In his “Washington Whispers” column on the U.S. News and World Report website, Paul Bedard writes, “Ralph Nader’s bid to win the White House might not be as hopeless as people think. Consider wrestler Jesse Ventura, says Nader’s team. He started with little support in the polls, got invited to the Minnesota gubernatorial debates, and eventually won after people got a chance to compare him with his foes. ‘Given the fact that people are largely dissatisfied,’ Nader spokesman Chris Driscoll tells Whispers, ‘it’s not surprising that some are starting to look to alternatives.’ An Associated Press poll has Nader at 6 percent. If he can reach 10 percent, Driscoll figures entry into the fall presidential debates should follow, and the rest could be history.”
7 Comments
Comments are closed.
If a candidate can mathematicly win the Electoral College they should be allowed to debate. Six candidates TOO MANY! Give me a break. The POTUS is the “front man” that affects the entire world and every person who lives on it. We have more choices of toilet paper brands than POTUS candidates.
Six candidates are NOT too many to hear from in a series of national debates. BaldWIN, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader and Obama look like they are the six who will be eligible to be elected. WHY NOT let the American people decide who should be POTUS, not the powers that be of the Ds and Rs.
Let the hard work and high cost of Ballot Access decide in the favor of the ones who pay the high price! Include BaldWIN, Barr, McKinney and Nader in any POTUS debates in 2008…
Now that Ron Paul is out of the race and starting up his new organization, both Barr and Nader are courting his (Paul’s) supporters. Paul has said favorable things about both Barr and Nader at different times. As a first major act in support of greater liberty, Ron Paul’s new organization should put together a debate between Barr and Nader–with Paul as a moderator! I’ve written to the Campaign for Liberty in support of this idea. I hope others will do likewise.
The problem with ballot-access as a criterion for inclusion in the debates is that it creates a sort of catch-22 situation: With debate-access and the increased exposure it brings, ballot-access becomes easier to get; but without ballot-access, debate-access is withheld.
I think that Google would include Barr as well as Nader if they let anyone else in. I suspect that the idea of balance/symmetry would be important for this decision. And for that same reason, I suspect McKinney would be left out–or at least not allowed in as a fifth of five participants. She could be “balanced,” maybe, by Baldwin, but then the argument would be that there are too many participants.
I think that Barr and Nader should debate each other one-on-one. They can put that together without needing Google or CNN or (obviously) the CPD or anyone else. Having big names like Ventura or Gravel involved as moderators would also help attract attention. If they put on an event like that, CNN or MSNBC would pick it up and televise it, I’m sure. And the attention it garnered would help get them onto the stage with Obama and McCain.
I don’t agree, GE. I think that if a person has enough ballot access to win the presidential election, they should be allowed the debates. If that makes it so there has to be more debates, or the debates have to be longer, so be it.
If Google lets Nader in, they should certainly let Barr in.
As for the others, until they can increase their online coverage percentages, I think they’re fairly excluded from “major” debates organized by private companies or individuals.
Google might also put together some debates and invite Nader. Not sure if Barr or any other third party candidates would be invited.
This year presents much better opportunities for Barr and Nader to get into debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) only puts together a small number of debates, but there is a lot of interest among candidates and the public to have more. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly 80% of people like McCain’s idea of having 10+ town hall style debates. These town hall debates would not be controlled by the CPD and thus could include more than McCain and Obama.
With respect to getting into the debates, the presence of Bob Barr in the race could help Nader and vice versa. For one thing, since both of them are trying to get into the debates, that doubles the pressure to make the debates more inclusive. For another thing, Republicans who see Barr as a potential spoiler, will be motivated include Nader; and Democrats who are worried about Nader would be motivated to include Barr. Arguing for the inclusion of both Barr and Nader also makes it seem that the demand for inclusive debates is principled, rather than just in the interest of a single candidate.
And if the major party candidates don’t play ball, Barr and Nader should debate one-on-one. If a debate like that (which could be moderated by Jesse Ventura and/or Mike Gravel) attracts a lot of attention and interest, that increases the pressure to put Barr and Nader in debates with McCain and Obama.