Why are these 11 Democratic candidates excluded from debates by the current 8?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Surely every candidate deserves equal time to make his or her case. I am sure we will see all those new champions of allowing everyone into debates start a grassroots movement to allow these 11 a chance to express their views with the media anointed 8. In fact, I think I will e-mail Dennis Kucinich about this, given his principled position on the issue.

Warren Ashe (D-Virginia)
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina)
Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee)
Michael Forrester (D-Colorado)
Dan Francis (D-New York)
Alfonzo Jones (D-California)
John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia)
Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota)
Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa)
James Prattas (D-Hawaii)
Ole Savior (D-Minnesota)

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[ShortnFiery]

1. Because HRC and Edwards demanded it?

:shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. And Obama, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, and,Kucinich nt

[HeraldSquare212]

3. Actually, it's a good question.

though from looking at the info I'm guessing none of them have even asked.

[napi21]

4. I saw that list of names yesterday. WHO THE HELL ARE THEY?

I LIVE in Ga. and I never heard of John Joseph Kennedy!

In all fairness, I suspect a candidate has to have SOME recognition to be invited to a debate. After all, anybody with the filing fee can "run".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. What is the standard, though? They are on par with half the field in the polls

Dodd was at 0% in the latest Gallup poll. Gravel 1%. Kucinich and Biden 2%. Some say all candidates deserve to be heard. That is a great idea. So why exclude these candidates? Kucinich himself has come out strongly for this publicly today yet remains silent on the collusion of the current 8 with respect to these 11. Does he think they are not "serious" enough candidates?

[TeamJordan23]

6. It's a fair question. My understanding is that you need a certain percentage of support

I know the number is less than 1%. I think someone before told me it was like .5%, but I cannot confirm this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. How can they get there if they get no press coverage? Dodd is at 0% now btw

Should Dodd now be excluded from the debates?

[Alexander]

22. It's usually the average of polls...

Dodd has been at 1% or 2%, so his average isn't below 1% yet.

Unless he keeps polling 0% in the polls.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Ok but let's face it: Dodd is not going to be excluded from the debates regardless of his support

Gravel was included even though he used to be at 0%. The debates have boosted him to 1% (all the more reason for HRC and JE to conspire to stop the Gravel juggernaut :crazy:) .

[Alexander]

32. Well, what's the standard?

Follow that.

Do the other candidates even try to show up? Do they meet whatever the standard is? We don't know.

Why don't you contact them and ask them, if you're so concerned about the rights of these other candidates? I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you.

[napi21]

7. I don't know what the standard is. I know I've heard that the candidates

are "invited" to each debate by the sponsor. I'm not sure who to ask. I know the debates I watched were sponsored by MSNBC & CNN respectively. I wouldn't know who to contact at either network to get the answer though.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. Contact Dennis Kucinich's office

Given his principled stand on this issue I am sure he would gladly lead an effort to allow truly open debates with all candidates, whether they are deemed to be "serious" or not.

[TeamJordan23]

10. Might as well contact Edwards, Clinton camps also on this issue.

[maxanne]

15. this is funny

We have a story about two candidates trying to exclude other candidates - and instead of getting made at them, you get mad at the guy they want to exclude.

Priceless!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Which is it? Should all candidates be included or only "serious" candidates?

Kucinich can't grandstand in favor of all the candidates being included and then remain silent on the exclusion of these candidates, who are all within the MoE of Kucinich in the polls. This could be a good opportunity for Kucinich to lead an effort that will forever reform presidential politics.

[maxanne]

18. why don't you

ask Clinton and Edwards? They're the ones who want to eliminate people.

As I said, it's almost funny that you're mad at the guy they want to shove off the island, not at those who would censor the debate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Where exactly did they say they want to censor debate or exclude Kucinich?

Thanks in advance.

[Moloch]

25. Why exactly would they want to censor Kucinich?

Clinton, Edwards and Obama are the only candidates with any possibility of winning.. Why should we all be subjected to Kucinich and other joke candidates constantly bringing up their pet issues? It would be a better focus for everyone if only the top 3 candidates were to debate each other.. Kucinich and his friends can debate with nader, the guy from the natural law party and all the other joke candidates who haven't a chance in hell of winning.

[maxanne]

26. pet issues?

Like peace, trade agreements, and health care?

Where I come from, folks are concerned about these things.

[Cameron27]

11. Mario, I think the point is that Kucinich never

said they shouldn't be included. On the other hand Clinton & Edwards ...

I doubt this will amount to anything if that's what your worried about.

[MGKrebs]

34. I think the point is that Kucinich is doing the very thing he is opposing.

He wants to be kept in, but he is silent on those who are currently being left out. What does DK say distinguishes him from that list of minor candidates? Clinton and Edwards allegedly want to put DK on that list, so what does he have in his favor to keep him off of it? Sitting Congressman exemption?

Is DK offering to debate each of the other candidates 1 on 1 also? or just the top candidates? How can he justify that?

[Traveling_Home]

12. I thought the distinction was

that typically events invite candidates to participate vs select insider candidates trying to control the invitation process.

[fishwax]

13. Warren Ashe has been president since 1981 (according to him), so he probably feels no need to debate

with newcomers like Obama and Clinton and Biden.

I am the United States President Auxiliary since 1981. I am also the Founder, Owner, President of my company Jyperonix Astrophysics. Which is a Fortune 500 company at the top of the list. I am involved with time travel communications that are real. And capable of time travel contact throughout history itself.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/view_profile.php?userid=8285206

Of course, being a bit crazy might not be enough to keep folks out of the debates, but that's not the only mark against these candidates--I don't think that a single one of them has ever held office as a democrat, which limits their credibility, and most of them have probably not qualified for the ballot in most of the primary states.

[Alexander]

23. LOL!!! Yes, good point.

We can't include the obvious assorted loonies, although I see the Republican party has no such standards.

[fishwax]

27. true, but then there wouldn't be (m)any candidates left to debate if they did

hold themselves to such standards ;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Ok but what is the definition of "loonie"?

Kucinich says let's have open debate with everyone. I agree. Let's include them all. If they are so bad they will surely do no harm to the top 8...

[fishwax]

31. Technically anyone can file as a Democratic Candidate. If, say Ann Coulter did, I wouldn't think she

belonged in the debates, but that's just me.

The eight leading candidates are the only candidates in the debate who are contesting all the early primaries, who have national organizations in place, and who have the profile and credibility that comes from being actually elected to office.

[Alexander]

33. Okay, how about Lyndon LaRouche?

He's filed as a Democrat every presidential election year in recent memory. His views are light-years from the opinions of most people in the Democratic Party. Are you seriously recommending that the other candidates must share the stage with him?

[applegrove]

14. Good point.

[snowbear]

17. If all of them.. plus the other 8 were all invited..

That would allow 4.7 minutes of total time per candidate for the entire debate. And if you include time for the candidates to introduce themselves, time for the moderator to ask questions, and time for candidate rebuttals, it would give them approximately 4 seconds to completely answer each question asked of them.

[mzteris]

19. I'm surprised that

- uh - someone else's name isn't on there. Seriously. I mean why not?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. The Republicans are even worse: 18 candidates excluded

Saint Michael Jesus Archangel (R-Michigan)
George Bailey Jr. (R-New Mexico)
Edward Buck (R-Utah)
Allen Bunch (R-Georgia)
Hugh Cort III (R-Alabama)
John Cox (R-Illinois)
Dan Gilbert (R-North Carolina)
Robert "Bob" Haines (R-New Hampshire)
Curtis Hayward (R-Texas)
Millie Howard (R-Ohio)
Walter D. "Donnie" Kennedy (R-Georgia)
Elvena E. Lloyd-Duffie (R-Texas)
Fred Ogin (R-Oregon)
William "Doc" Raven (R-Oregon)
Marshall Sanders (R-California)
Michael Charles Smith (R-Oregon)
Richard Michael Smith (R-Texas)
Vern Wuensche (R-Texas)

[Bjorn Against]

24. Saint Michael Jesus Archangel (R-Michigan)

I would love to see a candidate with that name in the debates.

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. He should get some votes solely based on that name

:rofl: