For the next DEM debate, do you believe a Candidate should poll at 5% to participate?

[RiverStone]

The Democratic Debate last week was a good opportunity to hear the voices of all the DEM candidates running for President. We at least got a sense of the person, the flavor of his/her message, and how they relate with each other and the press on a national stage. This far out, I believe it was appropriate for all to participate. There will be a similar set up for the rethugs debate this week.

At the same time, many in both parties have expressed concern that when you have a pool of 8 candidates and 90 minutes to debate, it is very hard to have a substantive conversation about just about anything - minus a few well established talking points. This same question has come up in the past when considering allowing 3rd party candidates to participate as well.

QUESTION - After these initial debates, do you believe a candidate should poll at at least 5% on a combination of agreed upon national polls to be allowed to participate in further major debates?

[bluestateguy]

1. No, but having 8-10 candidates on the stage spreads things too thin

Each candidate really only gets a few minutes of airtime, and there is little or no room for interaction--real debate, in other words--between the candidates.

I would have it that the debate organizers host 2 debates each, a part A and a part B, with 4 candidates for each one. The participants would be determined by a random drawing.

[RiverStone]

9. Cool idea! Doubt the DNC would buy into it however... n/t

[gravity]

2. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere

While having more candidates is more democratic, if there are too many, the debates become rather ineffective and don't accomplish what they set out to do.

[Greyhound]

31. When has any debate since Kennedy-Nixon accomplished anything?

They are not debates in any sense of the word I'm familiar with and they convey no information at all. So we may as well let them be the last forum for the "fringe" that can call the "top tier" on their bullshit.

[porphyrian]

3. Include everyone. No one complains when sports screw up the regular TV scedule...

...either by going into overtime or due to playoffs or whatever. I think hearing what the possible future President thinks about how to run the country is just a tad more important, and it's time to straighten out this fucked up priority already.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. everyone?

somebody posted yesterday that there are about 70 declared Dem candidates in New Hampshire.

Would a 70-way debate be productive?

Edit: I just checked. There aren't 70. I think the post yesterday may have meant that in the past, there were as many as 70 by the time of the election.

According to the NH Secretary of State's site (not updated in a month) there are 12 announced candidates, including Randolph Crow, Michael Forrester, Karl Krueger and Sal Mohamed. Do they belong onstage with the rest of the field?

[porphyrian]

14. Yep. Every last one. I think the people should decide who goes on what tier...

...not the political beauty pageant riggers. What bothers you about that? It can't possibly turn more people off on politics than already are. Besides, we can quickly cut through the bullshit rhetoric made to sound like a platform when fifty people are saying the same thing (causing people to focus on what makes them different rather than the same) or when candidates actually speak plainly, exposing empty bullshit and forcing a higher degree of debate.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. because

in NH, anybody with $1,000 can get on the ballot.

I don't think a debate with dozens of candidates would be meaningful.

The california recall election had 135 candidates on the ballot. They don't all deserve to be given equal time.

[Greyhound]

32. Says you. What country do you live in? This is still nominally The United States of America,

and as such, anyone that can meet the requirements to run has a right to be heard. If you think NH requirements are too minimal, then move there and work to change them. If you don't like the left-handed, transsexual, Latino, candidate then don't listen.

Who are you to decide that "They don't all deserve to be given equal time"?

[Telly Savalas]

42. So then shouldn't we strip away the $1000 fee?

That way millions of Americans could choose to be presidential candidates and participate in the debates.

[Greyhound]

46. I suppose that would be up to the citizens of NH.

I doubt that there are millions of people that want to be President, let alone go through running for the office.

But that is beside the point.

[porphyrian]

45. I'm not surprised. You think a lot of things I disagree with. - n/t

[loudsue]

30. I think so too!! Otherwise, we're just getting the same old corporate-owned candidates!

And I'VE HAD IT WITH CORPORATISTS!!! I want some REAL candidates who understand what in the hell is going on in this country!! Boots on the ground candidates. Kucinich & Gravel are the two best DEMOCRATIC voices on the stage!



:kick::kick::kick:

[Greyhound]

34. Bravo! That's the spirit!

:thumbsup:
:kick:

[porphyrian]

44. Really. Yet they get painted as the radical whackos for being brave enough to move past "safe"...

...chatter and take real positions about things they believe in. Unfortunately, they'll just be used by the others to seem less radical themselves while the corporate media assassinates their character.

[Clark2008]

4. Hell no.

If we had a better media, I might be more inclined, but, considering the media doesn't want to cover anyone who didn't raise a gazillion dollars, then the people deserve to be able to hear the views of the candidates who aren't money bags beholden to corporations and who can buy major ad time.

Most people aren't listening to these debates, yet, anyhow. People, in general, are not going to begin listening to them until this fall - sometime after the summer school break - and judging who has 5 percent now is not a fair and accurate gauge.

Someone who might have less than 5 percent now might actually pick up steam when people actually start listening to their positions in about, oh, September - something that won't happen if we limit their exposure even more than the corporate media does.

[stray cat]

5. Currently what is the requirement to be in these primary debates

If one of us declares to run for president can we get on stage with everyone else?

[Lobster Martini]

6. Since the question is "after these initial debates..."

I want to hear what the dark horses have to say but, realistically, I'm not going to be choosing between Joe Biden and Mike Huckabee in 2008. It's unfair, but given a 90-minute debate, 14 candidates from both parties--and that doesn't include Clark, Gore or Gingrich--plus a couple of commercial breaks, each candidate would have less than six minutes to speak.

[Greyhound]

35. So who decides that our Nation's future has to be decided in a series of 90 minute debates?

We are talking about spending a little time, every other year, to decide what course our Nation should take.

I am amazed at the number of "Democrats" that are so anxious to stifle the speech of others.:eyes:

[Telly Savalas]

43. Stifling speech?

Being denied airtime is having one's speech stifled?

Then I'm the most oppressed person in America, because I've never been on TV.

[Greyhound]

47. Do you want to run for office? If so, why don't you?

We are certainly in need of committed people with ideas for improving the empty shell that our country has become. Who knows? Maybe your's are the better ideas, and if you don't put them out there, no one will ever know.

We have, and I suspect you are included, become accustomed to the notion that we should be ruled over by a certain class of people, they view it as their birthright and we are too willing to go along, or pretend it doesn't matter. Look at what that has brought us.

[libnnc]

7. If the powers that be insist on having debates

this early in the season, here's my suggestion.

Require Cspan to dedicate at least 4 hours per week to airing pre-primary debates with Cspan hosts as moderators. Let the candidates challenge each other to participate. Have at least two hour-long debates per week with various candidates but no more than 4 participating in a singe debate. That way, more candidates get to participate an have an opportunity to answer more questions in depth. This business of propping up 8 people on a stage and chucking loaded questions at them and only giving them 30 seconds each to form a coherent answer is bullshit. We can do better than that.

Last week's television event wasn't a debate, it was a poorly moderated forum.

edit to change a word

[nevergiveup]

8. I hesitate to say yes,

but it does seem a little much. Carol Mosley Braun's appearance at the 2004 debates was a joke. She could not hold her senate seat here in Illinois because of the appearance of impropriety and here she was in a presidential debate. No one paid much attention to her. I felt sorry for her.

[DeepModem Mom]

38. I'll back you up. The goal, IMO, is to elect one of the people who have a chance...

to be nominated -- so give the candidates with a chance to be nominated time to be heard. Some of these "candidates" are on ego trips to nowhere, and some have been on that same trip more than once, with the same result

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. No. The gadflys keep the monied candidates (somewhat) honest.

[WiseButAngrySara]

12. NO. I want to hear Dennis. ....n/t

[Madspirit]

16. My Reason Too...n/t

[Hobarticus]

18. There's the rub...

Even with low numbers, Kucinich still brings much to the table and helps frame the debate. He belongs up there.

[WiseButAngrySara]

26. I never considered myself to be a 'radical' leftist, but since

Kucinich is branded as such, and I agree with almost everything that he has to say, I must be pretty far to the left! I know that the Right is not right/correct...)

[Sir Jeffrey]

13. As a spectator...

I would like to see a mixture of debates, some with lesser known candidates and some with just the top tier. However, my position would probably change if I was an advisor. If my candidate was polling at 2%, I would want him in all the debates. If my candidate was polling at 25%, I wouldn't want him to get into a dust-up with a long shot candidate in a big debate.

[Hobarticus]

17. I think everyone brings something to the table...

but if I had to choose between Kucinich, who genuinely brings something to the debate, and a loon like Gravel, I'd take the "more viable" candidate in Kucinich any day. It's sad that's what it comes down to, but that's reality.

[bigwillq]

19. Nope

Unless they officially drop out of the race, I think everyone should be included.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. As noted above

the California recall election had 135 candidates. Should any debate have included all of them?

[bigwillq]

23. The Cali run-off, I feel, is different

because it was a special election, where just about everyone and their mother got on the ballot.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. and in New Hampshire

anybody with $1,000 can get on the ballot.

Should they all be included? Somebody posted yesterday that they've had up to 70 candidates on a primary ballot.

There HAS to be some meaningful cutoff.

The same for multi-party debates. Does Lyndon Larouche deserve the same attention as the Dem and Republican candidates? The Peace and Freedom candidate? The communist candidate? The Socialist Worker's Party candidate?

[bigwillq]

25. What are they running for in NH?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

27. President

please try to keep up.

[Parche]

20. Poll

You dont want to make Mike Gravel... Grovel do you???? :rofl: :bounce:

[paulk]

22. I think at some point you have to start excluding people

I'm not sure what that point is, though. It's in the best interests of the party that it's members get to hear the most from those candidates who have a realistic shot at winning the nomination -

But where do you draw the line? Is polling the only method that should be used? Or should a combination of polling and fund raising be used? Fund raising is an indicator of public support - perhaps even a better indicator, considering that Kerry was polling in the single digits at several points in the last primary season.

[Tejanocrat]

28. I want to hear Dennis, but 8 candidates precludes any real debate. We'll just have to let time

winnow the field to a more manageable number of candidates.

For the time being, I don't want to exclude anyone, but maybe there could be some scenario where Sen. Gravel does not get quite as many questions as Obama, HRC, Edwards, etc. That seems preferable to excluding him altogether.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Wouldn't that limit it to Edwards, Obama, and Clinton?

I'm pretty sure that none of the second tier candidates, get 5% nationally.

[Greyhound]

36. Of course, and that's exactly what they want.

Limit our knowledge, limit our choices, control the whole game so that in the end the outcome doesn't matter.

[ToeBot]

33. Nope, Fisticuffs!! Last three standing. n/t

[charlie]

37. There's 8 months left in the year

Creeping election season is getting to be as bad as Christmas sales in July. Clinton didn't even announce until October. There's tons of time left, let them all pack the stage, hold staggered debates, whatever.

[JI7]

39. Kerry was under 5 percent and under Sharpton at certain points

one of the purposes of the debates is to allow candidates who don't get media whore attention the chance to get some camera time. even then they are often ignored.

a better idea would be to have more debates. some where all participate. but some others where you break up the candidates into groups that debate each other on specific issues. that way candidates not only get more chance to speak but are able to give more on their position.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. and if there are 70 candidates?

should the multi-party debates include the candidate of every minor party in America?

[NuttyFluffers]

40. yes, i want my political voices managed by a populace more in tune w/ AI...

...than basic civics lessons.

i'd like my universe homogenized and then declared crap by some snobby brit, then have some adorable has-been coo soothingly to the heartbroken. can i get that too?

oh, and a side of supersized fries, to go.

[Johonny]

48. It's way to early

Without the comic < 5%ers there would be no reason to watch these things.