elected president. An electoral vote can be cast for me even if I don't appear on any ballots.

Ooh, good point. Put me in the debates please.

 

[humpback]

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

Discussing the chances of either only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of this whole topic.

The topic of either winning is absurd. The topic of Johnson being included in the debates is far from it.

 

[Fennis]

I'd say the chances of Goode winning Virginia and being chosen as President are better than the chances of Johnson getting 270 electoral votes.

Discussing the chances of either only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of this whole topic.

I don't think the topic is absurd. I'd like to see Johnson in the debates for the reasons Maurile expressed earlier. It's just that I can't come up with a good argument for why he should be included over every other fringe candidate on the ballot in at least one state. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it seems like the most sensible line to draw is after Obama and Romney. Because right now the odds of each candidate becoming President are something like:Obama 70%Romney 30%Johnson 0%Stein 0%Goode 0%"Rent-is-too-damn-high" guy 0%

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. The current line is *not* based on what is the percent chance of a candidate being elected president.

 

[the moops]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

 

[Brady Marino]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

Is it really all that amazing anymore, or just Tim keeping up his usual status quo?

 

[NCCommish]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

Goode is going to win one small portion of Virginia. He is not going to win the state. And of course since the House is either Republican or Democrat he has no shot winning anything tossed there. Do you actually have a workable scenario or is this it?

 

[culdeus]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

oh boy

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

 

[pantherclub]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Are you high or joking?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The current line is *not* based on what is the percent chance of a candidate being elected president.

I think that's the purpose of the "15% in a poll" rule. They can't use percentages from betting sites both because it would be unsavory and because campaigns could manipulate the results.

 

[Fennis]

The current line is *not* based on what is the percent chance of a candidate being elected president.

I think that's the purpose of the "15% in a poll" rule. They can't use percentages from betting sites both because it would be unsavory and because campaigns could manipulate the results.

so if someone is 13% in the polls they have zero percent chance of winning, but if they poll at 16% they have a legitimate shot at winning?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

Goode is going to win one small portion of Virginia. He is not going to win the state. And of course since the House is either Republican or Democrat he has no shot winning anything tossed there. Do you actually have a workable scenario or is this it?

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

 

[timschochet]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

 

[the moops]

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 of the 50 states. That seems a lot closer to Romney's 50 out of 50 than Goode's 1 out of 50.

 

[roadkill1292]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Next to Christo, you're the worst.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 of the 50 states. That seems a lot closer to Romney's 50 out of 50 than Goode's 1 out of 50.

According to wikipedia, Goode's on 26 state ballots totaling 257 electoral votes. But that's beside the point. Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

 

[NCCommish]

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

If no candidate is able to get 270 electoral votes, then the President is chosen from the top three candidates by the House of Representatives. So if, say, Goode were to win Virginia, and Romney and Obama each ended up with less than 270, the President would be chosen by the House and Goode could theoretically be chosen.

Goode is going to win one small portion of Virginia. He is not going to win the state. And of course since the House is either Republican or Democrat he has no shot winning anything tossed there. Do you actually have a workable scenario or is this it?

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

Actually there is. He is on enough state ballots that if he were to win he could get 270. And of course his isn't polling well, pollsters don't even ask about him. Hard to get to 15% when the handicappers won't list your horse.

 

[the moops]

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 of the 50 states. That seems a lot closer to Romney's 50 out of 50 than Goode's 1 out of 50.

According to wikipedia, Goode's on 26 state ballots totaling 257 electoral votes. But that's beside the point. Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

Ahh ####. Thought he was only on one for some reason

 

[NCCommish]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

Yes the strength of any democracy is in limiting the people's choices to two different corporate controlled candidates.

Yes. I wouldn't use your phrasing, but this is substantially the truth.

The only thing better for democracy is a dictatorship. Having just one guy tell us what to do would just be better you know? None of this fighting and all. I mean it works for North Korea after all. They vote that guy in every time.

 

[the moops]

Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

Seems better than the metric of having to have an R or D attached to your candidacy.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

Seems better than the metric of having to have an R or D attached to your candidacy.

That's not the metric. The 15% thing is.

 

[B-Deep]

It is amazing that tim can't see the bigger picture here.

It's amazing, to me, that you can't see it. The strength of our democracy has been providing two person, either-or choices to the public.

looney

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Goode is going to win one small portion of Virginia. He is not going to win the state. And of course since the House is either Republican or Democrat he has no shot winning anything tossed there. Do you actually have a workable scenario or is this it?

There's no "workable scenario" where Johnson wins either. That's the point. Johnson is saying, "I'm a real candidate, Goode is a fringe candidate, so I should be in the debates and he shouldn't." But Johnson's candidacy is much more similar to Goode's than it is to Romney's.

Actually there is. He is on enough state ballots that if he were to win he could get 270. And of course his isn't polling well, pollsters don't even ask about him. Hard to get to 15% when the handicappers won't list your horse.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "workable." If it means "there's at least some tiny insignificant chance of this happening", then I'd say both Goode and Johnson victories are workable. If it means "realistic", then I's say both the Johnson and Goode scenarios are unworkable.Yes, pegging the debates to polls where they don't even ask about Johnson is frustrating, but there have been a handful of polls that have included him and I don't think he's ever topped 5%. So it seems rather unlikely he'd reach the 15% threshold even if he were included in every poll.

 

[the moops]

Why is "number of state ballots" a useful metric to use when deciding who should be in a debate?

Seems better than the metric of having to have an R or D attached to your candidacy.

That's not the metric. The 15% thing is.

The 15% thing was set up by the commission which is comprised of dems and repubs. They obviously set that up to exclude other candidates. And if the day comes where a third party is consistently getting 15%, it would not be the least bit shocking to see them change the rules to make it even more restrictive.It is ridiculous that the commission is headed by two former chairs of the democratic and republican committees. They aren't even trying to appear non-partisan.

 

[B-Deep]

the 270 rule makes sense to me