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. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Fred Cole:

    James Of England:If you look deep into the the techniques employed by the major polling companies, you will discover that they ask the American people, rather than the employees of the major parties, and that it was the American people who decided that Johnson not get 15%, or even 10% support.

    And if you look at the polls that asked about their unfavorability, the Trump and Clinton are both hated.

    This is true.

    And if you look at the polls that asked if they wanted Johnson in the debate, majorities said yes.

    This is also true.

    • #91
  2. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Tyler Boliver:

    Phil Turmel:

    So? Each of those votes drawn to Perot subtracted from the two candidates who actually could win, one or the other of which was closer to that voter’s ideals.

    Perot actually “could win” he was on the ballot on every state. He was a national option for the citizenry.

    You don’t have to be on the ballot in every state to win. You don’t have to be on the ballot for a single state. You need ballot + write in status eligibility for 270 EVs to get there directly, which a reasonable number of people have right now.

    Johnson doesn’t pretend that he can win honestly like that, though. Rather Johnson says that he’d be the “compromise candidate” and get selected by the House. To achieve that, you need 1: to be the favored candidate for a majority of states (not of Reps, but of states; the system for picking Presidents is whacky on that point), and 2: to have the election go to the House. Johnson has two key problems here; firstly, it’s very difficult indeed to see neither candidate get to 270 and secondly if it goes to the House Trump has the endorsement of 26 states. There’s no call for a compromise candidate.

    I should clarify again that he’s lying when he even says that; he’s running as a financial scam and never believed in any of this stuff. He wants his 5%, $100m, and that’s it. Johnson’s claim that he’d not run if he didn’t get into the debates was made many times, but always so obviously dishonestly that no one is calling him on it now.

    • #92
  3. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Bush would of had to have won 66% of Perot’s voters to defeat Clinton. Since well over 2/3rds of Perot’s support came from Democrats and Independents this was unlikely to have happened.

    I did a Google search, and found page after page of Leftists saying this.  It comes from a simple-minded analysis of the overall national vote totals, which is just not how the system works.

    • #93
  4. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    MJBubba:

    I did a Google search, and found page after page of Leftists saying this. It comes from a simple-minded analysis of the overall national vote totals, which is just not how the system works.

    How an objective truth is “leftist” I’ll have no idea. If a leftist says 4+4=8 does that suddenly become a “simple minded analysis”? A fact is a fact, and whether you want to admit it or not the large majority of Ross’s support came from Democrats and Independents. To win Bush would have needed 66% of Perot’s vote. Since the vast majority of his base was Democratic and Independent, this wasn’t likely to happen.

    That’s a fact Bubba, whether you like it or not. Facts do not care about your feelings, or how you view the world.

    • #94
  5. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    James Of England:You don’t have to be on the ballot in every state to win. You don’t have to be on the ballot for a single state. You need ballot + write in status eligibility for 270 EVs to get there directly, which a reasonable number of people have right now.

    Johnson’s chances of getting more voters then Stein comes directly from the fact that he is on every state ballot. He is a nation wide candidate, by any dictionary understanding of the phrase.

    I should clarify again that he’s lying when he even says that; he’s running as a financial scam

    I get it, you don’t like Johnson. Whatever. I’m not crazy over the stoner either, but the only thing stopping him now is an arbitrary set of rules, set up by an organziation put into place in order to protect the RNC and DNC. As Mitch Daniel’s has said, Gary Johnson should be allowed to debate.

    This is about giving the American people a clear look at all the national candidates on the ballot. Gary Johnson is one of those national candidates.

    • #95
  6. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Tyler Boliver:

    MJBubba:

    I … found page after page of Leftists saying this. It comes from a simple-minded analysis of the overall national vote totals, which is just not how the system works.

    How an objective truth is “leftist” I’ll have no idea. If a leftist says 4+4=8 does that suddenly become a “simple minded analysis”? A fact is a fact, and whether you want to admit it or not the large majority of Ross’s support came from Democrats and Independents. To win Bush would have needed 66% of Perot’s vote. Since the vast majority of his base was Democratic and Independent, this wasn’t likely to happen.

    That’s a fact Bubba, whether you like it or not. Facts do not care about your feelings, or how you view the world.

    It is only a fact that Bush would have needed 66% of Perot’s votes in order to have a larger vote total than Clinton.   That says nothing about how Perot’s votes swung various states, where it is the electoral votes that matter.

    It is just a talking point of the left.   In addition to the states that swung due to Perot’s presence on the ballot, Leftist mass media used Perot to bash Bush but not Clinton.   The Left prefers to spin the story of 1992 as an overwhelming victory for Clinton.

    Which it was, but Perot was more of a factor than they like to acknowledge.

    • #96
  7. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    MJBubba:

    It is only a fact that Bush would have needed 66% of Perot’s votes in order to have a larger vote total than Clinton. That says nothing about how Perot’s votes swung various states, where it is the electoral votes that matter.

    It is just a talking point of the left. In addition to the states that swung due to Perot’s presence on the ballot, Leftist mass media used Perot to bash Bush but not Clinton. The Left prefers to spin the story of 1992 as an overwhelming victory for Clinton.

    Which it was, but Perot was more of a factor than they like to acknowledge.

    You can throw the word “leftist” around all you want, but you are still missing the point. Perot’s voters weren’t automatic “Bush voters”, that’s the whole point of the 66% fact.  73% of Perot’s support came from self described liberals or moderates, meaning only 23% considered themselves conservatives.

    In other words no matter how you look at the data, Ross didn’t alter anything. His voters simply choose him other the other two. And their is no data suggesting that that majority of Perot’s base were conservatives, or even GOP based voters who would have swung the election to Bush had he not been in the race.

    • #97
  8. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Tyler Boliver:

    James Of England:You don’t have to be on the ballot in every state to win. You don’t have to be on the ballot for a single state. You need ballot + write in status eligibility for 270 EVs to get there directly, which a reasonable number of people have right now.

    Johnson’s chances of getting more voters then Stein comes directly from the fact that he is on every state ballot. He is a nation wide candidate, by any dictionary understanding of the phrase.

    Why do you think that Johnson’s level of electoral support derives significantly from ballot access. Do you believe that, in the past, ballot access and popular support have been particularly strongly correlated? If so, I would direct your attention to the previous efforts of nationwide third parties (the Constitution Party and such) as compared to regional third parties (the Dixiecrats and such).

    In 2000, the LP was on every state’s ballot (although, eccentrically, in Arizona it nominated a different candidate, a friend, as it happens, of anonymous ). It came fifth in the popular vote, behind the Greens and Reform Party, although the Greens were on fewer ballots then than they will be this time and the Reform party was not on the ballot for DC. The Reform Party came closer to full ballot access than the Greens (it was a true “national party”, pretty much), but also did less well than the Greens. This isn’t particularly unusual.

    The reasons that Johnson is beating Stein include him having massively more media support, massively less media opposition, better name recognition, in part because of his abuse of the Republican primary process in 2012, and better access to fundraising (chiefly because Weld is good at that). Also, potential Green voters got scarred by 2000.

    I should clarify again that he’s lying when he even says that; he’s running as a financial scam

    I get it, you don’t like Johnson. Whatever. I’m not crazy over the stoner either, but the only thing stopping him now is an arbitrary set of rules, set up by an organziation put into place in order to protect the RNC and DNC. As Mitch Daniel’s has said, Gary Johnson should be allowed to debate.

    As many LP hacks have pointed out, Daniels is not alone. There are six ex-governors calling for it. As you might note, there are many bad ideas that can get the support of six ex-governors, particularly when those ideas involve being nice to people that you get along with socially. The thing that’s stopping Johnson is that although he has more support than Stein (his not being unavailable to the voters in three states, NV, SD, and OK, is more a product of that greater support than a cause of it), he doesn’t have the sort of level of support you need to win a national election.

    This is about giving the American people a clear look at all the national candidates on the ballot. Gary Johnson is one of those national candidates.

    No, it’s about giving the American people a clear look at the people who might become President. The difference between a candidate who will take a participation trophy in 47 states (Stein) and a candidate who will take a participation trophy in 50 is not important. It’s possible that this election will be incredibly important for the LP, since Johnson may get $100m in taxpayer money for 2020, but whether he makes his 5% target is not likely to be determined by whether he gets to count some South Dakotan votes; there just aren’t that many South Dakotans.

    • #98
  9. CM Member
    CM
    @CM

    It appears to m that James of England doesn’t want Gay J to have a national stage because Johnson can do the same, if not more, damage to the Libertarian Party that Trump is doing to the Republican Party.

    He is a sell out and his very unlibertarian views don’t need to be on the national stage, cementing forever in everyone’s mind that libertarian means big gov + pot.

    • #99
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.