2008 Presidential debates?

[TommyC1776]

What if the debates this year included Barack Obama (Dem), John McCain (Rep), Ralph Nader (Ind.) and Bob Barr (Libertarian)?  How would that go?

[SPC]

Not to deflate your ego, but I seriously doubt Nader or Barr will be in the debates.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

A lot of wasted time. After watching parts of the Libertarian convention on TV, I never want to see anything like that again, especially on national TV.

[TommyC1776]

Not to deflate your ego, but I seriously doubt Nader or Barr will be in the debates.

i know they probably won't be allowed in the debates.  I was just asking "What-if".  But personally I think a third party candidate who is on enough states to win the Presidency should be in the debates.  But that's just my opinion.

[TommyC1776]

A lot of wasted time. After watching parts of the Libertarian convention on TV, I never want to see anything like that again, especially on national TV.

Really?  i didn't see it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nothing special; Obama would probably beat McCain, and Nader and Barr's poll numbers would go down afterwards.

[SPC]

Not to deflate your ego, but I seriously doubt Nader or Barr will be in the debates.

i know they probably won't be allowed in the debates.  I was just asking "What-if".  But personally I think a third party candidate who is on enough states to win the Presidency should be in the debates.  But that's just my opinion.

While I agree, it's not going to happen, for obvious reasons. Also the LP Convention was on CSPAN.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nothing special; Obama would probably beat McCain, and Nader and Barr's poll numbers would go down afterwards.

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

I disagree; I think Obama is able to beat McCain, and with Barr polling at 6% right now, he can sink pretty far.  Once people see how nutty his ideas are, they'll back off, leaving only the former Paul supporters.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

I disagree; I think Obama is able to beat McCain, and with Barr polling at 6% right now, he can sink pretty far.  Once people see how nutty his ideas are, they'll back off, leaving only the former Paul supporters.

I went and read Barr website, some of the things on their aren't that bad, I would vote for Barr before McCain.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

I disagree; I think Obama is able to beat McCain, and with Barr polling at 6% right now, he can sink pretty far.  Once people see how nutty his ideas are, they'll back off, leaving only the former Paul supporters.

Actually, the hardcore libertarians do not like Barr very much. I saw some of the convention on TV last night, and a lot were upset that he wasn't a "real libertarian." Paul supporters are not going to jump all over this guy. Ron Paul represents his ideas as himself. He is the idea. Otherwise, libertarians should've get getting lots of support before him. Barr won't get anywhere near 6% nationally, but his ideas are not that loony, it's just that third parties have performed poorly since people perceived Gore losing the 2000 election to Bush because of Nader.

[Saxwsylvania]

McCain will use a bunch of rehearsed lines and will mix them up.

Obama will stammer on about change and say "McCain = Bush".

Barr will bitch a lot.

Nader will attack the "two party elite system" but will attack mostly Obama.

[Franzl]

Nothing special; Obama would probably beat McCain, and Nader and Barr's poll numbers would go down afterwards.

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

Winning a debate is a matter of opinion.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not to deflate your ego, but I seriously doubt Nader or Barr will be in the debates.

i know they probably won't be allowed in the debates.  I was just asking "What-if".  But personally I think a third party candidate who is on enough states to win the Presidency should be in the debates.  But that's just my opinion.

But what if the "Puppy Eating Party" got on the ballot in enough states to win?  Should they be let in?  There should be minimum % to get in, like 10% nationally or something.

[Franzl]

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

I disagree; I think Obama is able to beat McCain, and with Barr polling at 6% right now, he can sink pretty far.  Once people see how nutty his ideas are, they'll back off, leaving only the former Paul supporters.

I would vote for Barr before McCain.

At least until McCain is leading in the national polls

[NOVA Green]

What if the debates this year included Barack Obama (Dem), John McCain (Rep), Ralph Nader (Ind.) and Bob Barr (Libertarian)?  How would that go?

How well does a minor party candidate have to poll to be included in the debates? I'm not sure Barr or Nader will cross that threshold this year... also, wouldn't the two major party candidates have to agree to include the minor parties?

Nothing special; Obama would probably beat McCain, and Nader and Barr's poll numbers would go down afterwards.

Probably not. First of all, Obama has never won a debate, so proudly saying he'd win the debate is pretty arrogant, and second, I bet the third party's numbers would increase slightly simply because they would get some exposure. Their ideas may sound appealing to some people. They really can't go any lower than they already are.

Granted Obama has not been the best debater of the Democratic field this season, I think even many Obama supporters would have to give that honor to Hillary.

That doesn't mean that he will get slaughtered by MCain however, who lacks a certain charisma with his debate style, at least what I saw of the'08 Rep debates.

Question: How did he perform heads up against Bush in the 2000 debates, rather than  in  multi-party debates?

[Flying Dog]

Has anyone seen McCain debate?
It's pretty bad.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Has anyone seen McCain debate?
It's pretty bad.

Yes. And it's not any worse than Obama saying "uh" over and over and "I agree with Senator Clinton."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Has anyone seen McCain debate?
It's pretty bad.

Yes. And it's not any worse than Obama saying "uh" over and over and "I agree with Senator Clinton."

But he won't be debating Senator Clinton, now will he?

[Franzl]

Has anyone seen McCain debate?
It's pretty bad.

Yes. And it's not any worse than Obama saying "uh" over and over and "I agree with Senator Clinton."

But he won't be debating Senator Clinton, now will he?

that's not really the point.

Both McCain and OBama are not really very strong at debating. Naturally, democrats will say Obama wins, Republicans will say the same about Mac.

[Meeker]

Not to deflate your ego, but I seriously doubt Nader or Barr will be in the debates.

i know they probably won't be allowed in the debates.  I was just asking "What-if".  But personally I think a third party candidate who is on enough states to win the Presidency should be in the debates.  But that's just my opinion.

But what if the "Puppy Eating Party" got on the ballot in enough states to win?  Should they be let in?  There should be minimum % to get in, like 10% nationally or something.

Only it's incredibly difficult to get on the ballot in enough states to win. If it wasn't, it would happen all the time.

[Sasquatch]

I thought it was 15% nationally. Perot got close to 10% and he wasn't allowed in the 1996 debates.

[Meeker]

I thought it was 15% nationally. Perot got close to 10% and he wasn't allowed in the 1996 debates.

It's whatever the two major parties want. The only reason Perot was let in in 1992 was that both parties thought he would cost votes from the other one.

[AltWorlder]

I hope there will be an interesting sideshow debate with all of the third party candidates, as they had in 2004 at Cornell.

[Sasquatch]

I thought it was 15% nationally. Perot got close to 10% and he wasn't allowed in the 1996 debates.

It's whatever the two major parties want. The only reason Perot was let in in 1992 was that both parties thought he would cost votes from the other one.

Yeah. The whole damn process is rigged from top to bottom.