Should The Debate Participants Be Confined To Those Who Have A Realistic Chance Of Winning The Nom ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Poll question: Should The Debate Participants Be Confined To Those Who Have A Realistic Chance Of Winning The Nom ?

You can define what "realistic" is...

[NoodleBoy]

1. Realistic should mean they're poll numbers are larger than the margin of error

[judy]

2. Of course not...

What's a "realistic chance"?
Who decides that?
The media?
Anyone who has spent the money and time to run for President should be allowed.

[RuleOfNah]

3. Exchange of ideas...

The marketplace of ideas. A National conversation. A meeting of the minds.

First they came for the ideals and I wasn't an ideal so I didn't speak up...

[LakeSamish706]

4. That really is the problem though... Who decides which candidates had/have...

a realistic chance of wining? If the Democratic candidates say from Gravel and up were in all of the debates and had equal money in these races, we may very well have different outcomes.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. No, I think Edwards should be there too.

I want to see what color his hair is tonight.

[skipos]

6. Mercer for Prez! 70 reasons for his candidacy...

49. To Prove the United States Government killed my sex life, my wife sex life, my daughter-in –laws sex life both may sons and other of my family members sex life with Espionage Experimentation and Espionage Exploitation sex killing.

http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/c14f7f9dd9bbed555232a5cb8defd6f7.html

[bicentennial_baby]

9. Oh wow...Number 56:

56. To Prove Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

:rofl:

[pocoloco]

7. LOL

That would leave out Hillary and Obama!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Define "realistic"

Consider: If the debates are opened only to the two or three candidates deemed "realistic," it becomes impossible for other candidates to become realistic, as they never get the media attention they need to become realistic. It becomes a self-fulfilling class, and you end up with what we always get: the same two or three candidates pontificating on the same two or three non-issues and giving answers deemed by focused research to be most agreeable to the current audience.

[Uben]

10. Equal time for every candidate

No exceptions.....ever.If the networks feel there is not enough time available, shut them all down. I am a Clinton supporter but believe in equal air time for every candidate, regardless of current standing or political party.

[NoPasaran]

11. By this point in the process, yes

Like it or not, Clinton or Edwards or Obama is going to win this thing. Bringing in someone else who is just rattling the cage is a distraction.

[juno jones]

15. Maybe we need the cages rattled a little.

You act as if going off-script is a bad thing.

[Missy M]

12. Equal time for all....

Americans have to hear what every candidate has to say. The media should not have the decision to what we hear.

[Recursion]

13. If debates were actual debates, rather than talk shows with candidates on them...

...then a lot more people than those the media choose to annoint would have a "realistic" chance of winning.

As long as a "minor" candidate is given only a brief time to answer stupid questions, or is excluded from the debate entirely, of course that candidate has no "realistic" chance of winning. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What's wrong with a real debate, in the classical formal style? Break the candidates up into pairs if you need to (n candidates will have n choose 2 debates), by coin toss, the first will speak for 45 minutes, and the second will rebut for 15. Then the second will speak for 45 minutes, and the first rebut for 15. Then the first will recap for 15, and the second recap for 15.

That's a debate.

[denem]

14. It will be the MSM who define realistic

... so hell no!

[SaveOurDemocracy]

16. If they are still on the ballot ... they should be allowed to be

fully included in the process.

If it was up to the MSM ... Edwards would not have a podium either. These candidates have invested in their candidacy, as have their supporters. They have a right to be heard!

Besides, they create contrasts, open new areas of discussions, and challenge the truth of the frontrunners and the MSM message.

[IndianaGreen]

17. The game is fixed enough as it is. Why play along?

The establishment of both major parties will never allow an insurgent campaign that defends the interests of working Americans, regardless of ideology of candidate.

The corporate media will shutout any candidate that speaks heresy, such as abandoning imperialism and establishing single payer health care.

The "leading" candidates are largely a media creation.

If all else fails, the ruling class will make sure that the only votes counted are the votes for the establishment candidate, regardless of party.