On July 2, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was asked if he would agree to inclusive general election presidential debates, if he is the Republican nominee. The questioner, Larry Reinsch, prefaced the question by pointing out that there has never been a presidential election with more than 7 candidates who were theoretically able to be elected.
Romney responded to the question about whether he would agree to a general election debate that included all candidates who could theoretically win by saying, “Not necessarily. I’ll take a look at who the field is. Part of it is up to the broadcaster, as to who they want in. So, for instance, I’ve argued for a field that was a little narrower in one of the last debates, and they said, ‘No, no, we’re gonna bring everybody in’, a larger field, so as…the broadcaster has some say, I guess the Presidential Commission has some say…I’ll be deciding what I want to do later, but I’m not gonna make that call today.”
Reinsch then pointed out the virtues of letting the American voters hear about all the candidates who are running. Romney responded with a reference to the fact that at least one candidate for the Republican nomination, John Cox, has not been permitted into the Republican primary season debates so far, and said, “We have to draw the line somewhere, clearly if Mayor Bloomberg gets in, he’s an Independent Party candidate, he’s gonna have a place on that stage…but you can draw the line where you think you have a candidate that can be viable, that has a prospect of winning, so they took a good look at some numbers and polls that they have 1% of the population or something, because you’ve gotta draw the line somewhere, because there are probably hundreds of people running, so you gotta say who is viable. But I’ll make that determination down the road.”
Of course, Romney’s remark about hundreds of candidates shows he wasn’t listening when he had been told that there has never been a presidential election with more than 7 candidates who could theoretically won the election.
Of course, your poor grammer shows you did not pay much attention in school.
I think he was listening. He just made the point there are always hundreds of people that want to run for president and that we must draw a line for inclusion. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t responding, but saying a line needs drawn.
Wow… if it were only 1% in the polls that would be great. However, the current “rules” of the “Commission on Presidential Debates” requires that a candidate receive at least 15% of the vote in five national polls to be included in the (staged) “debates.” With the current amount, even Bloomberg might have a hard time getting in.
I’m all for ballot access, but debate access is another thing entirely. John Cox, your example here, is a businessman like 25 other folks who simply put their name on the ballot as an ego trip. He’s not a serious candidate and frankly, forcing that group of nearly 30 candidates onto a debate stage is ludicrous.
The SC GOP ruled that a candidate had to get one percent. Cox didn’t make it. He has been included in local and national polls and has failed to reach one percent. Same with the other 25 names filed with the FEC.
Ballot access is another issue and not one state has denied any one of the other freakishly long shots (Cox, Ron Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, a couple of Smiths, etc.) from getting on the ballot.
After seeing and talking with Mitt Romney, I would say that if you like President George Bush your really gonna like President Mitt Romney !! It was clear to me that Mitt didnt seem to think the american voters needed to have much say in the workings of the presidential debates. Its no wonder he’s getting the nick name ” the million dollar manchurian candidate”
John Cox is significantly more serious than most of the random, made-up “businessmen” that say they’re running for President. (Think Imperato)
Cox has spent close to $1 million, hired staff in a few states, and done quite a bit of traveling. He’s not just slapping up a website and pretending to run, he’s making a real go of it.
Still… I think he’s borderline for inclusion in the debates. His strength at the Ames Straw Poll will tell us more.
American people deserve to hear all the candidates debate and be able to vote for them as well through easier state ballot access.
From the perspective of a major party candidate who has a realistic chance at winning his party’s nomination, this is all about hard nosed, pragmatic politics. Any of these folks is going to be concerned about one thing only: whether anyone who is included is going to affect the number of votes he gets. Gray Davis, running for reelection as governor of California, famously said he’d walk off the stage if Green Party candidate Peter Camejo even set foot inside the auditorium. You can bet his reaction would have been quite different if Camejo had been the American Independent Party candidate with the same level of popularity among voters.
I like this fellow’s plan of asking all these candidates this question, though. Just don’t expect an intellectually honest answer. Obviously, several minor party candidates could be accommodated; the major parties do it every four years at the debates during their primaries. All the claims about viability, number of people onstage, blah blah blah is just a bunch of nonsense when debates are going on right now with people like Tancredo and Kucinich participating. The real answer, which no one will come out and say, is “invite anyone who won’t affect my chances of winning the election……rig the rules so that anyone who will take votes from me can’t be included.” I would like to see one top tier, major party presidential candidate go on the record and say that any clearly serious minor party candidate in the general election, whom voters say (through polls) they want included in the debates, should be included. There is no reason, for example, that Nader and Buchanan (at the very least) shouldn’t have been onstage hashing out ideas with Gore and Bush in 2000.
Aside from the horse race aspect, though, I really think that the people in charge know that opening this up will finally lend a patina of legitimacy to minor parties in this country, and to most American politicos that is completely unacceptable. For those who like mixed metaphors, once that wall comes crashing down you won’t be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube. 🙂 Then they’ll be forced to deal with a lame system that allows people with 30-35% of the vote to be elected as long as it’s a plurality, and massive changes will have to be made (IRV, proportional representation, etc.). None of these major party characters want to take on that headache.
“Then they’ll be forced to deal with a lame system that allows people with 30-35% of the vote to be elected as long as it’s a plurality, and massive changes will have to be made (IRV, proportional representation, etc.). None of these major party characters want to take on that headache.”
Exactly. The debates are the great equalizer that can help third party candidates overcome disadvantages in money, organization, and media coverage.
Allowing third party candidates into the debates leads to the Democrats and Republicans being forced into a Hobson’s choice instead of the voters who don’t like either major party. Their choice would be to either share power with other parties under proportional representation, or risk losing power completely under simple pluarality.
“John Cox is significantly more serious than most of the random, made-up “businessmen” that say they’re running for President. (Think Imperato)”
Yes, more serious than about 20 people no one has ever heard of, like Imperato.
“Cox has spent close to $1 million, hired staff in a few states, and done quite a bit of traveling. He’s not just slapping up a website and pretending to run, he’s making a real go of it.”
Cox has fired FIVE campaign managers, he’s hemmoraging staff, he’s raised a grand total of THIRTEEN THOUSAND (13,000) dollars in 17 months of campaigning, and has been trashed by every small and large newspaper in the East, because they’ve seen him up close. The party regulars he’s met along the trail (including me) think he’s a joke, and he hasn’t caught fire in all that time of campaigning. He’s not legitimate, viable or even serious.
I think there should be three debates:
1. The top two party candidates from the previous presidential election (R,D)
2. The top three party candidates from the previous presidential election (R,D and Ralph Nader or Libertarian)
3. All candidates who are on the ballot in at least 270 electoral votes.