GOP vs DEM vs LIB national debate

[5280]

Is the Libertarian candidate going to have a 3 way debate nationally? We need to have 3 people debating on stage, not just Clinton and Trump.

[Vosem]

He would need to average 15% of the vote nationally. It's a tough ask, but in a Clinton-_trump race it's possible.

[Nyvin]

Really doubt it.

[Ebsy]

The Democratic and Republican nominees would never, ever agree to debate with the libertarian nominee, nor should they. They would have nothing to gain, and the libertarian nominee isn't even chosen by anything close to a democratic process.

[5280]

The Democratic and Republican nominees would never, ever agree to debate with the libertarian nominee, nor should they. They would have nothing to gain, and the libertarian nominee isn't even chosen by anything close to a democratic process.

Even if they don't agree, doesn't mean they're banned from attending the debate. If they want to debate, let them.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Gary Johnson is polling at 11% against Clinton AND Trump, so if they keep polling him and he goes up 4% why not?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

come on, guys. we go through this nonsense every four years.

[ElectionsGuy]

We let libertarian candidates debate in governor and senate races all over the country with the two major nominees, why not let the national libertarians debate? Especially if they have ballot access in all 50 states.

[RaphaelDLG]

The two party duopoly in this country is so evil.  15% is such an absurdly high number.

[Nym90]

Technically Ross Perot didn't meet the 15% polling average threshold in 1992 but was allowed into the debates anyway. If Johnson is averaging 11% I think it would be difficult to exclude him.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

We can't risk letting the radical ideas of the Libertarian party be legitimized by having their candidate appear on the debate stage with Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton. Hopefully the Commission on Presidential Debates does their job and keeps the Libertarians in the shadows where they belong.

[SteveRogers]

Technically Ross Perot didn't meet the 15% polling average threshold in 1992 but was allowed into the debates anyway. If Johnson is averaging 11% I think it would be difficult to exclude him.

That's why they made the 15% rule to keep Perot out of the 1996 debates.

[Enduro]

We can't risk letting the radical ideas of the Libertarian party be legitimized by having their candidate appear on the debate stage with Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton. Hopefully the Commission on Presidential Debates does their job and keeps the Libertarians in the shadows where they belong.

What about Libertarians is radical? Aside from the occasional Darryl Perry.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Another of the forum's wet dreams about a credible third party candidacy that surfaces every four years and every four years ends up with nothing.

[RaphaelDLG]

Another of the forum's wet dreams about a credible third party candidacy that surfaces every four years and every four years ends up with nothing.

Third party candidacies will never be credible so long as we have FPTP, but letting a new voice into the debate could have a profound impact.  Imagine if Stein or Johnson were allowed to introduce some of their most sensible ideas on a national platform and how the Democrats and Republicans would be forced to react to their positive reception.

[Ebsy]

Johnson is never going to average 15% because most of the polls won't even include him.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

The Democratic and Republican nominees would never, ever agree to debate with the libertarian nominee, nor should they. They would have nothing to gain, and the libertarian nominee isn't even chosen by anything close to a democratic process.

Nor are the major-party nominees, really.

[Leinad]

They should, and I wish they would, but they almost definitely won't. Even in an election between two highly-hated people, we have to stay realistic here.

radical ideas of the Libertarian party

Says the guy who supports a candidate that wants to ban Muslims from entering the country (which would be completely unworkable, even if it was constitutional) and kill innocent people just because they're the family of terrorists.