Johnson, Stein, McMullin Locked Out of Presidential Debates

 

jill-stein-gary-johnson-evan-mcmullin-green-party-2016The system is rigged. The Commission on Presidential Debates announced today that the only candidates to be invited to the first scheduled debate are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While claiming to be non-partisan, the CPD has again demonstrated that it is instead bipartisan — a racket designed to protect the interests of the Democratic and Republican parties against the threat of other options.

CPD’s official selection criteria are as follows:

  1. Candidate is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
  2. Candidate has achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election.
  3. Candidate has demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly-reported results. These polls are from ABC-Washington Post; CBS-New York Times; CNN-Opinion Research Corporation; Fox News; and NBC-Wall Street Journal.

Libertarian Gary Johnson has been endorsed by four major newspapers and is on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This means he obviously meets the first two tests but fails to achieve the arbitrary third test. The banning also applies to his running mate Bill Weld who will not be allowed to attend the first vice presidential debate. Johnson expected this result, but remained disappointed:

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.

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.

Green Party Candidate Jill Stein is polling at less than half of Johnson’s numbers, but has qualified to appear on 45 state ballots and DC. For his part, upstart Evan McMullin has invited Stein and Johnson to join him for a debate, even if it is unapproved by CPD:

The Commission on Presidential Debates will never let anyone but the two major party nominees into the debate. Why? Because the “Commission” for Presidential Debates isn’t a public commission at all — it’s a corporation owned and operated by the two major parties.

The Commission on Presidential Debates is not an honest broker, and it doesn’t serve the public interest. It exists to protect Hillary and Trump — not to look out for the American people.

What do you think, Ricochetti: Should Johnson, Stein, and/or McMullin be allowed into the official debates or did CPD make the right call?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 99 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    Scott Wilmot:Johnson, Stein, McMullin locked out of presidential debates.

    That is fantastic news.

    They have zero chance of winning.

    Let us see the Clinton-Trump brawl

    “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    • #31
  2. Ward Robles Inactive
    Ward Robles
    @WardRobles

    Representation on Debate Stage by Party Affiliation:
    Republicans, 27%- Donald Trump
    Democrats, 31%- Hillary Clinton
    Independents, 38%- crickets
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

    • #32
  3. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Ward Robles:Representation on Debate Stage by Party Affiliation:
    Republicans, 27%- Donald Trump
    Democrats, 31%- Hillary Clinton
    Independents, 38%- crickets
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

    Well, if those Independents could coalesce around a single candidate, they’d be represented, right?

    Crickets is exactly right, and exactly appropriate.  We’ve had a two-party system since old George left office.  Some people can’t wrap their heads around how this works.  Reality’s a [expletive].

    As for multi-party parliamentary systems…  Thanks, but no thanks.

    • #33
  4. Ward Robles Inactive
    Ward Robles
    @WardRobles

    Phil Turmel:

    Ward Robles:Representation on Debate Stage by Party Affiliation:
    Republicans, 27%- Donald Trump
    Democrats, 31%- Hillary Clinton
    Independents, 38%- crickets
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

    Well, if those Independents could coalesce around a single candidate, they’d be represented, right?

    Crickets is exactly right, and exactly appropriate. We’ve had a two-party system since old George left office. Some people can’t wrap their heads around how this works. Reality’s a [expletive].

    As for multi-party parliamentary systems… Thanks, but no thanks.

    We always have had a two party system but not always the same two parties. As a Republican voter since 1984, I am having trouble wrapping my head around 27% party identification less than 90 days before a general election.

    • #34
  5. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    So y’all complained when there were 17 Republicans on stage and now you complain when there are two. Alrighty then.

    • #35
  6. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    I used to complain about the 1/3 of the Country whom don’t politically identify. But I used to wear an LA Raiders jersey and say “We” when referring to the team.

    • #36
  7. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    RyanM:You mean the republicans? Or the nationals? I think there should not be a random body of partisan officials who arbitrarily make decisions about debates. Then again, I’m not sure how else it could work.

    The League of Women voters ran the debates from 76 to 84, and did a fine job. Theoretically a group of think tanks could come together and run the system. Unfortunately that would take power out of the hand of the two major parties, so they will not do that.

    These are hardly “debates” anyways in the proper sense, they have more in common with Broadway plays in that regard. If people want to watch an actual debate, I suggest watching Buckley debating Reagan about the Panama Canal. At the very least, it’s an actual debate on an issue and was hardly so controlled by consultants.

    • #37
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Tyler Boliver: These are hardly “debates” anyways in the proper sense, they have more in common with Broadway plays in that regard.

    Would you not pay to see The Donald and Hillary debate to the score of Hamilton? Two rappin’ old white people in revolutionary era costumes?

    • #38
  9. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    Tyler Boliver:

    RyanM:You mean the republicans? Or the nationals? I think there should not be a random body of partisan officials who arbitrarily make decisions about debates. Then again, I’m not sure how else it could work.

    The League of Women voters ran the debates from 76 to 84, and did a fine job. Theoretically a group of think tanks could come together and run the system. Unfortunately that would take power out of the hand of the two major parties, so they will not do that.

    These are hardly “debates” anyways in the proper sense, they have more in common with Broadway plays in that regard. If people want to watch an actual debate, I suggest watching Buckley debating Reagan about the Panama Canal. At the very least, it’s an actual debate on an issue and was hardly so controlled by consultants.

    Panama Canal?? How is that relevant at all?

    Besides the whole mosquitoes and oncoming Zika crises thing.

    • #39
  10. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    JLocked:So you’re saying an independent message hurts Republicans the most?

    The Libertarian Party and Constitution Party hurt Republicans the most. The Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party hurt Democrats the most. In general, you can tell which genuine party a fringe party hurts by looking at the guys who run it; a party run by ex-Republicans will probably draw mostly from Republicans, while a party run by ex-Democrats will probably draw mostly from Democrats.

    • #40
  11. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    James Of England:

    JLocked:So you’re saying an independent message hurts Republicans the most?

    The Libertarian Party and Constitution Party hurt Republicans the most. The Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party hurt Democrats the most. In general, you can tell which genuine party a fringe party hurts by looking at the guys who run it; a party run by ex-Republicans will probably draw mostly from Republicans, while a party run by ex-Democrats will probably draw mostly from Democrats.

    Sounds like a hot mess of platforms and cronyism.

    • #41
  12. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    9thDistrictNeighbor:So y’all complained when there were 17 Republicans on stage and now you complain when there are two. Alrighty then.

    Not just complain, but suggest that this is a matter of foul play.

    • #42
  13. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    JLocked:

    James Of England:

    JLocked:So you’re saying an independent message hurts Republicans the most?

    The Libertarian Party and Constitution Party hurt Republicans the most. The Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party hurt Democrats the most. In general, you can tell which genuine party a fringe party hurts by looking at the guys who run it; a party run by ex-Republicans will probably draw mostly from Republicans, while a party run by ex-Democrats will probably draw mostly from Democrats.

    Sounds like a hot mess of platforms and cronyism.

    Could you expand on that?

    • #43
  14. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Ward Robles:

    Phil Turmel:

    Ward Robles:Representation on Debate Stage by Party Affiliation:
    Republicans, 27%- Donald Trump
    Democrats, 31%- Hillary Clinton
    Independents, 38%- crickets
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

    Well, if those Independents could coalesce around a single candidate, they’d be represented, right?

    Crickets is exactly right, and exactly appropriate. We’ve had a two-party system since old George left office. Some people can’t wrap their heads around how this works. Reality’s a [expletive].

    As for multi-party parliamentary systems… Thanks, but no thanks.

    We always have had a two party system but not always the same two parties. As a Republican voter since 1984, I am having trouble wrapping my head around 27% party identification less than 90 days before a general election.

    It’s different definitions of party ID; membership or affection. If you don’t need to file paperwork not to be an independent, those numbers go down to 17% in Gallup. Those different definitions are why there was a FOX poll recently that saw tremendous numbers of Libertarians claim that the poll was rigged because there were only 17% Indepenents. They then got even more upset by picking the Gallup poll with the highest number (from January) to claim that the “real” number was higher.

    • #44
  15. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Ward Robles:

    I Walton:… We don’t want debates to be like the Republican primary, we need some rules but I’d like to see at least one debate with the libertarian candidate on the stage, he has more support than half the Republican primary candidates did.

    There is an objective criteria that will be keep the debate stage from getting crowded: require the third-party candidate to be on the ballot in all the states. Johnson, Trump and Clinton are the only candidates are on the ballot in all 50. I do not see how a truly objective debate organizer could exclude Johnson and Weld given that this is a country where approximately 40% of voters reject the two-party duopoly, that Johnson and Weld are both former two-term governors, and that they, uniquely among third-party candidates, qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

    Do you pinky swear that you actually cannot imagine how a debate organizer could believe that there was not a serious chance that Johnson would win this? Not just that you think that there’s a good chance that Johnson’s out in front, but that you can’t imagine how someone could not think that?

    • #45
  16. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    James Of England:

    JLocked:

    James Of England:

    JLocked:So you’re saying an independent message hurts Republicans the most?

    The Libertarian Party and Constitution Party hurt Republicans the most. The Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party hurt Democrats the most. In general, you can tell which genuine party a fringe party hurts by looking at the guys who run it; a party run by ex-Republicans will probably draw mostly from Republicans, while a party run by ex-Democrats will probably draw mostly from Democrats.

    Sounds like a hot mess of platforms and cronyism.

    Could you expand on that?

    I could but when we write opinions, much of it comes from unrealized personal critiques. So, I’d much rather hear your take.

    • #46
  17. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    9thDistrictNeighbor:So y’all complained when there were 17 Republicans on stage and now you complain when there are two. Alrighty then.

    There is a difference between a political primary, and a national election. A political primary process is, natural, to be run on the terms set by the party. A national election on the other hand, has the basis of the options that are held by the entire citizenry. Not just one party. Unfortunately because the system is controlled by two parties, they are going to protect their interest. Never mind the fact that Gary Johnson is indeed running a national campaign, being on every state ballot, and the District of Colombia. The people must not be allowed to hear Johnson speak, for if they do they may “waste their vote” and vote for him instead of the two party approved candidates.

    • #47
  18. Ward Robles Inactive
    Ward Robles
    @WardRobles

    James Of England:

    Ward Robles:

    I Walton:… We don’t want debates to be like the Republican primary, we need some rules but I’d like to see at least one debate with the libertarian candidate on the stage, he has more support than half the Republican primary candidates did.

    There is an objective criteria that will be keep the debate stage from getting crowded: require the third-party candidate to be on the ballot in all the states. Johnson, Trump and Clinton are the only candidates are on the ballot in all 50. I do not see how a truly objective debate organizer could exclude Johnson and Weld given that this is a country where approximately 40% of voters reject the two-party duopoly, that Johnson and Weld are both former two-term governors, and that they, uniquely among third-party candidates, qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

    Do you pinky swear that you actually cannot imagine how a debate organizer could believe that there was not a serious chance that Johnson would win this? Not just that you think that there’s a good chance that Johnson’s out in front, but that you can’t imagine how someone could not think that?

    Reflect on the impermanence of all things.

    • #48
  19. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    Tyler Boliver:

    9thDistrictNeighbor:So y’all complained when there were 17 Republicans on stage and now you complain when there are two. Alrighty then.

    There is a difference between a political primary, and a national election. A political primary process is, natural, to be run on the terms set by the party. A national election on the other hand, has the basis of the options that are held by the entire citizenry. Not just one party. Unfortunately because the system is controlled by two parties, they are going to protect their interest. Never mind the fact that Gary Johnson is indeed running a national campaign, being on every state ballot, and the District of Colombia. The people must not be allowed to hear Johnson speak, for if they do they may “waste their vote” and vote for him instead of the two party approved candidates.

    Sir I like the cut of your jib.

    • #49
  20. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    Ward Robles:

    James Of England:

    Ward Robles:

    I Walton:… We don’t want debates to be like the Republican primary, we need some rules but I’d like to see at least one debate with the libertarian candidate on the stage, he has more support than half the Republican primary candidates did.

    There is an objective criteria that will be keep the debate stage from getting crowded: require the third-party candidate to be on the ballot in all the states. Johnson, Trump and Clinton are the only candidates are on the ballot in all 50. I do not see how a truly objective debate organizer could exclude Johnson and Weld given that this is a country where approximately 40% of voters reject the two-party duopoly, that Johnson and Weld are both former two-term governors, and that they, uniquely among third-party candidates, qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

    Do you pinky swear that you actually cannot imagine how a debate organizer could believe that there was not a serious chance that Johnson would win this? Not just that you think that there’s a good chance that Johnson’s out in front, but that you can’t imagine how someone could not think that?

    Reflect on the impermanence of all things.

    I just laughed Yoo-hoo through my nose.

    • #50
  21. MBF Member
    MBF
    @MBF

    Anyone with access to YouTube and an iPhone can record their own debate. The American people clearly are not interested in electing anyone other than an R or a D.

    If the L’s can’t get to 15% in a year like this, they have no one to blame but themselves.

    • #51
  22. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    By the way the answer is Malaria and Yellow Fever. Kick over all standing water pans, frisbee, beer pong sets that Zika Mosquitoes thrive in. Congress has allocated a giant goose egg to deal with this, but since the mosquito which carries it can barely live more than 100ft. Giving half a crap may save 200k babies’ brains. I’m out.

    • #52
  23. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    James Of England:

    Do you pinky swear that you actually cannot imagine how a debate organizer could believe that there was not a serious chance that Johnson would win this? Not just that you think that there’s a good chance that Johnson’s out in front, but that you can’t imagine how someone could not think that?

    The organizers have no way of knowing that one way or another. Johnson is on the ballot in every state, and the District of Colombia. By any rational definition of the term, Johnson is running a national campaign. The only thing he is lacking is media coverage, and the ability to get his message out to more people.

    But because both the DNC and RNC fear that some members of their former coalitions will “waste their vote” by voting for Gary instead of voting for one of the two elderly Grandparents, they have jointly decided to deny him the national coverage participating in the debate would give him.

    It’s the same thing Carter did to John Anderson, he refused to be involved in a debate with Anderson because he feared he would take more of his support away. This despite the fact Reagan wanted to debate both of them. The only difference now is both the RNC and DNC are in on it, not just one side.

    • #53
  24. Ward Robles Inactive
    Ward Robles
    @WardRobles

    Tyler Boliver:

    9thDistrictNeighbor:So y’all complained when there were 17 Republicans on stage and now you complain when there are two. Alrighty then.

    There is a difference between a political primary, and a national election. A political primary process is, natural, to be run on the terms set by the party. A national election on the other hand, has the basis of the options that are held by the entire citizenry. Not just one party. Unfortunately because the system is controlled by two parties, they are going to protect their interest. Never mind the fact that Gary Johnson is indeed running a national campaign, being on every state ballot, and the District of Colombia. The people must not be allowed to hear Johnson speak, for if they do they may “waste their vote” and vote for him instead of the two party approved candidates.

    Well stated. What makes this cycle so interesting is that a superannuated billionaire playboy has hijacked the Republican race car in the  two-car race and is doing donuts in the parking lot of Party headquarters. Republican flacks write testimonials to his driving skills as the little old Democratic lady from Pasadena sputters to the finish line.

    • #54
  25. Ward Robles Inactive
    Ward Robles
    @WardRobles

    Tyler Boliver:

    It’s the same thing Carter did to John Anderson, he refused to be involved in a debate with Anderson because he feared he would take more of his support away. This despite the fact Reagan wanted to debate both of them. The only difference now is both the RNC and DNC are in on it, not just one side.

    Reagan was ready to debate anyone. Read the interview of Reagan in Reason magazine for a chilling glimpse of how far the Republican Party has fallen (at the presidential level). Teaser:

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

    • #55
  26. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    JLocked:

    Panama Canal?? How is that relevant at all?

    Besides the whole mosquitoes and oncoming Zika crises thing.

    Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting here. smh

    It’s to show what happens when politically minded people have an actual debate, instead of having the play show that the debates have become.

    In other words, a group of think tanks could actually set up an event so we have an honest to God debate, instead of the bs that we will get. Which was my entire point to Ryan. This system people are defending now is not the first, the League of Women Voters used to run the debates, before that if a debate took place it was more academic, even the 1960 debate between Nixon and JFK actually talked about the issues, with at least some hints to it not being completely controlled by the consulting classes.

    Now the debates are managed by image consultants, wordsmiths, and focus groups. They are closer to a Broadway show than what Lincoln and Douglas did. Or even what Buckley and Reagan do in their debate.

    • #56
  27. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    JLocked:By the way the answer is Malaria and Yellow Fever. Kick over all standing water pans, frisbee, beer pong sets that Zika Mosquitoes thrive in. Congress has allocated a giant goose egg to deal with this, but since the mosquito which carries it can barely live more than 100ft. Giving half a crap may save 200k babies’ brains. I’m out.

    • #57
  28. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    EJHill:

    Tyler Boliver: These are hardly “debates” anyways in the proper sense, they have more in common with Broadway plays in that regard.

    Would you not pay to see The Donald and Hillary debate to the score of Hamilton? Two rappin’ old white people in revolutionary era costumes?

    I was with the Tea Party since Doug Hoffman EJ. Trust me two elderly people dressed in revolutionary era costume trying to “rap” and be hip for the kids isn’t as exciting as you’d think.

    • #58
  29. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Ward Robles:

    Tyler Boliver:

    It’s the same thing Carter did to John Anderson, he refused to be involved in a debate with Anderson because he feared he would take more of his support away. This despite the fact Reagan wanted to debate both of them. The only difference now is both the RNC and DNC are in on it, not just one side.

    Reagan was ready to debate anyone. Read the interview of Reagan in Reason magazine for a chilling glimpse of how far the Republican Party has fallen (at the presidential level). Teaser:

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

    Are you trying to imply that Johnson is closer to Reagan than Trump is on an issue other than gun control or trade, or that he’s closer to Reagan than Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell are on an issue other than gun control? If so, could you be specific about which issue? Do you think that Reagan would have wanted to have a massive emergency Federal spending program for African American jobs? Can you see Reagan campaigning for a 39% sales tax? Can you see him opposing religious liberty as such? Does support for Planned Parenthood funding seem Reaganesque? How about increasing Social Security contributions on the basis that they’re not a tax? Or advocating for support for Russian support for third world dictators?

    There are problems with Reagan as a libertarian, but there are things he got right, too. Johnson has problems as a libertarian, but he lacks positive qualities to redeem them. He hits you in the pocketbook and demands that you support the bedroom activities of others, financially and with your labor.

    • #59
  30. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Tyler Boliver:

    James Of England:

    Do you pinky swear that you actually cannot imagine how a debate organizer could believe that there was not a serious chance that Johnson would win this? Not just that you think that there’s a good chance that Johnson’s out in front, but that you can’t imagine how someone could not think that?

    The organizers have no way of knowing that one way or another. Johnson is on the ballot in every state, and the District of Colombia. By any rational definition of the term, Johnson is running a national campaign. The only thing he is lacking is media coverage, and the ability to get his message out to more people.

    There’s a number of ways that they could evaluate his chances. They could (and did) use the polls. They could use donations. They could look at the candidates. Whatever method they used, they’d have an answer; When they get asked, even Johnson and Weld don’t have an argument that they’d do well except to say that anything could happen if they got into the debates.

    When Johnson gets media coverage (two slobbering CNN Town Halls, Colbert, Samantha Bee, MSNBC, frequent FOX coverage, etc. etc. etc.) his numbers don’t go up, just as they didn’t when he was struggling to get 2% in the Republican debates in 2012 and was granted a national platform.

    But because both the DNC and RNC fear that some members of their former coalitions will “waste their vote” by voting for Gary instead of voting for one of the two elderly Grandparents, they have jointly decided to deny him the national coverage participating in the debate would give him.

    The rules for the debate were set long in advance. As recently as August 24th, Weld was arguing that they should lower the bar to 10% for the first debate, following the recommendation of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (a University of Pennsylvania based entity that is not owned by a political party). They missed that bar, too; lowering the bar is only helpful to people who can clear a lowered bar.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.