Women's group 'outraged' by Pam Keith's exclusion from U.S. Senate debate

[think]

Women's group 'outraged' by Pam Keith's exclusion from U.S. Senate debate

By Kristen M. Clark - Friday, July 29, 2016 6:15am

The Florida chapter of the National Organization for Women says it's "outraged" that an Orlando TV station is excluding Democrat Pam Keith from its U.S. Senate primary debate next month.

Keith -- an African American from Miami and the only female candidate in the Senate contest -- wasn't invited to WFTV Channel 9's "one-on-one" debate between U.S. Reps. Alan Grayson and Patrick Murphy because she hasn't polled high enough to meet the threshold to participate.

Keith received 10 percent and 11 percent support in the two polls she has been included in; the station said candidates needed to have at least 15 percent support in order to be eligible.

"This discriminating action by the station and other candidates demonstrates the ongoing fight both women and minorities face in our society," Florida NOW said in a statement. "To summarily dismiss Ms. Keith’s candidacy as inconsequential is an insult to all voters, especially women and people of color."...

Read more:
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/womens-group-outraged-by-pam-keiths-exclusion-from-us-senate-debate/2287310

[msongs]

1. so she couldnt attract more voters and now its the media's fault. it's jill stein syndrome lol nt

[think]

2. The Florida chapter of the National Organization for Women seems to think she's getting a raw deal.

But what do they know right?...

[geek tragedy]

3. math is math. nt

[think]

4. "With third-party candidates hovering near the threshold, the debate commission advises hosts to"

Clinton-Trump debate sites plan for a third podium

By Hadas Gold - 08/09/16 05:16 AM EDT

With third-party candidates hovering near the threshold, the debate commission advises hosts to consider a bigger stage.


~Snip~

Johnson is hovering around 8.8 percent in national polls, according to RealClearPolitics’ average, whereas Stein, when included in polling, is at around 3.8 percent. Despite being below the 15 percent cutoff, there might be some flexibility in getting someone like Johnson on stage. Frank Fahrenkopf, McCurry’s Republican counterpart and co-chair on the commission, told CNBC last week that the commission may “consider giving an inch” to a third-party candidate if he or she is close enough to the cutoff point.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/debates-clinton-trump-johnson-stein-226806#ixzz4GrmH1YCs

[geek tragedy]

5. they said giving an inch, not several yards nt

[think]

6. Pam Keith is polling at around 10-11% while only being included in 2 polls. Johnson is at 8.8%

It may be apples and oranges but still. It's not like she isn't in reach considering she's been omitted from most of the polls.

[geek tragedy]

7. from the article you quoted

told CNBC last week that the commission may “consider giving an inch” to a third-party candidate if he or she is close enough to the cutoff point.

[think]

8. So 10-11% is yards instead of inches? What is 8.8%? Metric?

[geek tragedy]

9. Barely past mid-field. nt

[Hortensis]

11. Math is math, but 15% is strictly political.

With so few candidates, surely, Geek, there's absolutely no reason they couldn't drop the qualifier to 4%, say? Debates are supposed to present candidates to the PEOPLE, so the PEOPLE can have a chance to evaluate them.

I bet that 15% was arrived at through experience -- by the percentage of party members and/or power blocs whose anger can become a problem for the leadership.

Now, I'm not saying the 15% should be dropped (though why not 10%?), but we went through this with all the claims that the party was unfair to Sanders, with no mention of the 9 candidates who were swept ruthlessly back into oblivion before we ever had a chance to know they existed.

[geek tragedy]

12. Debates should be for people who have a semi-plausible chance of winning

15% is overly generous towards low-polling candidates, imo.

debates aren't there to promote unknown candidates. they're there to help voters make up their minds between known candidates.

[Hortensis]

13. We can't know who has a semi-plausible

chance of winning, of moving from being known in a state but not backed by big funders to the national stage.

Certainly the DNC had no idea Sanders had a plausible chance, and he only broke 15% because Warren had excited and then said no to a constituency that was looking for a leader. Without the accidental boost she provided, Sanders would have been a discard.

In addition, although we know HRC was already extremely solid, Sanders might never had a chance if he had to compete against someone who might have become the phenomenon instead from among those 9 others.

[geek tragedy]

14. sure you can, candidates that show an ability to win support without debates.

debates aren't there to subsidize candidates who cant' get it done on their own

[Hortensis]

15. No, their purpose, officially, is to present our

choices to us.

In that respect, we were cheated big time.

[geek tragedy]

16. it's a waste of time to have nobody candidates on the stage.

if they want to get on the stage, they need to earn their way on.

go out, raise money, get name recognition and support.

debates aren't to give loser candidates a chance to become slightly less losery.

they're there to help people decide between the candidates who can actually win.

[monmouth4]

10. I'm in Florida, never heard of her..n/t