John Nichols of The Nation has this July 6 opinion piece, calling for a general election presidential debate that includes all the candidates who will be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election. Unfortunately Nichols doesn’t know about Chuck Baldwin, but his commentary advocates a Barr-McCain-McKinney-Nader-Obama debate. Thanks to David McReynolds for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
It was really great to see Ralph Nader on CNN Newsroom with Rick Sanchez last night. It was good of Sanchez to put both Nader and Barr on his program last night. The interviews were both good. He clearly took both candidates seriously. Best of all, he issued an open invitation for them to come back anytime!! I’m sending Newsroom positive feedback and suggesting that Rick Sanchez have Nader and Barr on again–possibly to debate some issues!
This is just the sort of thing that could bump Nader and Barr in the polls. Although I am a Nader supporter, I also think it is important for Barr to get exposure and support. Democrats will want Barr in the debate to “take votes from McCain.” And if that happens, Republicans will **insist** on having Nader in the debate. Nader is at 6% in CNN polling, Barr is at 6% in today’s Zogby poll. But as of now, they need 10% to get into the Google / YouTube debate on September 18.
Go to: http://www.neworleansdebate.org and tell the organizers that 10% is an arbitrary threshold. 5% would be better. Better would be just being on enough ballots to have a chance at 270 electoral votes. Better would be qualifying for matching funds. Tell them to let Nader and Barr into the debate!
Heck, skip the percentages entirely and base it on who can mathematically win the Electoral college.
Even 5% or sufficiet potential electors to win the White House would eliminate those who were not serious contenders.
I’m voting for Alan Keyes for president, in 2008 … and would sure like to see Alan in the presidential debates. McCain has neither the moral authority nor the verbal prowess to effectively debate Obama. Fortunately, Alan Keyes does.
Vote Keyes 2008, Independent Candidate
Alan Keyes debated Obama in their 2004 US Senate race.
Alan Keyes is insane and probably a pedifile. Look at his face, he trims his eyebrows. How many states will Alan Keyes be on? 1 or 2
Please support Bob Barr, the only candidate with common sense, we need a fiscally conservative President and he is it. With your help we are looking at 49 state ballots.
Please donate to http://www.bobbarr2008.com we are up to $420,000 raised so far
I consider unfounded name calling unworthy of the discussion. IMO it diminishes the credibility of the one using that kind of tactic, and reflects poorly on your candidate, B. Barr, that his supporters resort to that sort of argument.
That’s just my opinion …
you are right savvy consumer but then again we are talking about Alan Keyes, he is out there, like cuckoo cuckoo
Please donate to http://www.votenader.org
If savvyconsumer wants to vote for Alan Keyes, we should respect that. However, Keyes probably won’t be on the ballot in more than 2 to 5 states. Ofcourse he won’t be on the debates, doesn’t deserve to. After watching him in the Republican debate earlier this year, I think we are lucky we don’t get to see that freak show.
Savvy basically just admitted Keyes wasnt a serious contender. He said the majority of electors proposition would eliminate unserious candidates–and yet Keyes will not be on more than 4-5 state ballots.
Alan Keyes is already on in Colorado. I think that he will get on in Louisiana too, and probably some other “easy” ballot access states.
I thought The Nation article was quite good.
Keyes will most likely get on in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana and maybe 2-3 others.
That is NOT a majority of the electoral college.
Trent said: “Savvy basically just admitted Keyes wasnt a serious contender.”
Hi Trent,
With all due respect, I’m afraid I do not agree with your conclusion since I’m not persuaded Keyes will be on the ballot in only a few states …
It seems to all 3rd party candidates’ advantage to have a premier debater (which Keyes is) on the stage confronting the so-called major party candidates … it can only open the field for everyone else involved. Why should we fight among ourselves when there is a corrupt 2-party system that suppresses all 3rd party voices to some degree or another?
Let’s start emailing for access!
P.S.: (The Nation article was great … I do hope the new standard catches on.)
Alan Keyes a great debater? I want some of what your smoking please
Alan Keyes a great debater? Yes.
It was widely accepted that Keyes won the 2000 GOP Presidential Debates, though GW Bush became the nominee. Look-up Alan Keyes’ debate with Alan Dershowitz, that is, if you have any doubt.
Hi Liberty,
BTW, there is video of the Keyes-Dershowitz debate … I think it’s posted at Alan’s website.
Here’s anecdotal evidence: I was phonebanking for Alan Keyes last weekend. I spoke with someone with a Ph.D. in Engineering who had turned away from God, rejected Alan Keyes based upon Keyes unashamed expression of his personal faith, who now supports Ron Paul. The gentleman said he had seen Alan Keyes debate twice, and even spoke with him after the events. The contact was intelligent, yet resistant on the many points we discussed … but he said with pride that Alan Keyes was the most outstanding debater he had ever heard.
“Keyes will most likely get on in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana and maybe 2-3 others.”
The easiest states for ballot access besides CO and FL via the candidate mechanism are:
TN: 275 signatures
NJ: 800 signatures
AR, MS, RI, UT, VT, and WA: 1,000 signatures each
As for FL, Keyes needs to hold a national nominating convention of his new party by September 2 to get on by the party mechanism. If he goes the independent route, he is staring at 104,334 signatures by next Tuesday.
Michael Seebeck Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Heck, skip the percentages entirely and base it on who can mathematically win the Electoral college.
Phil Sawyer responds:
As long as we have the Electoral College to deal with, it should be based only upon a presidential candidate being officially on the ballot in any one state or territory.
savvyconsumer Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I consider unfounded name calling unworthy of the discussion. IMO it diminishes the credibility of the one using that kind of tactic, and reflects poorly on your candidate, B. Barr, that his supporters resort to that sort of argument.
Phil Sawyer replies:
You are correct. When a person stoops to calling names it just shows that that person is losing the debate on the issues. Thank you for making your point. Even though we are stating the obvious here, a lot of people just don’t “get it” – as the popular saying goes.
I can’t agree with Phil about inviting anyone into the debate who is on in even one state. Colorado has 18 candidates this year. In 1992 there were 23 individuals who were on in at least one state.
I am a Ron Paul supporter who is voting for Ralph Nader this election cycle. Though the more I watch Bob Barr and handling his “flip-flop” issues, the more I like him and is a great message of the movement. But he hasn’t done enough to convince me on the Iraq War.
I want the Green Party of the United States to suck-up their pride and tell Cynthia McKinney that 2012 is her year, the Green Party needs to nominate the Nader/Gonzalez ’08 ticket for this election. That would guarantee the Nader/Gonzalez ’08 ticket to get on 40 to 45 state ballots.
Vote 3rd Party this election cycle whether it be Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader. It’s time to show the establishment that the two-party system is broken. Get our candidates the Ballot Access they need! Thank you.
“Hi Trent,
With all due respect, I’m afraid I do not agree with your conclusion since I’m not persuaded Keyes will be on the ballot in only a few state”
So you expect Keyes to get on in more than 10-15 states? If so, I think you’re delusional.
In 2004, Bush-Kerry garnered 99% of the vote.
In 2008, Real Clear Politics avgs Obama + McCain at
48.3% + 42.8% = 91.1% during the period from 06/19 to 07/07. Shouldn’t we compile the best arguments for rejecting two-party politics and politicians, rather than disparaging one another?
So you expect Keyes to get on in more than 10-15 states? If so, I think you’re delusional.
————————————————
Hi Trent … I can tell you that I expect to support Alan Keyes’ candidacy through November and beyond b/c he is the candidate that will best represent me in the White House. I am hopeful that Alan will be on the ballot in states totaling 270 electors or more. It’s certainly mathematically possible … but depends upon whether people get to hear what Alan has to say … and whether those who hear and agree will respond.
Richard Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I can’t agree with Phil about inviting anyone into the debate who is on in even one state. Colorado has 18 candidates this year. In 1992 there were 23 individuals who were on in at least one state.
Phil Sawyer replies:
Well, it seems only fair to me that the people of Colorado should get to hear debates that include all 18 candidates, and so forth. The debates could be divided into sections and feature a few of the people at a time – in alphabetical order of the names of the candidates.
Rick Sanchez is the most intelligent interviewer I have ever seen.I hope we can see him more often.