The Commission on Presidential Debates is prepping for a 3rd party candidate.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yeah this is a little dated but still relevant:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/a-third-party-hopeful-in-2016-presidential-debate-commission-says-its-ready/

[This account no longer in use.]

So who would it most likely be?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

So who would it most likely be?

Pick one of three:

The former governor of NM



Doctor from Massachussetts who thinks Sanders is too conservative for the socialist movement



Or the guy who hates soda and salt

[Lyin' Steve]

It's Bloomberg.  Stein is a lunatic and won't even get half a percent.  Johnson is only exciting on paper, he went to a GOP debate in 2012 and seemed like a greasy little weasel, definitely not a guy who governed a state and climbed Mt. Everest.  If the libertarians think they're 1% candidate is going to be included they've got a nasty surprise coming.  Perot had like 30% when he was included.  Even poor John Anderson with his 10% couldn't get into the debates.

[Mr. Smith]

It's Bloomberg.  Stein is a lunatic and won't even get half a percent.  Johnson is only exciting on paper, he went to a GOP debate in 2012 and seemed like a greasy little weasel, definitely not a guy who governed a state and climbed Mt. Everest.  If the libertarians think they're 1% candidate is going to be included they've got a nasty surprise coming.  Perot had like 30% when he was included.  Even poor John Anderson with his 10% couldn't get into the debates.

  Actually,  Anderson did make it, Carter simply refused to attend that one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I just don't see it.  Granted, Perot didn't announce his interest until late February in 1992, but several States have pushed back their deadlines to file since then. When you consider the time it would take to organize a campaign to get on the ballots, it's a virtual certainty that it's too late for any independent candidacy to get on the ballot in all fifty-one electoral college races.  Bloomberg's the only one I see as having even a remote chance of getting support to be on the ballot in enuf States to have a mathematical possibility of getting a majority in the Electoral College, and there's zero chance he'd get on the Oklahoma ballot, even if he had the time.

[Phony Moderate]

Really, any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to be in with a mathematical chance of a majority of EVs should be allowed in. Same goes for any party leader in a parliamentary system whose party is fielding candidates in a majority of seats. Bollocks to what the polls say.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Really, any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to be in with a mathematical chance of a majority of EVs should be allowed in. Same goes for any party leader in a parliamentary system whose party is fielding candidates in a majority of seats. Bollocks to what the polls say.

Then why should Plaid Cymru or the SNP be in your debates? lol

[The Other Castro]

A Sanders/Trump matchup probably provides the best opportunity for a strong third party showing in a long time.

[Orser67]

Really, any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to be in with a mathematical chance of a majority of EVs should be allowed in. Same goes for any party leader in a parliamentary system whose party is fielding candidates in a majority of seats. Bollocks to what the polls say.

Personally, I'm glad that the debates focus on the two candidates that have a chance of winning, since I'm much more interested in their answers than the answers of third party candidates who have no chance at winning and represent a small portion of American political thought outside of the mainstream. Though I would be in favor of having one debate with the two major parties and the major third parties.

[AltWorlder]

The obvious answer isn't Bloomberg. It's Trump, if the GOP doesn't nominate him.