toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,039
- 4,953
- 280
I wouldn't mind a viable third party candidate in the debate but Johnson has shown he is not a viable candidate, and I take the debate and the election seriously while you appear to only think of it as entertainment.Trump didn't have a broad appeal either. He won with a plurality, because the rest of the field was complete shit.Bullshit. Johnson was a lifelong Republican right up until he was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2012 and he only became a third party candidate because he couldn't cut it in a major party in national elections.Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics.You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.
Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency.
Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Nobody's been able to do that in over 100 years. Not because they weren't electable, but because of the 2 party monopoly. Don't act stupid. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Trump spent a lifetime and millions upon millions of dollars building a media presence. Not to mention he was up against complete morons. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Not relevant to our conversation, and the polls you're talking about are a tiny minority anyways. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics. Yes the first test, just as the founders intended... one of the oligarch's wins the crown
Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Because he isn't a member of the republican or Democrat parties. Are you that stupid? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency. So 3rd parties are irrelevant. Spoken like a true tyrant you asshole.
So why did Johnson lose in the 2012 primaries? It wasn't about money, it was that he just doesn't have broad appeal. Like Johnson, Bill Clinton was a popular governor from a small state who didn't have a lot of money when he entered the Democratic primaries in 1992, but he did have broad appeal. He polls at 10% but nearly all of it is in the West and among younger voters and you need broader appeal if you want to run for president. That's why he lost the Republican primaries in 2012 and that's why he can't raise enough money now to get his support up to 15%.
You don't want 3rd parties in the debates because you're afraid they'll make the 2 most unpopular candidates IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY look stupid and upset the 2 party balance. Admit it.