American Bloggers for Inclusive Debates
Every one can have a take on whether a person should be included in candidate debates. A judge ruled that one particular candidate’s complaint about being excluded did not require the sponsors of the SC GOP debate to accept a Chicago businessman named John Cox. The idea being that this is not a primary and whatever rules the debate sponsors decided on were valid.
This blog joined the blogroll Americans Bloggers for Inclusive Debates for exactly this reason. Every candidate should be included. But to be honest, if the information is accurate, as part of a definition of a valid candidate, it is hard to argue that asking for a 1% support level in state and national polls in this case is unreasonable.
However, the reason for inclusive debates adds the honesty of an unlikely candidate addressing issues or positions that the political notions of mainstream well known candidates may choose to avoid. And the only downside of inviting all from the viewers perspective might be the concern that a debate field size has practical limits and/or no one would want it to degrade to a massive brawl of unknowns speaking nonsense.
If John Cox was the only one beyond the 10, it would not have hurt the others to have him invited. Perhaps they might consider that in the next debate if there is one.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
GOP presidential long shot loses bid for inclusion in S.C. debate
By The Associated Press
05.14.07
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A federal judge has refused to stop a Republican presidential debate scheduled for tomorrow, turning down a bid by one long-shot candidate who wanted to share the stage with front-runners in the 2008 race.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The idea of including everyone in debates is a noble one, but including people who simply have no campaign operation and are raising no money from their nonexistent supporters (i.e. John Cox) is not the duty of the GOP or any party.
It also opens the floodgates to literally DOZENS of crackpots who are simply signed up with the FEC as “candidates,” many of whom are not even campaigning.
I think many conservatives would also balk at a federal judge forcing the GOP to put candidates into the debates, as Cox tried to do with his lawsuit.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Michael, tell me did Michael Jesus Archangel get on the ballot in South Carolina? Has he been on C-Span’s Washington Journal? No, John Cox has. 1% is a silly number anyway because it’s significant for a poll with a margin of Error of +/- 4%
In addition, for someone who has no supporters, he seems to have won a Straw Poll in Strom Thurmond’s Home County, as well as finishing strong elsewhere.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:15 am
I should also add that the State Poll used did not give John Cox as an option, which makes it very hard for a lesser known candidate in a poll. The other candidates who got 1% were listed.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:31 am
[…] Some bloggers have begun to call out the unfairness of those who’ve excluded John Cox for the debates. Writes Stanford Matthews: However, the reason for inclusive debates adds the honesty of an unlikely candidate addressing issues or positions that the political notions of mainstream well known candidates may choose to avoid. And the only downside of inviting all from the viewers perspective might be the concern that a debate field size has practical limits and/or no one would want it to degrade to a massive brawl of unknowns speaking nonsense. […]
May 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
And I almost thought no one cared
May 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Adam, no-name candidate Daniel Gilbert paid the $25,000 to get onto the ballot, too. So what? That doesn’t make him a viable candidate, either.
The straw polls are just that “straw”. They are worthless. If Cox hadn’t shown up at the event, he wouldn’t have gotten any votes at all. That’s not a sign of a strong campaign. That’s a sign of mob mentality, if that.
The “margin of error” argument is pathetic. All major polling operations - Rassmussen, Gallup, etc. - would gladly include Cox if just a handful of people VOLUNTEERED his name. In fact, I have it on good authority that one of them told your campaign they would have included his name on ALL future polls if only 16 people had mentioned his name out of 16,000 they polled in a massive multi-state poll earlier this year. NO ONE MENTIONED HIS NAME.
If the guy had supporters, he would get mentions. Period. So you Cox employees need to stop whining about not being included and make your candidate worthy of inclusion. “Fairness” is something liberals whine about, not Real Conservatives. Cox ain’t one.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Actually, if the poll margin of error is 4%, then they ought to make the cut-off FIVE percent, at least, just to make sure the guy dozen have ZERO support.