Obama, Romney refuse to debate Gary Johnson

  • 107 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#1 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

http://www.policymic.com/articles/15656/gary-johnson-will-be-in-a-presidential-debate-the-october-23-chicago-debate-which-obama-and-romney-declined

I guess neither of them want to legitimize alternatives to the two-party regime.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#2 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
What exactly would they have to gain from debating Gary Johnson?
Avatar image for deactivated-59921cb703b3a
#3 Posted by deactivated-59921cb703b3a (353 posts) -

Should call up the Marxist-Leninist party.

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#4 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
There is one major thing the two parties hate...third parties. They even control the presidential debate commission.
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#5 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30675 posts) -

lol dumb thread.

Avatar image for BuryMe
#6 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

Part of why I hate politics in the US.

The current rule for debates is that you need to be on enough states to be able to win the presidency, and have 15% in the polls.

it closes the system to every one but the 2 parties. If you can mathimatically win the presidency, you should invited to the debates.

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#7 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

lol dumb thread.

Aljosa23
Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#8 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
Why would they? They literally have no reason to.
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#9 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30675 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

KC_Hokie

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

How the hell did you come to that conclusion from my post?

Obama and Romney don't care to debate third parties... why would they? It does nothing but legitimize third parties which would work against them. I mean, I don't agree with that but you can see the point.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#10 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

KC_Hokie

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

No.

File:Vermin Supreme glitterbombs Randall Terry.jpg

Avatar image for deactivated-59921cb703b3a
#11 Posted by deactivated-59921cb703b3a (353 posts) -

Actually I shouldn't make fun. Having several parties splitting the liberal vote in Canada is the only thing holding the country together right now.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#12 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

KC_Hokie

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

Mathematically, anyone who qualifies for president could win.

Realistically, Gary Johnson has about the same odds of winning as a random (qualified) hobo off the street.

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#13 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

Fightingfan

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

No.

Only four people are on the ballot in enough states to win. That guy isn't.
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#14 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

chessmaster1989

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

Mathematically, anyone who qualifies for president could win.

Realistically, Gary Johnson has about the same odds of winning as a random (qualified) hobo off the street.

Nope. Only four people are on the ballot in enough states to actually win.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#15 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?KC_Hokie

Mathematically, anyone who qualifies for president could win.

Realistically, Gary Johnson has about the same odds of winning as a random (qualified) hobo off the street.

Nope. Only four people are on the ballot in enough states to actually win.

Write-in candidates...

Avatar image for Pirate700
#16 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

KC_Hokie

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

He can't mathematically win.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#17 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Mathematically, anyone who qualifies for president could win.

Realistically, Gary Johnson has about the same odds of winning as a random (qualified) hobo off the street.

chessmaster1989

Nope. Only four people are on the ballot in enough states to actually win.

Write-in candidates...

But the chances of someone winning via write in are so slim as to be mathematically impossible. Gary Johnson has a very good chance of actually winning though!
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#18 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Mathematically, anyone who qualifies for president could win.

Realistically, Gary Johnson has about the same odds of winning as a random (qualified) hobo off the street.

chessmaster1989

Nope. Only four people are on the ballot in enough states to actually win.

Write-in candidates...

Enough states don't allow it so you wouldn't win. Again, only four people can mathematically win the presidency this year.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#19 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

Pirate700

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

He can't mathematically win.

Now now, he probably has something like a .0000000000000000000001% chance of winning :P

Avatar image for Laihendi
#20 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

lol dumb thread.

Pirate700

Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?

He can't mathematically win.

Mathematically only one person can win, because it's impossible to have two or more people win a majority of the electoral college. Maybe we should just wait until after the election is over and have the winner debate himself.

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#21 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?chessmaster1989

He can't mathematically win.

Now now, he probably has something like a .0000000000000000000001% chance of winning :P

The third parties combined will likely get around 8-10% of the vote. And that's before being allowed to debate. If they were allowed to debate it would be a lot higher.
Avatar image for Pirate700
#22 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?chessmaster1989

He can't mathematically win.

Now now, he probably has something like a .0000000000000000000001% chance of winning :P

I'm not even sure it's that high. :P

Avatar image for Pirate700
#23 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]He can't mathematically win.

KC_Hokie

Now now, he probably has something like a .0000000000000000000001% chance of winning :P

The third parties combined will likely get around 8-10% of the vote. And that's before being allowed to debate. If they were allowed to debate it would be a lot higher.

A percentage of votes is not a the same as the chance to win.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#24 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]He can't mathematically win.

KC_Hokie

Now now, he probably has something like a .0000000000000000000001% chance of winning :P

The third parties combined will likely get around 8-10% of the vote. And that's before being allowed to debate. If they were allowed to debate it would be a lot higher.

In 2008, third party candidates got 1.4% of the vote.

In 2004, third party candidates got 1% of the vote.

A bit shy of 8-10% don't you think?

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#25 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why? Don't you think we should hear from all candidates who can mathematically win?KC_Hokie

No.

Only four people are on the ballot in enough states to win. That guy isn't.

Like voting matters, if it did we wouldn't have electoral college.
Avatar image for Abbeten
#26 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
Not to mention that people will often poll for a third party candidate but vote for one of the two main candidates. Because voters like their votes to 'matter' more. And why in the hell do you think that debate participation would boost third-party support to the tune of 40% or so?
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#27 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Now now, he probably has something like a .0000000000000000000001% chance of winning :P

chessmaster1989

The third parties combined will likely get around 8-10% of the vote. And that's before being allowed to debate. If they were allowed to debate it would be a lot higher.

In 2008, third party candidates got 1.4% of the vote.

In 2004, third party candidates got 1% of the vote.

A bit shy of 8-10% don't you think?

IN 2000 they got around 5% and 1996 they got around 10%.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#28 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The third parties combined will likely get around 8-10% of the vote. And that's before being allowed to debate. If they were allowed to debate it would be a lot higher. KC_Hokie

In 2008, third party candidates got 1.4% of the vote.

In 2004, third party candidates got 1% of the vote.

A bit shy of 8-10% don't you think?

IN 2000 they got around 5%.

Still shy of 8-10%, and why do you expect the numbers will be closer to the 2000 numbers than to the 2004 or 2008 numbers?

Avatar image for Pirate700
#29 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The third parties combined will likely get around 8-10% of the vote. And that's before being allowed to debate. If they were allowed to debate it would be a lot higher. KC_Hokie

In 2008, third party candidates got 1.4% of the vote.

In 2004, third party candidates got 1% of the vote.

A bit shy of 8-10% don't you think?

IN 2000 they got around 5% and 1996 they got around 10%.

Have any proof of that?

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#30 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

In 2008, third party candidates got 1.4% of the vote.

In 2004, third party candidates got 1% of the vote.

A bit shy of 8-10% don't you think?

chessmaster1989

IN 2000 they got around 5%.

Still shy of 8-10%, and why do you expect the numbers will be closer to the 2000 numbers than to the 2004 or 2008 numbers?

Near 10% in 1996. In 1980, the election most like this one, 3rd parties got 8% as well.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#31 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]IN 2000 they got around 5%.

KC_Hokie

Still shy of 8-10%, and why do you expect the numbers will be closer to the 2000 numbers than to the 2004 or 2008 numbers?

Near 10% in 1996. In 1980, the election most like this one, 3rd parties got 8% as well.

What makes you compare this election to the 1980 election?

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#32 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Still shy of 8-10%, and why do you expect the numbers will be closer to the 2000 numbers than to the 2004 or 2008 numbers?

chessmaster1989

Near 10% in 1996. In 1980, the election most like this one, 3rd parties got 8% as well.

What makes you compare this election to the 1980 election?

State of the economy, incumbent liberal president, and a third party candidate that will get 6%+ with third parties totaling 8-10%.
Avatar image for Jesus-Jew
#33 Posted by Jesus-Jew (47 posts) -
They have positively no motivation to lessen their likelihood of winning, so I cannot possibly fathom why they refuse to bring him into the spotlight! I mean, really, this doesn't require much in the way of creative thought to understand WHY Mitt Romney and Barack Obama want Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to be the only two relevant people on the ballot.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#34 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Near 10% in 1996. In 1980, the election most like this one, 3rd parties got 8% as well. KC_Hokie

What makes you compare this election to the 1980 election?

State of the economy, incumbent liberal president, and a third party candidate that will get 6%+ with third parties totaling 8-10%.

That's a very superficial comparison, and ignores the fact that the candidates are fairly different in the 2012 election than in the 1980 election (including the third party candidate you are comparing Gary Johnson to, who was an Independent, not a libertarian).

The third point is a circular point (the purpose of my asking for the comparison was a justification of why the elections would be similar as a justification for why Johnson + others would receive a combined 8-10% of the vote).

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#35 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

What makes you compare this election to the 1980 election?

chessmaster1989

State of the economy, incumbent liberal president, and a third party candidate that will get 6%+ with third parties totaling 8-10%.

That's a very superficial comparison, and ignores the fact that the candidates are fairly different in the 2012 election than in the 1980 election (including the third party candidate you are comparing Gary Johnson to, who was an Independent, not a libertarian).

The third point is a circular point (the purpose of my asking for the comparison was a justification of why the elections would be similar as a justification for why Johnson + others would receive a combined 8-10% of the vote).

If you can find a closer election based on all the factors I would love to see it. Nothing is so comparable....down to the economy and spread between candidates at this time.
Avatar image for Pirate700
#36 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

In 2008, third party candidates got 1.4% of the vote.

In 2004, third party candidates got 1% of the vote.

A bit shy of 8-10% don't you think?

Pirate700

IN 2000 they got around 5% and 1996 they got around 10%.

Have any proof of that?

I guess that's a no...

Avatar image for Abbeten
#37 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]State of the economy, incumbent liberal president, and a third party candidate that will get 6%+ with third parties totaling 8-10%. KC_Hokie

That's a very superficial comparison, and ignores the fact that the candidates are fairly different in the 2012 election than in the 1980 election (including the third party candidate you are comparing Gary Johnson to, who was an Independent, not a libertarian).

The third point is a circular point (the purpose of my asking for the comparison was a justification of why the elections would be similar as a justification for why Johnson + others would receive a combined 8-10% of the vote).

If you can find a closer election based on all the factors I would love to see it. Nothing is so comparable....down to the economy and spread between candidates at this time.

Even assuming that 1980 is the 'best' comparison, that still doesn't make it a good one.
Avatar image for dkdk999
#38 Posted by dkdk999 (6760 posts) -
Well paul krugman also refuses to debate robert murphy even if $60,000 will be donated to the poor. http://krugmandebate.com/
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#39 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

That's a very superficial comparison, and ignores the fact that the candidates are fairly different in the 2012 election than in the 1980 election (including the third party candidate you are comparing Gary Johnson to, who was an Independent, not a libertarian).

The third point is a circular point (the purpose of my asking for the comparison was a justification of why the elections would be similar as a justification for why Johnson + others would receive a combined 8-10% of the vote).

Abbeten
If you can find a closer election based on all the factors I would love to see it. Nothing is so comparable....down to the economy and spread between candidates at this time.

Even assuming that 1980 is the 'best' comparison, that still doesn't make it a good one.

Comparing a comparable election to this one is better than nothing and just guessing.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#40 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]State of the economy, incumbent liberal president, and a third party candidate that will get 6%+ with third parties totaling 8-10%. KC_Hokie

That's a very superficial comparison, and ignores the fact that the candidates are fairly different in the 2012 election than in the 1980 election (including the third party candidate you are comparing Gary Johnson to, who was an Independent, not a libertarian).

The third point is a circular point (the purpose of my asking for the comparison was a justification of why the elections would be similar as a justification for why Johnson + others would receive a combined 8-10% of the vote).

If you can find a closer election based on all the factors I would love to see it. Nothing is so comparable....down to the economy and spread between candidates at this time.

Barack Obama is a better candidate than Jimmy Carter was. For one, Jimmy Carter had approval ratings of only a little over 30%. Obama's are in the high 40s. Romney is no Reagan. And to my understanding, Anderson (the independent) was a former Republican who was a bit left of Reagan but lost the primary. Thus, he would have a lot more appeal to moderate voters than Gary Johnson.

I really don't think your comparison is valid.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#41 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If you can find a closer election based on all the factors I would love to see it. Nothing is so comparable....down to the economy and spread between candidates at this time. KC_Hokie
Even assuming that 1980 is the 'best' comparison, that still doesn't make it a good one.

Comparing a comparable election to this one is better than nothing and just guessing.

Actually, looking at polling data is way more efficient than making superficial connections to an election that happened thirty years ago with different circumstances and a different electorate.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#42 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

Hokie, another thing that you are ignoring is that no libertarian candidate has gotten more than 1% of the vote in any presidential election since the party began running candidates in 1972.

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#43 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Even assuming that 1980 is the 'best' comparison, that still doesn't make it a good one.

Comparing a comparable election to this one is better than nothing and just guessing.

Actually, looking at polling data is way more efficient than making superficial connections to an election that happened thirty years ago with different circumstances and a different electorate.

Nope. Looking at past polls at this time proves how wrong they end up being.
Avatar image for Jesus-Jew
#44 Posted by Jesus-Jew (47 posts) -
RON PAUL 2016
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#45 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

Hokie, another thing that you are ignoring is that no libertarian candidate has gotten more than 1% of the vote in any presidential election since the party began running candidates in 1972.

chessmaster1989
Sure but other third parties have. And collectively they will get 8-10% this year.
Avatar image for Abbeten
#46 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Comparing a comparable election to this one is better than nothing and just guessing. KC_Hokie
Actually, looking at polling data is way more efficient than making superficial connections to an election that happened thirty years ago with different circumstances and a different electorate.

Nope. Looking at past polls at this time proves how wrong they end up being.

You're going to have to explain and justify this and then show how it supports your original point.
Avatar image for champion837
#47 Posted by champion837 (1413 posts) -

RON PAUL 2016Jesus-Jew

No thanks. Ron Paul has some very ridiculous policies.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#48 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Hokie, another thing that you are ignoring is that no libertarian candidate has gotten more than 1% of the vote in any presidential election since the party began running candidates in 1972.

KC_Hokie

Sure but other third parties have. And collectively they will get 8-10% this year.

Again, based on what? You've provided zero sources for your numbers. Even if they are accurate, you're combining all the 3rd parties together to try to prove your point about a single 3rd party having a chance to win.

Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#49 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Hokie, another thing that you are ignoring is that no libertarian candidate has gotten more than 1% of the vote in any presidential election since the party began running candidates in 1972.

Pirate700

Sure but other third parties have. And collectively they will get 8-10% this year.

Again, based on what? You've provided zero sources for your numbers. Even if they are accurate, you're combining all the 3rd parties together to try to prove your point about a single 3rd party having a chance to win.

Past elections. Look them up. Start with 1980.
Avatar image for KC_Hokie
#50 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Actually, looking at polling data is way more efficient than making superficial connections to an election that happened thirty years ago with different circumstances and a different electorate.

Nope. Looking at past polls at this time proves how wrong they end up being.

You're going to have to explain and justify this and then show how it supports your original point.

Because third party people aren't included in the polls. Only rarely included. And yet add up to 6+% in many elections over the last 30 years.