Comments on: American Bloggers for Inclusive Debates http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/ To build consensus on issues Thu, 17 May 2012 19:30:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Michael http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4466 Thu, 17 May 2007 18:43:08 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4466 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. 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.

]]> by: Michael http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4465 Thu, 17 May 2007 18:37:39 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4465 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. 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.

]]> by: Stanford Matthews http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4436 Thu, 17 May 2007 12:18:08 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4436 And I almost thought no one cared :-) And I almost thought no one cared :-)

]]> by: Bloggers for Fairness | Blog for Cox: The Official John Cox Campaign Blog http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4410 Thu, 17 May 2007 04:31:26 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4410 [...] 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. [...] […] 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. […]

]]> by: Adam Graham http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4408 Thu, 17 May 2007 04:15:27 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4408 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. 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.

]]> by: Adam Graham http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4396 Thu, 17 May 2007 02:33:47 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4396 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. 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.

]]> by: Michael http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4361 Wed, 16 May 2007 16:02:05 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/american-bloggers-for-inclusive-debates/#comment-4361 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. 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.

]]>