Obama should ask for a debate with the 3rd party candidates.

[Radical Activist]

I know, we aren't supposed to mention Nader around here. But Obama has everything to gain by a debate with Bob Barr, Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney.

The left is uniting around Obama. Nader will be a non-factor just as he was in 2004. The only people voting Nader or Green this year will be the hard core few who will never vote for any Democrat under any circumstances. So, Obama has nothing to lose by giving a little exposure to those candidates. There might even be a serious discussion of issues the media usually ignores.

On the other hand, the Republicans won't be so united. Giving national exposure to Bob Barr could pull significant votes away from McCain. Obama should do a debate with Barr included even if McCain doesn't participate.

[book_worm]

1. It won't happen. They have to be polling at a certain percentage nationally

besides it would allow McKinney and Nader to appeal to the left and would leave little time between Obama and McCain. I don't think either candidate would support it and neither would the networks.

[Radical Activist]

3. That's only for debates sponsored by the official commission.

Obama could have a debate with the third party candidates and no McCain, like Reagan did. It could be sponsored by Fox News, or even shown on C-Span and the internet. At least one of the cable networks would cover it.

And as I wrote, it doesn't matter if McKinny and Nader appeal to the left. The left won't vote for Nader this year any more than they did in '04.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. No debate. They'd all agree what a mistake it would be to elect McCain.

[Radical Activist]

10. Think of what great television that would make.

An hour of two or three people saying how bad McCain is.

[Renew Deal]

4. I agree and disagree

I think a single debate with the minor candidates should be on the schedule every year.

Dems
Pukes
Greens
Libertarians
Any other candidate that can get to 270.

Other than that, I don't think Obama should do that.

[Radical Activist]

8. Why not?

The way I see it, Obama has nothing to lose and much to gain.

[Renew Deal]

24. Actually, Obama has everything to lose

He's going to be taking desperate attacks from the far right and far left. All he'll be doing is defending himself. It will be a catastrophe.

[Radical Activist]

25. I doubt it.

Bob Barr knows he gains votes by attacking McCain, not Obama. When Nader campaigns he focuses on criticizing the Republicans and would probably do the same for the debates.

[Renew Deal]

28. I disagree on Nader

He's done more than his fair share of attacking Democrats. He's a narcissistic opportunist.

I still believe that a single debate should be held for anyone that can reach 270, but I don't think Obama should do anything to initiate it.

[democracy1st]

5. Now these posts are just getting plain ass stupid

[Radical Activist]

6. Have an argument?

I made a pretty clear case for how it helps Obama. Can you dispute my argument or just mouth off?

[elocs]

7. I cannot see how this would even remotely help Obama.

The next president will be either Obama or McCain. McCain is the opponent that Obama must beat so why would he ever want any other candidates in the mix to muddy the waters? The more often people physically see Obama and McCain side by side, the more it helps Obama.

[Radical Activist]

9. If Bob Barr gets another 2% of the vote in swing states due to the exposure

then it helps Obama. We should want as many disgruntled conservatives to know about Barr as possible.

There are many voters who will never support Obama no matter how good he looks next to McCain. But they might vote for Barr.

I don't see how it hurts Obama. No one is going to vote for Nader again, just like 2004.

[elocs]

15. Barr or no Barr I think Obama is going to crush McCain.

This discussion is pretty moot since it has about a zero chance of ever happening.

[Radical Activist]

17. You're overconfident.

Fear is powerful and McCain hasn't even begun to crank up the fear machine. You don't think most voters are rational, do you?

And unless you're taking a break from your job advising Obama I don't think you know how likely it is to happen.

[elocs]

23. No, just confident. I am hardly alone in my assessment.

No matter, the only debates will be between Obama and McCain.

[onetwo]

11. NO. This has far more potential to HURT than HELP.

Under no circumstances should Obama allow small segments of his base to be poached by candidates that may have a slightly more specific message. That's all that can happen when one guy has 97% of the support.

[Radical Activist]

12. What has changed since 2004?

Nader wasn't a factor in '04 and he won't be this time. People learned their lesson in 2000.

McCain is the one who needs to worry about his base getting poached and a debate with Barr would help make it happen.

[onetwo]

20. Put it this way: 20+% still think Bush is doing a fine job.

Obama could completely ace the debate, but walking into a confrontation when he's already carrying 95% of the support pretty much guarantees that he will shed at least 10%.

There has to be a better way to turn Barr into Nader 2.0.

[Schema Thing]

13. I've thought the same thing RA

It's all good.

Obama gets to show how reasonable and open to discussion he is, and Bob Barr gets to look smarmy while libertarianism goes on trial.

And boy oh boy does libertarianism ever need to go on trial.


Oh yeah... and John McCain has to defend what real conservatism is against Bob Barr.

yep, it's all good.

[Radical Activist]

14. Finally

someone agrees with me!

I think people are having a knee jerk reaction to the idea based on past elections.

[nsd]

16. Obama is a serious candidate for president.

These other people are not. He shouldn't diminish his brand by appearing on a stage with them. The possible small benefit of propping up Barr is outweighed by this concern, as well as the possibility that all three might use the opportunity to take shots at him (assuming McCain's not there).

Let Nader and McKinney fade away as fringe candidates. Hopefully there are enough Ron Paul diehards out there to make Barr a significant drain on McCain.

[grantcart]

18. I believe that the threshold for the Presidential Commission on Debates is 6%

McCain would never agree so it is mute. It would be interesting if Barr could get 6% nationwide.

[Radical Activist]

19. That's for the official debate commission.

There's nothing stopping Obama from going outside the official commission and even doing a debate with just Barr.

[crankychatter]

21. Some very prominent non-Dem progressives have endorsed Obama

this is an interesting idea... I'd like to see more support from the left, as well as the disaffected, anti-war right.

I'd like to see a coalition of folks from across the spectrum, based upon common ground, where we might disagree otherwise.

Foreign policy and environmental issues being forefront.

maybe not a formal debate... perhaps an issues oriented discussion?

I dunno... you tell ME

[Catherina]

22. I'd love to see an Obama / Nader debate!

McKinney too but she doesn't have Nader's prestige.

Seriously, I'd pay hard-cold cash to see him debate Nader. There are still some questions I want a firm answer from Obama on and no one else will bring them up. This could only help Obama. Members of the Left who support him are already forgiving an awful lot so he won't lose any support from that group but he could gain a few depending on how he handles himself with Nader. I'd be thrilled to have Nader come out and say "We disagree on x,y,z but Obama's as good as the current system will allow in the door".

[anonymous171]

26. Nope. Nader and the greens can go fuck themselves.

[Johonny]

27. seems like Nader, Barr et al have everything to gain

McCain and Obama can only lose. Given that the only ones voting for these third parties now are those really interested in them since the vast majority of Americans probably don't even know they are running. The only way a major candidate "wins", if he loses less support than his opponent due to the exposure given these third parties. Without any data on this... I don't think we know who is more likely to lose the greatest amount of support to a third party. I'm not sure what happen 4 years ago is a barometer of what will happen this year. I doubt a lose by less strategy is appealing to Obama given the current polling numbers.