Presidential Debates

[Donoghus]

I'm all for anything that could help break the two party stranglehold on this country. 

[Ogaju]

there are  no viable third party candidates ever. It takes work to get there. Work that must be done through the years and not just every election cycle. These third parties are not serious enough to do the work to get people involved then they cry when they are not allowed to play spoiler in elections. I say keep them out of debates unless they are viable and not just going to tip the election to one of the two viable canidates. Third party candidates gave the country GW and DJT. How did those work out?

[BitterJim]

It's not even a valid debate when a party on the ballot in all 50 states isn't even allowed on stage to share their perspective and views.

Should be criminal.

The bar is 5% of votes in the previous election, or polling at 15+%, isn't it? That doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you changed the criteria to just being on the ballot in 50 states, the Green party would definitely push to get onto the last handful of ballots (they were on 45 of 51 in 2016), so that's 4 people up there. I would think that the Lincoln Project would have been pushing hard to have someone on there as well, and would probably get the required signatures for each state without too much trouble if they started early enough (and made being on the debate stage a big part of their push for getting onto the ballot).

A 4 or 5 person debate wouldn't be an upgrade over what we have right now, it would be a mess (especially since the moderator would, for good reason, give most of the time to the Dem and Rep candidates, which would upset the other candidates). It'd be nice to have more 3rd party recognition/representation, but it'd have to start with them getting more votes (which is all the more reason to push for things like Ranked-Choice voting, so you can vote for a 3rd party without it just being a waste)

I'm in favor of ranked-choice, but otherwise you can't expect third parties to garner more votes despite being excluded. Rather, allow them to debate and see what their numbers are. Their exclusion contributes to them not being seen as viable, which lowers their numbers. Alternative choices need to be seen as legitimate.

I don't buy that debates can't handle 4-5 candidates. That's silly. The process for narrowing down to 2 candidates is built on the campaigns and debates of more than that in the primaries.

Debates can absolutely handle 4 or 5 people, but not these debates. Primaries have more people, but they agree on most things (hence being in the same party). Even someone like Sanders shares more with Biden than someone like Jorgenson does with Biden, Trump, or Hawkins. Huge gulfs in opinions of the role of government don't lend themselves well to the major presidential debates.

3rd parties getting more popular is a bit of a catch-22 (since it requires being more popular in order to get the platform to become more popular), but just lowering the bar for the debates isn't the way to solve that. Add Jorgenson, Hawkins, and George Conway to the debate stage right now and you'll just get a bunch of people trying to "score points" by insulting Trump and Biden. First past the post just doesn't lend itself well to 3rd parties, and adding them to the debates wouldn't change that.

[gift]

It's not even a valid debate when a party on the ballot in all 50 states isn't even allowed on stage to share their perspective and views.

Should be criminal.

The bar is 5% of votes in the previous election, or polling at 15+%, isn't it? That doesn't seem unreasonable.

If you changed the criteria to just being on the ballot in 50 states, the Green party would definitely push to get onto the last handful of ballots (they were on 45 of 51 in 2016), so that's 4 people up there. I would think that the Lincoln Project would have been pushing hard to have someone on there as well, and would probably get the required signatures for each state without too much trouble if they started early enough (and made being on the debate stage a big part of their push for getting onto the ballot).

A 4 or 5 person debate wouldn't be an upgrade over what we have right now, it would be a mess (especially since the moderator would, for good reason, give most of the time to the Dem and Rep candidates, which would upset the other candidates). It'd be nice to have more 3rd party recognition/representation, but it'd have to start with them getting more votes (which is all the more reason to push for things like Ranked-Choice voting, so you can vote for a 3rd party without it just being a waste)

I'm in favor of ranked-choice, but otherwise you can't expect third parties to garner more votes despite being excluded. Rather, allow them to debate and see what their numbers are. Their exclusion contributes to them not being seen as viable, which lowers their numbers. Alternative choices need to be seen as legitimate.

I don't buy that debates can't handle 4-5 candidates. That's silly. The process for narrowing down to 2 candidates is built on the campaigns and debates of more than that in the primaries.

Debates can absolutely handle 4 or 5 people, but not these debates. Primaries have more people, but they agree on most things (hence being in the same party). Even someone like Sanders shares more with Biden than someone like Jorgenson does with Biden, Trump, or Hawkins. Huge gulfs in opinions of the role of government don't lend themselves well to the major presidential debates.

3rd parties getting more popular is a bit of a catch-22 (since it requires being more popular in order to get the platform to become more popular), but just lowering the bar for the debates isn't the way to solve that. Add Jorgenson, Hawkins, and George Conway to the debate stage right now and you'll just get a bunch of people trying to "score points" by insulting Trump and Biden. First past the post just doesn't lend itself well to 3rd parties, and adding them to the debates wouldn't change that.

Adding third parties to debates does not solve the problem, but it helps. There's also not a solid justification not to add them. Debates are supposed to serve elections. Elections shouldn't serve the debates. So if people can willingly vote for third party candidates, the major debate platforms should represent that choice.

[Neurotic Guy]

I feel that when 3rd party candidates have brought something to the table, they've been acknowledged and given the space to make their case.  George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Gary Johnson are examples of 3rd party candidates who were heard -- but eventually rejected.  Each one had enough publicity to get noticed and if they were better candidates could have been viable candidates.  Given the length of time in the presidential election process, and given the wildly available access points in the media, I think the primary reason that 3rd party candidates haven't risen to equal footing with the Dem and Rep candidates is at least in part due to ideologies that people aren't buying into and/or a lack of capability by the candidate him/herself to grow attention and support.

There was a time in the last election cycle that I was considering Johnson-Weld -- not at all because I lean toward libertarian ideology (I don't at all) -- but because I wasn't enamored enough with Hillary and couldn't stand Donald.  I watched, I listened, and in the end I just thought Johnson was an awful candidate (seems like a good guy thought).  Had Weld been the nominee I might have gone in that direction.

[mobilija]

When it stops being about candidates with the most money having the best chance to win then maybe we will get to hear some other voices.

[celts10]

There was a time in the last election cycle that I was considering Johnson-Weld -- not at all because I lean toward libertarian ideology (I don't at all) -- but because I wasn't enamored enough with Hillary and couldn't stand Donald.  I watched, I listened, and in the end I just thought Johnson was an awful candidate (seems like a good guy thought).  Had Weld been the nominee I might have gone in that direction.

It was the opposite for me. I voted for Johnson in 2012 but couldn't vote for him four years ago solely because of Bill Weld being on the ticket. Weld just didn't have libertarian ideals and was picked (or pushed) simply because of national recognition. When he kept praising and defending Hillary, any slim chance I had of even considering them was over.

[hpantazo]

Biden went on the offense tonight, sounds like he did pretty good. Trump didn't make any big statements. It's like two little kids arguing with each other, fun.

It's like two old guys in a cafe arguing over politics. Usually you can just ignore them as some out of touch old dudes who have nothing better to do, but in this case one of them will actually be leading our country...

[Neurotic Guy]

There was a time in the last election cycle that I was considering Johnson-Weld -- not at all because I lean toward libertarian ideology (I don't at all) -- but because I wasn't enamored enough with Hillary and couldn't stand Donald.  I watched, I listened, and in the end I just thought Johnson was an awful candidate (seems like a good guy thought).  Had Weld been the nominee I might have gone in that direction.

It was the opposite for me. I voted for Johnson in 2012 but couldn't vote for him four years ago solely because of Bill Weld being on the ticket. Weld just didn't have libertarian ideals and was picked (or pushed) simply because of national recognition. When he kept praising and defending Hillary, any slim chance I had of even considering them was over.

Hah!  Yes - we are total opposites on that.  I am very much not a libertarian and liked Weld because I felt he wasn’t so much a libertarian ideologue.

In truth, I agree with some libertarian policy preferences, but don’t believe in libertarian philosophy applied broadly to a nation. But definitely glad that voice is part of our national dialogue.

[GreenFaith1819]

Joe Biden made me PROUD as an American last night. He did well.

And kudos to Pres. Trump for ACTUALLY BEHAVING.....I'd gather that it probably torqued him some to not go unhinged but kudos to him for trying, at least.

I "felt" Joe last night....been feeling him since he chose to run.

Trump? Didn't feel him and haven't since 2017, TBH......

[mobilija]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/learned-trump-biden-policies-431553

Not sure where Politico ranks on the left-right spectrum but this article summed up the debate similarly to my feelings. One candidate presented specific information and the other talked in superlatives with very little clear information.

[Redz]

When it stops being about candidates with the most money having the best chance to win then maybe we will get to hear some other voices.

They were literally arguing over who had raised the most money last night!  Like that should help us decide who the better candidate is.

[KGs Knee]

Third party candidates gave the country GW and DJT. How did those work out?

Well, if every voter who voted for Hilary Clinton had instead voted for Gary Johnson, Donald Trump would not be President right now, Gary Johnson would be.

Are you honestly telling me you'd prefer Donald Trump to be President instead of Gary Johnson?

[Neurotic Guy]

Third party candidates gave the country GW and DJT. How did those work out?

Well, if every voter who voted for Hilary Clinton had instead voted for Gary Johnson, Donald Trump would not be President right now, Gary Johnson would be.

Are you honestly telling me you'd prefer Donald Trump to be President instead of Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson turned out to be (imo) a nice guy with good intent who wasn't anywhere close to being a guy who should be president.  But YES a million times over I'd prefer him to Trump.

[tarheelsxxiii]

It's not even a valid debate when a party on the ballot in all 50 states isn't even allowed on stage to share their perspective and views.

Should be criminal.

I wouldn't be against prosecuting everyone involved with the DNC and RNC under RICO laws. They're both clearly criminal enterprises who conspire to defraud the public for the purposes of consolidating their power. They're no better than any common gangster.

Everyone loses when dissenting voices are silenced. At the very least there needs to be a law that any candidate that is on the ballot in all 50 states is included in the debates. Of course, neither the Dems nor the Reps have any interest in loosing their grip, it's one of the few things they agree on.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm pessimistic, but will vote to shake up the status quo as much as possible within my state this year.