How to define 'serious candidate'?

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Every four years, hundreds of people run for president. The vast majority of them, you've never heard of. As well as the usual lineup of senators and governors and other well-known politicos, you also have the random Billy Bobs who file paperwork with the FEC. Regular folks, sometimes a bit nutty, who run for whatever reason. Just so they can add 'former presidential candidate' to their resume, I guess.

The serious candidates have their names included in polling, they get invited to debates and other events. The random wackos do not.

What I wonder is, where's the line that seperates these two groups? It's blurrier than you might think, with some on-paper credible candidates slipping through the cracks and never getting a look.

Take last election, for example. Republican Mark Everson, a life-long bureaucrat and former IRS head, and Democrat Lawrence Lessig, Harvard professor and activist. They're not a pair of random yahoos who filed election paperwork for a lark. Neither were invited to any of their party's debates, despite being credible individuals running serious campaigns.

It leaves a lot of power to the party establishment and those who commission the polling companies - the media - they're the ones who decide who gets to compete and who doesn't. Much less of a problem for the senators and whatnot. The obvious candidates. But for the Mark Eversons and Larry Lessigs? Debate inclusion and viability really all comes down to getting included in polling. If you're polled on, you get news coverage. If you're polled on, you get to debate. Provided you hit 1%, or whatever other number they set the bar at.

For 2020 I think this will be a huge problem for the Democrats. With such a huge potential field, and with Trump blowing up the invisible 'previous political experience required' rule, there's going to have to be some way of figuring out who gets to compete and who doesn't. Does the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana get a look? Sure, the Disney CEO is a big deal, but what about the chairman of a smaller company? Will the former Secretary of State for Missouri be treated as seriously as a sitting senator? If so, consider just how many others are on *that level*.

The Democratic field is going to be massive, perhaps bigger than anyone can anticipate, and I don't think any variation of the current rules for debate inclusion and polling is equipped for it.

[Mr. Morden]

The Democratic field is going to be massive, perhaps bigger than anyone can anticipate, and I don't think any variation of the current rules for debate inclusion and polling is equipped for it.

Well, you have two different questions here.  One is who actually gets included as an option in the polls, and the other is even among those listed as an option in the polls, who is going to actually get enough media coverage to reach 1 or 2 or 3% in the polls, and thereby qualify for the debates?  Jim Gilmore made it into some polls last time, but still got virtually no media coverage, and only qualified for a couple of the kiddie table debates.

On the latter question, I don't think this only a problem for mid-size city mayors or former state secretaries of state, but also for some of the sitting and former governors and US Senators.  The 2016 Republican field was big, but a substantial fraction of the candidates in that race already had high national name recognition well before the day they announced their candidacy (e.g., Bush, Christie, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Trump...).  Thus, most of the 10 spots on the "grown up table" debate stage were pretty much set in advance, since those well known candidates were able to get the ~3% national polling that was needed to qualify.

For the 2020 Dem. race though, the field is huge, but hardly any of them are very well known, including the sitting governors and senators (especially if both Biden and Sanders sit out because of age).  So if you were to decide debate attendance right now based on polling, the list of invitees might end up being determined by fairly random polling fluctuations, since the voters have virtually nothing in the way of impressions of the candidates yet, unlike the GOP field from last time.

The question then is how do the currently unknown candidates manage to make themselves known?  And I wonder to what extent it'll be driven by "bad behavior".  E.g., candidates engage in stunts or make controversial statements in order to generate media coverage, and thereby make it into the debates ahead of some of the more "serious" candidates.  I can imagine a Gabbard or a Moulton using rhetorical bombs to generate publicity for themselves, for example, and use that to propel themselves into the grown up table debates.

[LeRaposa]

Serious means someone who is a legitimate candidate and could actually win their party's nomination. Neither Lessing nor Everson ever had any chance of winning their party's nominations and couldn't even manage to get on the debate stage. Congressman John Delaney is running for President but is not a serious candidate because he is an obscure member of Congress with zero name recognition even among Democrats. He has no chance of winning the nomination and I have no idea why he's running.

For some strange reason, every four years there are people who run for President but aren't actually interested in winning. The 2012 and 2016 Republican fields are perfect examples. In 2012 Gary Johnson, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Herman Cain all ran for no explainable reason. Bachmann, Johnson and Paul were fringe candidates. Jon Hunstman couldn't win because the Republican Party has not nominated a moderate since 1960. Herman Cain was running to be the joke candidate? Many people run for President to sell books (Ben Carson), others run to get a TV Show (Huckabee in '08), some run to push their pet causes (Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders), some run for the fun of it (Trump and Herman Cain), some run because they feel destined to do so (Jeb!).

[Mr. Morden]

For some strange reason, every four years there are people who run for President but aren't actually interested in winning. The 2012 and 2016 Republican fields are perfect examples. In 2012 Gary Johnson, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Herman Cain all ran for no explainable reason. Bachmann, Johnson and Paul were fringe candidates. Jon Hunstman couldn't win because the Republican Party has not nominated a moderate since 1960. Herman Cain was running to be the joke candidate? Many people run for President to sell books (Ben Carson), others run to get a TV Show (Huckabee in '08), some run to push their pet causes (Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders), some run for the fun of it (Trump and Herman Cain), some run because they feel destined to do so (Jeb!).

Welcome to the forum!

For me, I'd say that for many such candidates, it's actually an open question as to whether they actually know that they can't win.  Anyone who runs for POTUS is going to have an enormous ego, and I can imagine that candidates with a 0.0001% chance of being nominated convince themselves that they have a ~5% chance, in which case, why not try?  And I always find myself wondering which of the longshot candidates are in which category.  (those who understand that they have no chance but just want to sell books or whatever vs. those who have convinced themselves that they might win)

[Rjjr77]

Every four years, hundreds of people run for president. The vast majority of them, you've never heard of. As well as the usual lineup of senators and governors and other well-known politicos, you also have the random Billy Bobs who file paperwork with the FEC. Regular folks, sometimes a bit nutty, who run for whatever reason. Just so they can add 'former presidential candidate' to their resume, I guess.

The serious candidates have their names included in polling, they get invited to debates and other events. The random wackos do not.

What I wonder is, where's the line that seperates these two groups? It's blurrier than you might think, with some on-paper credible candidates slipping through the cracks and never getting a look.

Take last election, for example. Republican Mark Everson, a life-long bureaucrat and former IRS head, and Democrat Lawrence Lessig, Harvard professor and activist. They're not a pair of random yahoos who filed election paperwork for a lark. Neither were invited to any of their party's debates, despite being credible individuals running serious campaigns.

It leaves a lot of power to the party establishment and those who commission the polling companies - the media - they're the ones who decide who gets to compete and who doesn't. Much less of a problem for the senators and whatnot. The obvious candidates. But for the Mark Eversons and Larry Lessigs? Debate inclusion and viability really all comes down to getting included in polling. If you're polled on, you get news coverage. If you're polled on, you get to debate. Provided you hit 1%, or whatever other number they set the bar at.

For 2020 I think this will be a huge problem for the Democrats. With such a huge potential field, and with Trump blowing up the invisible 'previous political experience required' rule, there's going to have to be some way of figuring out who gets to compete and who doesn't. Does the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana get a look? Sure, the Disney CEO is a big deal, but what about the chairman of a smaller company? Will the former Secretary of State for Missouri be treated as seriously as a sitting senator? If so, consider just how many others are on *that level*.

The Democratic field is going to be massive, perhaps bigger than anyone can anticipate, and I don't think any variation of the current rules for debate inclusion and polling is equipped for it.

Fundraising and name ID make a serious candidate. Look at Herman Cain, who was treated as a serious candidate despite being not much different than Rocky de la Fuente, how'd he get treated differently? Name ID. Cain started going to event in 2010 to boost his profile, as such when it rolled around he was a serious candidate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Jeb Bush's last name weren't "Bush", he'd most likely be relegated to a kiddie table-candidate, along with the likes of Pataki and Gilmore.

Larry Agran is a good study how the party can effectively shut you down by deciding "who's serious and who's not".