Fifteen Percent

[MohRokTah]

That's a pretty damned important number.

It's the threshold for a presidential nominee of any political party to be included in the debates.

At the end of July, third party candidates have historically been at the high point of their support for the election, and Gary Johnson (L-Wingnut) currently polls at 7% and Jill Stein (G-Moron) currently polls at 3% in the polls where they poll highest.

Neither of these idiots will break the threshold. Neither will be in the debates.

So if Trump bows out citing bullshit abut Hillary "rigging the debates" (NOTE: The CPD is a non-partisan third party and the dates for the debates were agreed upon by the RNC and the DNC in discussions with the CPD LAST YEAR!), then there will be no debates at all.

[rjsquirrel]

1. In my view

Hillary should welcome Johnson and offer to debate with him of Trump chickens out.

Johnson helps us.

[MSMITH33156]

3. I disagree

Ostensibly you are correct. But my concern would be she legitimizes him, and he also starts to draw from her supporters. Right now, he is exclusively serving as a holding house for wayward Republicans. If she debates him, he might start drawing from a broader base, which will also pull from her.

[rjsquirrel]

4. It will always pull more from him

in the states where it matters. He'd pull a few Bernie supporters mostly in western states she either has locked up (Oregon or Washington or in my opinion Colorado and New Mexico) or in states she will never win with few electoral votes.

And longer term support (meaning treating them respectfully) of the libertarians can only hurt the GOP.

[MohRokTah]

5. I disagree vehemently!

The entire last night of the Democratic National Convention was spent drawing in sane Republicans. Were she to legitimize Gary Johnson (L-Wingnut) by debating them, she would lose many of those votes to him.

Beyond that, Hillary does NOT control the rules of the debate and the rules are clear, candidates only get in if they poll at least 15%. Not happening with Gary Johnson (L-Wingnut)

[rjsquirrel]

8. We will just have to disagree then

But at the moment, polling at around 5-7%, it's very clear Johnson is hurting Trump in key states.

And a vote for Johnson in most states is almost as good as a vote for Hillary in electoral college terms. So it's an empirical question, namely, how many republicans who would otherwise hold their nose and vote for Hillary would instead vote for Johnson if he were "legitimized" by being invited to a debate (a gesture they would endear Hillary to many libertarians by the way, even if it didn't win their votes) and would those votes be in states where Hilary might otherwise win in a two way race with Trump?

Johnson is not a lunatic. You're wrong about that. Bill Weld is certainly not a lunatic. Both were popular governors and have long records of public life.

I know the rules are set. I won't be surprised if Johnson actually approaches the 15% threshold. But if Trump refuses to debate, Hillary could certainly hold her own conversation with Johnson.

Polling and electoral analysis would be necessary to determine the strategy options here, and it depends a lot on where we are in a month. If Trump self-destructs and is running 10 points behind in polls we don't need to worry about it. But we ***don't**** know yet whether the outreach to centrist and educated republicans is working.

I pray it does. I think it will. But plans B and C are good to have in mind.

[Hortensis]

25. I lay awake one night worrying that the third parties

might succeed in throwing the election to the Senate. You're certainly right that we need plans B and C, but even at this point I'm really afraid to focus national attention on Johnson. Most people scarcely know he exists at this point, and I find that very comforting.

If there are no debates, we'll just have to do something else.

Moh, thanks for the perspective on where we are right now.

[taught_me_patience]

17. Disagree. As the front runner, you don't let

Others use you for publicity. She would gain absolutely nothing from debating Johnson.

[rjsquirrel]

18. See my analysis in replies to Moroktah above

I disagree that she would gain nothing. A vote for Johnson is as good as a vote for Clinton in a large number of states she can't otherwise win.

[BlueMTexpat]

19. + a million!

Her time will be better spent on the stump and in helping Dem candidates running for office in all 50 states.

[NurseJackie]

2. There will be just one debate. Trump will whine about media bias ...

... and refuse to debate further. (That's my prediction.)

[JenniferJuniper]

7. I think he may refuse to debate at all

"I will not lower myself to argue with Crooked Hillary. She lies, oh, how she lies. Yhuge lies all the time. I will not debate with that kind of a person."

It probably do him less harm in the polls than would actually debating with her. He doesn't know shit about anything.

[Cosmocat]

21. That would be where my money is tentatively

He IS going to try to hijack them or grandstand in some way ...

IMO, he still does not know if he will completely bag out on them.

But, I am pretty sure he won't do two.

[NWCorona]

6. I'm not sure the independents will reach George Wallace levels

[Johnny2X2X]

9. +15

That is more like it. While this could be a bit of an outlier, I am starting to think double digits in most major polls by next week is possible.

[LisaL]

10. Then she could be the only one at debates.

She could be answering questions.

[oberliner]

11. Jill Stein is not a moron

She has virtually the same positions as Bernie Sanders on just about every issue.

[rjsquirrel]

12. Well

think about that for a minute.

She's not stupid, it's true, any more than Donald Trump is.

But she's crazy. Bernie doesn't oppose vaccinating children, does he?

[oberliner]

14. She doesn't oppose vaccinating children

Dr. Jill SteinVerified account ?@DrJillStein 18h18 hours ago
As a medical doctor of course I support vaccinations. I have a problem with the FDA being controlled by drug companies.

[NurseJackie]

16. Pandering to the anti-vaccination idiots only legitimizes their idiocy...

... therefore Stein is a moron.

[oberliner]

20. She is not a moron

I think voting for her is moronic, but she, herself, is a smart woman (though very misguided in what she is going in this election, in my opinion).

[NurseJackie]

24. Potato po-tah-to.

[JaneyVee]

13. But she says moron stuff.

[oberliner]

15. Sometimes, yes

I certainly don't think people should vote for her.

But she is not a moron, and she basically is in sync with most of Bernie's positions.

[MattP]

27. Jill Stein said Hillary and Trump are the same

If she talks like a moron and sounds like a moron she's a moron

[oberliner]

28. Obama says TPP is good for American workers and the middle class

Smart people can say ridiculous things sometimes.

[csziggy]

22. The Commission on Presidential Debates has good reasons for the 15% cutoff

Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates? The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.

Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).

The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

[mountain grammy]

23. Gary Johnson was at least twice elected governor of a state I love..

He has some credibility.

[beachbumbob]

26. Trump is a bully and coward and knows hilłary will destroy him

I highly doubt he has the guts to go on stage with her