Could we have 3 people in the Presidential debate

• gut

  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.
• like_that

  

  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?
• gut

  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.
• like_that

  

  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.
• BRF

  

  No
• Con_Alma

  ...not this election.
• sleeper

  

  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.
• superman

  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.
• O-Trap

  

  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.
• Con_Alma

  Let's not forget the Green Party Candidate Jill Stein!!!
• O-Trap

  

  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.
• Con_Alma

  She's been a proponent of Mr. Sanders.
• HitsRus

  

  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.
• gut

  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".
• Heretic

  

  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!"
• gut

  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.
• fish82

  

  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
• O-Trap

  

  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?
• rocketalum

  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.
• O-Trap

  

  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.
• Heretic

  

  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.
• O-Trap

  

  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.