On June 30, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) at a press conference said it is “ridiculous” for debate sponsors to use poll results to decide who may participate in debates. See this story. One wonders if he would express the same principle relative to general election debates.
I don’t wonder at all! He wouldn’t even complain about this if he were in the Top Ten and safely in the debate.
Graham also refused to participate in a 2014 debate that invited independent candidate (and former State Treasurer) Thomas Ravenel.
http://www.abcnews4.com/story/26689897/graham-not-participating-in-debate-with-opponents
I think he would if a third-party candidate were a longtime U.S. Senator or someone who has served in the U.S. House and been the governor of a major state like John Kasich.
Most third-party candidates lately have been people like Jill Stein, who have never held office, or Gary Johnson, who have held only one statewide or congressional-district-wide office for a relatively brief time.
Polling may have its uses in the general election debates. Ross Perot, for example, deserved inclusion despite his lack of government experience, by virtue of his poll numbers (and his election performance).
If the Green Party were running Bernie Sanders, they would have a better shot at inclusion than they would with Jill Stein. Ralph Nader was somewhere in the middle.
Obviously Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace in 1948, George Wallace in 1968, and John Anderson in 1980 would have deserved inclusion.
But Ballot Access News seems to have a fetish about debates and debate inclusion that is, in my view, laughably unwarranted. I believe this blog printed a story in 2014 about the Democratic candidate in Wyoming not being in a debate, but I was invited and chose not to attend. I felt I had nothing to gain by it. And I was right.
The Wyoming Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Charlie Hardy, showed up to the public TV debate featuring Republican Sen. Enzi and the Libertarian and Independent candidates. Hardy got 17.5% of the vote.
I didn’t attend the debate with Republican Rep. Lummis and the Libertarian and Constitution candidates. I got 23% of the vote and carried Teton County, which neither the Democratic U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidates carried.
Sometimes a candidate understands that s/he has nothing to gain from being in a debate. Sometimes a candidate is better off in skipping the debate.
Debates have nothing to do with ballot access and are peripheral to the subject of this (wonderful) blog. Yet I’m sure we’ll be “treated” to more and more of these silly debate posts in the future. Please, ease up on them at least.
Debates don’t matter in most elections.
Richard Grayson — what the heck are you talking about?
In 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson was the GOVERNOR of New Mexico for EIGHT YEARS. Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode spent 12 years in Congress after serving for 24 years in the Virginia legislature. Even Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson had spent 8 years as mayor of Salt Lake City.
Meanwhile, the Republican nominee had only served one four-year term as governor of Massachusetts.
Richard,
Jill Stein (G) was an elected alderwoman in Massachusetts. Stein has run many credible and legitimate campaigns for local, state and national office unlike some barfly candidates around the nation…ahem…see the recent AE congressional candidate in AZ in 2008 and Democratic congressional candidate in Wyoming in 2014.
Cynthia McKinney (G) was a four-term elected US House member.
By your criteria it seems only a few of the +20 announced Rep and Dem presidential candidates be would eligible for any debate participation.
“Silly Debate Post” spoiler:
If you pay attention to the fantastic content presented in Ballot Access News you would notice that it is not just strictly about ballot access and is significantly and importantly about other “peripheral” news such as campaign finance, public campaign funding, election and voting reform, voting rights to name just a few.