Buchanan Speaks Out: Who here is listening?
- Thread starter Paul Revere
- Start date
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Pub:
And if someone can't poll at least 15% I don't see why he should be in the debates with Bush. Otherwise, perhaps you and I should also be included in the debates.
[/quote]
This is the same red herring that's also being peddled by the Committee on Presidential Debates (every member of whom is a registered Democrat or Republican).
How many candidates do you think will qualify for the ballot in all 50 states? Maybe 4 or 5? Hardly an unworkable number for a debate. The real reason for the 15 percent minimum is to prevent debate viewers from being exposed to the ideas of anyone other than Democrats and Republicans. If there was any effort at fairness, the debates would welcome all candidates who get on the ballot in all 50 states.
And here's what they fear: Jesse Ventura was at 10 percent in a statewide poll in Minnesota in late September 1998, before being invited to participate in five debates in October. Ventura's wider exposure in the debates enabled him to go on and win the gubernatorial election in November with 37 percent of the vote.
So, yes, the Reform candidate should be in the debates, as should the Libertarian candidate and anyone else who can get on the ballot in all 50 states.
And if someone can't poll at least 15% I don't see why he should be in the debates with Bush. Otherwise, perhaps you and I should also be included in the debates.
[/quote]
This is the same red herring that's also being peddled by the Committee on Presidential Debates (every member of whom is a registered Democrat or Republican).
How many candidates do you think will qualify for the ballot in all 50 states? Maybe 4 or 5? Hardly an unworkable number for a debate. The real reason for the 15 percent minimum is to prevent debate viewers from being exposed to the ideas of anyone other than Democrats and Republicans. If there was any effort at fairness, the debates would welcome all candidates who get on the ballot in all 50 states.
And here's what they fear: Jesse Ventura was at 10 percent in a statewide poll in Minnesota in late September 1998, before being invited to participate in five debates in October. Ventura's wider exposure in the debates enabled him to go on and win the gubernatorial election in November with 37 percent of the vote.
So, yes, the Reform candidate should be in the debates, as should the Libertarian candidate and anyone else who can get on the ballot in all 50 states.
David:
That’s a good point about Jesse Ventura.
However, the problem with including low polling, narrow/single issue candidates in the debate is that it changes the consistency of the debate. When a party has a shot at winning the White House they move to the center to attract as many supporters as possible. This is done BEFORE the general election. It would be like apples debating oranges. It is always easier for a narrower party to make debating points off of a big tent type candidate.
In a parliamentary system, like in Europe, your method of allowing everyone in the debates would work because people vote for parties and then the parties get together AFTER the general election and form a big tent/move to the center alliance.
For better or worse, the American system doesn’t work that way.
That’s a good point about Jesse Ventura.
However, the problem with including low polling, narrow/single issue candidates in the debate is that it changes the consistency of the debate. When a party has a shot at winning the White House they move to the center to attract as many supporters as possible. This is done BEFORE the general election. It would be like apples debating oranges. It is always easier for a narrower party to make debating points off of a big tent type candidate.
In a parliamentary system, like in Europe, your method of allowing everyone in the debates would work because people vote for parties and then the parties get together AFTER the general election and form a big tent/move to the center alliance.
For better or worse, the American system doesn’t work that way.
Well, based on past history, when the Reform Party was included in the debates in 1992, Perot garnered 19% of the vote. In 1996, Perot was excluded and likewise got only 9% of the vote. If debating made a difference of 10% of the popular vote (19% minus 9%), I think a reasonable person would conclude that the Reform Party candidate should be in this year's debates. That, plus the fact that Pat qualifies for millions of federal matching dollars makes it seem reasonable. 
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Pub:
However, the problem with including low polling, narrow/single issue candidates in the debate is that it changes the consistency of the debate.[/quote]
You mean that such candidates would dwell on their topics, to the detriment of the other candidates? That actually wouldn't bother me. But I believe that in an open debate, the candidates who could voice well-reasoned positions on a variety of issues would come off looking better than a candidate who was so narrowly focused as to disregard other important issues his opponents had clearly considered.
And (political advertisement time!) the party with consistent and well-reasoned positions on a wide range of issues is the Libertarian Party, just incidentally the only national party that cares about RKBA.
However, the problem with including low polling, narrow/single issue candidates in the debate is that it changes the consistency of the debate.[/quote]
You mean that such candidates would dwell on their topics, to the detriment of the other candidates? That actually wouldn't bother me. But I believe that in an open debate, the candidates who could voice well-reasoned positions on a variety of issues would come off looking better than a candidate who was so narrowly focused as to disregard other important issues his opponents had clearly considered.
And (political advertisement time!) the party with consistent and well-reasoned positions on a wide range of issues is the Libertarian Party, just incidentally the only national party that cares about RKBA.
Pat Buchanan can say the things he's saying because he knows very well he cannot win. In so doing he is building a base for a future election. If, at that time, there's a possiblity he could win, look for him to "moderate" some of his comments.
The middle is where the votes are at, especially this year. For _most_ people, the economy is good, and that's #1 on voter's minds. If we were in the shape we were in 1980, things would be different. But, people are comfortable and appealing to them on the basis of real issues appears to be a waste of time. Sad.
That should be good news for Algore, but look at where he is: running about even with George W. After eight years in office, and a stock market that won't stop, Algore can only
run even? That sure makes me think, and hope, that he's beatable.
Maybe in four years we'll see third party candidates as a stronger presence. Until then, please don't let Gore win. Please.
Dick
The middle is where the votes are at, especially this year. For _most_ people, the economy is good, and that's #1 on voter's minds. If we were in the shape we were in 1980, things would be different. But, people are comfortable and appealing to them on the basis of real issues appears to be a waste of time. Sad.
That should be good news for Algore, but look at where he is: running about even with George W. After eight years in office, and a stock market that won't stop, Algore can only
run even? That sure makes me think, and hope, that he's beatable.
Maybe in four years we'll see third party candidates as a stronger presence. Until then, please don't let Gore win. Please.
Dick