Should Gary Johnson be in the debates?

[hjmick]

Beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

[Oddball]

If Johnson can poll at least 20%, he should be part of the debates. If not, it's stupid to expect that every fringe candidate has a right to participate.

That's what establishment republitards say, too.

Nope, not a dime's worth....

 

[hjmick]

If Johnson can poll at least 20%, he should be part of the debates. If not, it's stupid to expect that every fringe candidate has a right to participate. I believe the American people want to see how the viable candidates handle thinking on their feet.

If Johnson were to be included in the debates, he'd be a viable candidate.

What are Obama and Romney afraid of?

 

[Katzndogz]

Gary Johnson participated in ONE primary debate. He had the option of appearing in all of them and chose not to. Why would he have anything of importance to add now, when even he felt that he had nothing to add then? I saw Johnson in that debate. I didn't get a soda when he came on the screen. I listened to him and he did not have anything of particular importance to add. He appeared no more knowledgeable than the guy who checks in clothing at the dry cleaners.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If Johnson can poll at least 20%, he should be part of the debates. If not, it's stupid to expect that every fringe candidate has a right to participate.

That's what establishment republitards say, too.

Nope, not a dime's worth....

Too bad. Why exactly should fringe candidates be able to participate on an equal footing as viable candidates?

 

[Oddball]

If Johnson can poll at least 20%, he should be part of the debates. If not, it's stupid to expect that every fringe candidate has a right to participate.

That's what establishment republitards say, too.

Nope, not a dime's worth....

Too bad. Why exactly should fringe candidates be able to participate on an equal footing as viable candidates?

They say that, too.

You really sure you're not a republican?

 

[hjmick]

Gary Johnson participated in ONE primary debate. He had the option of appearing in all of them and chose not to. Why would he have anything of importance to add now, when even he felt that he had nothing to add then? I saw Johnson in that debate. I didn't get a soda when he came on the screen. I listened to him and he did not have anything of particular importance to add. He appeared no more knowledgeable than the guy who checks in clothing at the dry cleaners.

He was invited to one debate. The rest of the debates he was shut out. It was not a choice he made.

 

[rightwinger]

Should the candidate from "The rent is too damn high" Party be included in the debates?

Do we water down the debates with every fringe candidate? Let Gary Johnson pull 5% in the polls and then invite him. If he can't pull 5%, let him watch from home

 

[Dick Tuck]

If Johnson can poll at least 20%, he should be part of the debates. If not, it's stupid to expect that every fringe candidate has a right to participate. I believe the American people want to see how the viable candidates handle thinking on their feet.

If Johnson were to be included in the debates, he'd be a viable candidate.

What are Obama and Romney afraid of?

Why should they participate with fringe candidates? Should every loony toon candidate participate? Perot participated, because he had the poll numbers to show him viable, as did Anderson in 1980 (though Carter chose to sit that one out).

Sounds like sour grapes from those too lazy or too fringe to actually build their party and their candidate.

 

[Dick Tuck]

That's what establishment republitards say, too.

Nope, not a dime's worth....

Too bad. Why exactly should fringe candidates be able to participate on an equal footing as viable candidates?

They say that, too.

You really sure you're not a republican?

I don't care what they say. The September/October debates should be limited to viable candidates, not fringe candidates who don't stand a chance. If you can't build your canddiate/party by then, tough shit.

Amazing how even with Koch brothers funding, the Libertarians still don't have any real following.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gary Johnson participated in ONE primary debate. He had the option of appearing in all of them and chose not to. Why would he have anything of importance to add now, when even he felt that he had nothing to add then? I saw Johnson in that debate. I didn't get a soda when he came on the screen. I listened to him and he did not have anything of particular importance to add. He appeared no more knowledgeable than the guy who checks in clothing at the dry cleaners.

He was invited to one debate. The rest of the debates he was shut out. It was not a choice he made.

You're right. He couldn't meet the eligibility requirements. That's why he wasn't invited. Johnson has to poll at 15% to be included in the general election debate. He has polled at 8% according to his calculations. Independently it's been more like 1% to 2%.

PolitiFact | Gary Johnson tells Jon Stewart he has 8 percent support nationally

 

[Liberty]

Johnson had a hard time in the primary debates because libertarians preferred Ron Paul. Now since Ron Paul will not be on the ballot, and Johnson WILL be on the ballot in all 50 states PLUS Puerto Rico, he deserves a spot in the presidential debates. Who disagrees with this?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Johnson had a hard time in the primary debates because libertarians preferred Ron Paul. Now since Ron Paul will not be on the ballot, and Johnson WILL be on the ballot in all 50 states PLUS Puerto Rico, he deserves a spot in the presidential debates. Who disagrees with this?

I do. Where's he polling?

And guess what. He'd hurt Romney a lot worse than he'd hurt Obama. I'm taking a principled stand on this.

 

[kwc57]

If Johnson can poll at least 20%, he should be part of the debates. If not, it's stupid to expect that every fringe candidate has a right to participate.

That's what establishment republitards say, too.

Nope, not a dime's worth....

Too bad. Why exactly should fringe candidates be able to participate on an equal footing as viable candidates?

Wait a minute, Obama is a fringe candidate. So if he isn't allowed at the debates, Romney is going to have a cake walk.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't care. but considering he couldnt even get enough support to get in the Republican primary debates, i dont think he will make it here either.

 

[manifold]

Johnson had a hard time in the primary debates because libertarians preferred Ron Paul. Now since Ron Paul will not be on the ballot, and Johnson WILL be on the ballot in all 50 states PLUS Puerto Rico, he deserves a spot in the presidential debates. Who disagrees with this?

I do. Where's he polling?

And guess what. He'd hurt Romney a lot worse than he'd hurt Obama. I'm taking a principled stand on this.

I don't doubt for a second that corporatist control is a principle you hold dear.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'd freakin' love to see Johnson in there to throw in a nice, big monkey wrench into the standard Democrat vs. Republican bullcrap.



.

 

[Avorysuds]

No. For one thing, too few people care to hear what Johnson has to say. The only thing he could possibly do is waste time, just like Ron Paul did in the primary debates. Eventually anyone that wanted to hear substance just wished he'd shut up and the debate could move on to those with something to say.

Fear is strong with this one....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gary Johnson participated in ONE primary debate. He had the option of appearing in all of them and chose not to. Why would he have anything of importance to add now, when even he felt that he had nothing to add then? I saw Johnson in that debate. I didn't get a soda when he came on the screen. I listened to him and he did not have anything of particular importance to add. He appeared no more knowledgeable than the guy who checks in clothing at the dry cleaners.

Johnson appeared in two debates, and no, he did not have the option of appearing in all of them.

 

[Liberty]

Johnson had a hard time in the primary debates because libertarians preferred Ron Paul. Now since Ron Paul will not be on the ballot, and Johnson WILL be on the ballot in all 50 states PLUS Puerto Rico, he deserves a spot in the presidential debates. Who disagrees with this?

I do. Where's he polling?

And guess what. He'd hurt Romney a lot worse than he'd hurt Obama. I'm taking a principled stand on this.

He is on the ballot in all states...why does polling matter? If someone makes it onto the full ballot why is it ok not to include them?