Utah polled this week with McMullin at 22%, with only 52% of the state even knowing who he is. Logic dictates that if that percentage were larger, he would be polling at a higher number. Your view is that candidates shouldn't be allowed in the discussion unless they have a large enough base. What I'm saying is that, when presented with alternatives, voters are free to gravitate to the candidates that actually represent their ideals and interests, and the polls would be different.
Not at all - I'm asking why you draw the line that you draw as the fair one. If Jill Stein at 2% is good enough to be included, why not Castle or any of the other many candidates out there? Why not allow everyone in the debate and have a free for all like the GOP Primaries, if the goal is to give every candidate an opportunity to build a base through the debates? It seems you created a very arbitrary line to include 5 candidates but not 9 or however many there are. There are 2 that are in one tier of popularity and have a legitimate chance to win. The rest all kind of should be lumped together (Gary Johnson being the potential exception since he's at least above 5%, but that's a really low bar to clear). The purpose of a year+ long campaign is to narrow the field and allow those whose message is able to resonate to generate support. Then in the last month, when there are debates, it's to allow voters to hear from the potential Presidents. If you start allowing people who've been running and gotten no traction at all into the debates, that just gives the American people less time to hear from the candidates who actually might be their next President. These debates are the end of the process, not the beginning - candidates have to go build a base themselves. The reason why most run through a party is that it gives them a lot of infrastructure to start out with. And Trump (and Obama to a lesser extent in 2008 vs the establishment favorite in Hillary, as well as Bernie this year) has proven that you can be an outsider and not the establishment choice in a party, and if you have a powerful message, you can get it out there.
It IS rigged...it is obvious. Not so much in the way Trump talks about, and not just for or about him. It's been rigged...forever. This is how politics works. The only difference is now it is being exposed more. Look at all the emails showing how the Democrats worked against Sanders. There was discussion early on about past elections on the Republican side. This is all nothing new. The media has been pro Democrat forever also...it is almost entirely liberal. That's why Fox News came into being. This is also nothing new. Is it going to cost Trump the election? No. Trump is costing Trump the election. One might argue this other stuff isn't helping, but that doesn't change the basic fact that he's his own worst enemy.
Totally agree, although Johnson hasn't been doing himself any favors. But it would be very interesting to see what the polls showed if he were to have participated in the debates. The system as it stands is a catch 22. You aren't allowed in the debates unless you have pretty high poll numbers, but without being in the debates you can't get those. That settles it...I'm voting for Yossarian. Hillary is a cross between Colonel Cathcart and Doctor Daneeka.
They think that, but it isn't true. Current polls already show this. The next debate will likely go very similarly to the last debate---Trump will have initial setbacks discussing these recent allegations, and then will spend the rest of the time hammering Hillary on all the things Hillary is so susceptible to be hammered on. He will gain some support back after this, making it a close race again. This is a political miscalculation, and one that will cost them. Their lack of support for Trump will end up hurting them more than their support for him would. You can see this from the conference call that Ryan had. Also, look at the example of Cruz. Their lack of support is a purely political decision that is politically stupid.
It's rigged in favor of the two parties, obviously. The economy is rigged in favor of the rich, like Trump and Clinton, obviously. Americans have been blithely oblivious. But what the Dems did to Sanders was internal: that doesn't make the whole election rigged. The parties can pick candidates by flipping coins if they want. The media has not been pro Democrat forever. Did you live through the Reagan/Bush years? Do you remember the run-up to Iraq 2, when the media took Bush's "WMD" lies hook, line, and sinker? Trump's still complaining about that war, because it's still a mess, because of Bush's wrongful actions. FoxNews came into being for the same reason monster truck rallies came into being. "Trump is his own worst enemy" translates to "Trump is getting his ass kicked by Clinton." Welcome to the big league, Donald.
This isn't true. You can't get high poll numbers if you're a crappy candidate and don't have an established party helping you. If Bloomberg or Sanders or Kasich ran as an independent, they'd be in the debates. Ross Perot proved that as well. People need to stop expecting terrible candidates to get on the big stage just because. You have to earn it, just as Trump and Clinton did by winning their primaries in very public and competitive elections. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein did nothing of the sort. It's not the media's job to make you a viable candidate - it's your job. Then if you are, you get invited to the debate. Gary Johnson has had a year+ to get to 15%. That's not an unreasonable expectation.
Half a decade's worth of Black Fridays for broadcast and print media, in the only topic for which they have captive and compliant subjects.
Looks like Trump notched another win - bigly - according to all of these very important polls he posted : Also, wow Fox 61 CT - who knew UHF stations sill used numbers like that? wow.
