Public officials in Louisiana have teamed up with Google and YouTube to promote a presidential debate in New Orleans on September 18. However, neither Senator McCain, nor Senator Obama, has said yet whether he will accept the invitation.
Louisiana officials were angry with the Commission on Presidential Debates, when the Commission announced on November 19, 2007, that the Commission would not hold any of its debates in New Orleans. The CPD presidential debates will be in Oxford, Mississippi on September 26, Nashville, Tennessee on October 7, and Hempstead, New York on October 15. The back-up sites are Danville, Kentucky, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
See the webpage for the proposed New Orleans debate. That site says that presidential candidates must be at 10% in polls, in order to be included. The webpage features a YouTube of various officials. First is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who says, “I want to invite all our presidential candidates.” Then comes New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who says the proposed New Orleans debate will be “more democratic than ever before.” Then Chad Hurley of YouTube speaks, saying “We have a chance to open it up even more.” Finally, David Drummond of Google speaks, saying “Voters will have an opportunity to learn about the candidates.”
Since the poll requirement for the New Orleans debate is 10%, whereas the Commission on Presidential Debates requirement is 15%, the New Orleans debate sponsors are marginally closer to an inclusive general election debate than the CPD. Nevertheless, their rhetoric is out of sync with their criteria. As most readers of this site already know, a debate which invited all candidates who could theoretically win the election would involve only six presidential candidates, almost surely Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader and Obama. Thanks to Ross Dreyer for the link to the New Orleans debate organization.
The 10% threshold is disappointing. Nader and Barr might get close and will likely account for 10% **together** but will be very hard pressed to qualify. I wonder if there is time to push the organizers to revise this criterion. I wonder whether it could be effective to press Obama and McCain on the issue of including other candidates in this debate. If Obama and McCain refuse the invitation to participate, I wonder if the show will still go on–perhaps with Barr and Nader.
Well, we can advocate for dropping the 10% requirement with the debate… authority:
http://www.neworleansdebate.org/index.cfm?objectid=7EF3A8F2-1D09-317F-BB9FBE1E9B5669A2
I feel sure that McCain and Obama will try to sidestep any debate with a real candidate, so we will have to advocate again to force them to show up.
It will be a fight every step of the way, with the duopoly/msm dragging the feet every step of the way.
I think we can rely on Google to morph into a member of the msm along the way as well.
Such is the battle with entrenched greed and power.
Maybe BAN cou;d/should sponsor a debate in which all candidates on the ballot in enough States to get an Electoral Majority are invited.
I’d also like to see a debate with all candidates on in 2 or more States are invited.
Yes, I think it is a good idea for people to click on the “Contact Us” link and advocate lowering the criterion to 5%–which would very likely include both Barr and Nader.
There must be some organization or outlet somewhere that is willing to put together an open debate. I have contacted Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty. I have contacted the Real News Network. I have contacted both Barr’s and Nader’s campaigns. (Previously, I also contacted YouTube and Google.) Someone needs to put a debate together that includes Barr, Nader, and possibly also Baldwin and McKinney. Even if Obama and McCain opt out, such a debate would attract serious attention, I think. With Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both having been unfairly excluded from primary debates, with both of them being willing to “stick it” to their respective party, and with them being good friends of each other, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were willing to act as moderators for such a debate. (Likewise Mike Gravel and Jesse Ventura.)
I’ve been reaching out trying to get people interested in this idea. I hope others will do so, too.
This all reminds me of 1976 when the League of Women Voters was in charge of the presidential debates. Former U.S. Senator Eugene J. McCarthy was on the ballot (as an independent) in enough states to be able to win the election and he had been polling well – an unsolicited 10% write-in amount in California, as a matter of fact. The League would not let him participate.
The bourgeois establishment was very much afraid of him and did everything it could to keep him off the ballots, out of the debates, and out of the news coverage.
I agree, 10% is still far to high. 5% would be better. Another method would be inviting all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election.
There are a number of criteria that would be better than 10% in polls. Being on enough ballots to win the electoral vote isn’t too bad. Qualifying for federal matching funds isn’t too bad. Whatever you think is the most reasonable threshold, I encourage you to contact the YouTube/Google debate group and make your case!
It should either be any candidate who is on enough ballots to get the 270 electoral votes, there’s only six of them. Or if they want to make it challenging the make it any candidate who is on the ballot in all 50 states.
I think the criterion for participation in the debates should relate to the number of states or U.S. territories in which a candidate is on the ballot. That number might be, say, 40 states or perhaps a higher number. Basing the criterion on polling results is rediculous, because the very purpose of the debates is to help voters decide whom they prefer. If they can’t debate, how can a reasonable choice be made? Basing it on the number of states in which a candidate is on the ballot makes sense, because that is a good measure of the seriousness of a campaign.
Good argument, Berry Ives. I encourage you to write to the organizers of the debate and present them with your case. And get lots of others to repeat it!
If it takes 5% to receive federal matching funds, it seems only sensible to have it at 5% to be included in the Commissions Debates.
Good argument, Barabara Woodruff. Please write the organizers at http://www.neworleansdebate.org and make that argument to them. And, again, I hope lots of others will repeat it.
I agree that if it takes 5% to receive federal matching funds, the threshold to be in the debates should be 5%, although I would also include a candidate that’s on as many state ballots to win the Electoral College as well.
Actually, as long as the Electoral College is with us, it should be any presidential candidate who is officially on the ballot in any one state or territory. What we really need, after all this abuse by the two larger parties over these past forty-eight years, is a Revolution!
One more Fourth of July has gone by and there is no Revolution started – nor any mass Party of the People to lead such a Revolution. Note: the Revolution will be Peaceful. Californians: Join the Peace and Freedom Party today! Everyone else: Join one of the (peaceful) revolutionary Parties!
The only requirement there should be for inclusion in any presidential debate is who the voters themselves want to see take part, period. There has consistently been a majority of those polled that has stated that it wants to see Nader, Perot, Buchanan and occasionally others in presidential debates/forums, whether or not the respondents intend to vote for these candidates. And why not? Do the people control the election process or not?
As far as I’m concerned, poll numbers should be made irrelevant. A candidate’s qualification for such debates should be: Is he on the ballot in enough states where the total number of electoral votes equal or exceed the number required (in this case, 270) for election. Period.
Whatever you think the criteria should be for inclusion in debates, I encourage you to go to:
http://www.neworleansdebate.org
and click on the “Contact Us” link. Let them know how you feel about their candidate eligibility rules.
How do you get 5% in the polls if your name isn’t listed in the poll question. In two separate elections I was contacted by pollsters and asked who I was supporting in that Congressional race. Both times I was on the ballot but was not listed as a choice in the poll question.
If I remember correctly, and if I’m wrong I would
appreciate someone saying so, but in 1996 CNN held 3
alternate debates after the main debate. They included
Harry Browne for the Libertarian Party, Hagelin from
the Natural Law Party, Ralph Nader for the Green Party
& Howard Phillips for the Taxpater’s Party. Also, if
I remember correctly in 1996 the Green Party was only
on 22 states with 235 Electoral Votes. Of course, he
was on several more states as a write-in candidate &
that year he declared that he would spend less than
$5,000. for the simplified filing with the FEC. So
the Green Party could not have him at petitioning
rallys that year. I felt that setup had worked out
reasonably well & was disappointed when CNN declined
to do that again in 2000 or 2004. I suppose if the it
looks like a close election they would rather not be
accussed of muddying up the Presidential vote.
The establishment bourgeois news media is almost worthless. Why are we getting on our knees to them? We should go right around them (through mass demonstrations) and take over!
We need a (peaceful) Revolution!
First of all, that website is not about the $ price of u7ranium; it’s about the human price contrasted to the dollar pice.
Second, I think this country may be closer to civil war than many think.
Third, since we have the largest arsenal ihn the world, much of it nuclear, I would rather not try to live through that.
So I say once again, let Ralph and Matt debate,
I am wary of polls, as they are not entirely accurate and can be made intentionally biased.
The rule where the candidates are on enough ballots to win the electoral college is a good one. We should not require all 50 states, because some are nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on. Maybe we could make it challanging, and require slightly higher than 51%. Also, the democrats and republicans should be put on an equal playing field, as they have designed ballot access laws in their favor, against our constitution, which makes no reference to parties. George Washington warned us that parties would ursurp the power of the people and replace it with the will of the party, among other things.
We should keep up on every body hosting a debate to include the 6 candidates who have a chance to win. The next one is this Thursday at Washington University.
http://debate.wustl.edu/contact.htm
The man who helped Ron Paul with his fund raising bomb is trying to open a 3rd party debates where all 6 candidates would be invited. Google/Yahoo backed out I believe when Obama said he would not attend, but we don’t have to wait on Obama’s whim to let others debate or not. All you have to do is a no minimum pledge to support it with anything you want, if we can make it happen.
http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/