You make a compelling case (0.00 / 0)

but I wouldn't advise it. Potential to backfire seems great.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:40:00 PM CDT

How would it backfire? .. (0.00 / 0)

remember when McCain was trying to get Obama to do all sorts of "town halls"?  Turn it back on McCain.

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:42:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, Bob Barr Could Win Georgia, I Suppose (4.00 / 5)

Plus, pterodactyls could come back to life, and peck our eyes out.  There's always that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:45:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Siphoning off anti-Clinton votes? (4.00 / 1)

I'm really curious to see what would happen if more people knew that the guy on the Libertarian ticket was one of the driving forces behind the Clinton impeachment.  Could provide an outlet for the really virulent anti-Clintonites who are still dissatisfied with McCain, too.

His views on the War on Drugs are pretty interesting now, too.    He's not explicitly pro-legalization, but he's in favor and medical marijuana and easing up or eliminating penalties for many drug-related crimes.

I could definitely see him causing McCain all kinds of headaches in the South and in the Mountain West with that combination.  I can't help but think there's a whole lot of pot-smoking Republicans who'd jump at the chance to simultaneously vote against the Clintons and for marijuana legalization.  Obviously a distortion of a lot of things, but it does make a certain kind of sense.

---

by: L Boom @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:07:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Woops (4.00 / 1)

Was agreeing with Calvin.  Just looked back and it kinda looks like I was disagreeing there.

---

by: L Boom @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:10:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

three against one ... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:51:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This Is Just Too (4.00 / 4)

(A) Smart
(B) Logical
(C) Data (aka "reality")-based
(D) Air-tight
(E) Brilliant
(F) Game-changing

to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.

God, how I hope I'm wrong!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:42:59 PM CDT

True, But there are 1980 parallels (4.00 / 2)

We all know the pundits are underscoring similarities between the 1980 elections and these. Maybe the similarity between the Nader, Barr, etc crowd is to John Anderson, the Liberal GOP'er who took some of the people who were angry with Carter, but scared about Reagan.

People were scared about Reagan, b/c they thought he was a psycho bomber. Although the unease with Obama is more racial in nature, it is still deep-rooted. Sometimes, we forget that Reagan barely broke the 50% (50.7%) barrier, so we should remeber the reason Reagan swept in 1980 (not in '84) is because of Anderson, who substracted so many votes from people who were angry about Carter, but uneasy with Ford, that reagan won by almost 11 points with only 50.7%, never breaking by much the 50% barrier until shortly before the election.

Does this mean realignment? I hope so...  

---

by: lubyarco @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:16:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops... slight typo (0.00 / 0)

I should have written Reagan not ford, in that last post. So maybe we should try and remember that people are about as angry with Bush as they were with Carter, and Obama does not threathen to bomb the kremlin. Neither did he start his campaign in the town that 3 civil rights workers were killed (or something like that). But Obama is not white and not "american" (whatever that means), so we should not be surprised people are aprehensive. So we maybe the parallels between 1980 and 2008 are strong.

And maybe, just maybe, when John McCain flubs the Iraq-Pakistan border again, and Obama seems more knowledgable about policy than McSame (like Reagan showed he had no horns in '80) Obama sweeps.

On another note, there are some people who say that the pattern of the 36 years between realignments that was so dramatically overturned by 2004 (boy was that a mistake, because everybody said it was going to be), because there were realignments in 1824 (which Jackson won and  won finally in 1828, cementing the realignment), the 1860 elections with Lincoln, the 1896 with McKinley which Rove studied so much (curious note... like our current realignment, this one was attempted after a 36 year period of Rep dominance already under way, but it was succesful in large part because of Teddy Roosevelt, McCain's one time idol. Maybe the McCain of '00 could have done the realignment, or if Bush had not convinced himself his wins were because people wanted crazy winger policies instead of 9/11 fears, and kept to the center, he could have been McKinley, or TR.)

We also have the 1932 realignment with FDR, and the 1968 with Nixon, where the great conservative revolution began in earnest, maybe not in governance but in politics and cultural attitudes. We were due for one in 2004. My guess as to why it was in 2008 and not in 2004 is because the pattern was altered by the Carter-Watergate interregnum, because absent Watergate, Agnew (or Reagan, who were both very similar in political roots at the time) would have won in '76. Carter won a squeaker after Ford's pardon of Nixon, so absent that, whichever one of Reagan or Agnew wins, and we have a democrat realignment in 2004 defeating after Clinton wins in '88 and '92 and Bob Dole in '96 and '00... (now im reallly stretching it, arent I... )

---

by: lubyarco @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:33:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only Nader and Barr (4.00 / 2)

Barr appeals much more to right-wing libertarians, and Nader is running a campaign based on ego. Whereas McKinney offers something to the left and a few on the left might become so angered by Obama repudiating us time and again that she'll draw their votes. I just don't see what kind of voter might support McKinney, then McCain.

Nader is a vote for any Democrat but McCain, McKinney is a vote for more than a Democrat. So it makes no sense for Obama to invite her.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:45:22 PM CDT

McKinney will be on many more States' ballots (0.00 / 0)

than Nader.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 18:58:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How it can backfire (4.00 / 1)

If Obama is perceived of as the front runner rather than as one of two candidates. What I mean by this is that like in the primary where people went after a certain candidate like Clinton because she was the frontrunner, the same could happen here. Obama would be subjected to attacks from both McCain, but also the other candidates. Now, this could also be a plus in that it makes him seem more of the center candidate, but it's also a gamble to do so if some of their attacks hit home.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:47:40 PM CDT

Right (4.00 / 1)

Attacks from other candidates.  Nader, in particular, would probably hit Obama hard on residual troops, his FISA vote, etc.

In any case, doing this opens the door for lots of unpredictable, off-message dialogue, and why would a campaign with incredible message discipline and a significant lead in all polling invite unpredictability?  To say nothing of the merits of this idea, I don't see it gaining any traction with those parties who make these decisions.

---

by: TValley @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:53:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's the thing about debates... (4.00 / 2)

No matter how much sense Kucinich, Gravel or Paul made in the debates, they always ended up making the mainstream candidates look good. Of course, it is very debatable if any of those candidates made any sense to begin with... Nader or Barr might be different animals.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:27:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DANGEROUS - because the key is making sure Barr and Nader's growing (0.00 / 0)

percentages come ONLY from McCain supporters. I would not do anything that offered a choice between Obama and Barr or Nader. Instead, I would focus on things that showed a choice between McCain and Barr or Nader. We need to make sure disenchanted McCain supporters cast protest votes reflective of their beliefs rather than risk peeling any votes away from Obama.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

---

by: Reality Bites Back @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:52:55 PM CDT

Hmm (4.00 / 3)

If Obama debates the third party candidates without McCain's participation, there is the risk that he will be lowered to their level in the eyes of the public. Why debate someone who is polling at one-twentieth of your own support?

A debate with McCain also included does sound good, with the caveats of "if it goes well for Obama" (see also bruhrabbit's post above), and "if the third parties continue to draw votes from McCain and not Obama" (which, I think, is far from a given).

---

by: illissius @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:57:13 PM CDT

How about this scenario: (0.00 / 0)

Obama invites Barr, Nader, and McKinney to debate with he and McCain.

McCain rejects the idea.

Obama gets to look more open-minded and inclusive: the very traits he is trying to push in the campaign.

he never has to debate without McCain, and any dismissal of the idea by McCain benefits Obama.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:47:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Disagree (4.00 / 2)

those polling numbers are very fluid and I just don't put much stake in them.  if this were, september or october, I would agree, but we're not there yet.  i think those numbers are just the float of unfocused independents drifting to something different.  It's essentially a "pox on all their houses" vote that Nader and Barr are sharing right now.  I wouldn't be surprised if when the GOP machine unloads with their "Obamaisaterroristmuslimarroganelitist" message that will be flooding the air waives in September, combined with the media's on-again love affair with Johnny Mac the war hero after the GOP convention, those unfocused floats who are flirting with third-party candidates could drift back into the McCain camp.  

Bowers is one of the best political analysts out there, but I think he is too cute here.  Its just too early to know if his thesis is right.  

---

by: roberto_jordan @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 14:59:10 PM CDT

it would be real conspicuous (0.00 / 0)

to debate Barr and Nader but not McKinney. Why not just ignore  the vanity campaigns?

---

by: AliceDem @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:09:16 PM CDT

Of those three... (0.00 / 0)

...only Nader seems to be a vanity campaign. I say everyone, everywhere start ignoring him immediately!

And who the hell is still voting for him, anyway?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:29:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good idea (4.00 / 2)

that won't happen.

The only downside is that it would counteract the media brownout of Nader and allow him to remind progressives that he's not the racist monster of the blogopshere's imagination but an articulate leader who happens to be right on almost all the issues. Combine this debate with the selection of, say, Even Bayh, and you're begging for trouble on your left.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:14:15 PM CDT

Bowers again demonstrates he doesn't know how to interpret a poll (0.00 / 0)

This is a lame suggestion that doesn't pass the laugh test.  Not only will such a move be clearly transparent and quickly backfire, the basic conclusion--that helping the third party candidates increase their support will hurt McCain more than Obama--was not measured by the polls nor is it supported by their results for numerous reasons: (a) there is likely methodology differences in the polls, so comparing polls with third party candidates to polls without is like comparing apples to oranges; (b) poll results and actual votes for third party candidates are likely to be very different in swing states where it really counts; (c) the polls do not and cannot measure what happens when the numbers change: even if the current third party supporters hurt McCain more than Obama, that does not mean that the additional third party supports would also come more from McCain than Obama, and in fact, you could argue the opposite: that voters who are going to stray from McCain already have, and any effort to increase the number of strays will come more from Obama than McCain.

In conclusion, Bowers once again demonstrates that he does not know how to interpret poll results and is quick to draw conclusions that are not supported by the data.

---

by: Allen @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:14:54 PM CDT

Its true right now polls that include Barr and Nader inflate Obama's lead (4.00 / 1)

but I think thats the result of a specific constituency of dissatisfied voters who hate Obama but don't really like McCain. It isn't clear to me that any further support Barr and Nader gain will be from McCain supporters. If they were to pick up support as a result of a debate it seems to me we have no reason to think that wouldn't come from from the same place their current support comes from.

This could very easily end up cutting into Obama's support. And this should be obvious: just recall how counterintuitive the phenomenon of Nader steeling votes from McCain is!

---

by: Jack @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:15:29 PM CDT

How many will stay? (4.00 / 1)

Third party support tends to fall as the election approaches. This idea seems mostly designed to ensure that Nader and Barr supporters maintain their preferences by presenting them as legitimate choices.

That's not to say that it's without risk, but it's designed more to retain the equilibrium than anything else.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:06:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The last time a third party (4.00 / 2)

candidate was included in a national debate was 1992.  At the time Clinton had a 10+ lead which bled away as Perot gained traction.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:48:07 PM CDT

fun idea by bored pundits dreading 100 more days to go (0.00 / 0)

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:53:59 PM CDT

Cynthia Mckinney please, not Nader (0.00 / 0)

I'm all for third party candidates getting a voice in the debate.  Vanity candidates like Nader can screw themselves.

---

by: Velvet Elvis @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 15:58:58 PM CDT

I think it would backfire (0.00 / 0)

As someone else has already said, I suspect that this gambit would be interpreted as transparent politics (because frankly, that's what it would be).  In fact, because this would seem so transparent, it might raise questions about Obama's willingness to debate McCain more often (or do those town hall things).

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:02:22 PM CDT

I think people are missing the point .. (4.00 / 1)

is McCain going to want to partake in the kinds of debates Chris talked about?  The whole point is to put McCain on the spot .. make him uncomfortable

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:08:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But it won't put McCain on the spot if it looks political (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:43:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It wouldn't at this point ... (0.00 / 0)

McCain's did .. because McCain put it out the day(of or after) Obama clinched the nomination

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:07:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama should raise the profile of Barr and Nader, maybe. Debate them, no. (4.00 / 4)

I think Bowers skipped directly from "higher profile for these candidates is good for Obama" to "Obama should debate them."  That's probably too large of an intellectual skip.  Going as far as an actual debate invites a great many potential problems, and there are other ways to accomplish the main objective than that.  For starters, Obama could easily start mentioning Barr (and Nader?) frequently, and that alone would insert him into the media conversation and thence into the public eye and mind.  Consistently contrasting his position with that of McCain AND Barr AND Nader helps reinforce his own opinions as sensible, and increases the visibility and probably the final vote tally of the Minors, and doesn't allow those candidates to choose their points of attack on him as a debate would, but leaves him in control of the times and subjects on which to invoke their opinions.  Similar upside, less downside, and no need to depend on McCain to accept either.

=======================

More interesting though is the dynamic that causes the Minors to be helpful to him.  That dynamic is simply that the campaign is shaping up as a referendum on Obama, rather than a two-person, two-party race.  The fact that "a Democrat" is wanted is quite solidly established, but "this Democrat" (ok fine, "this black Democrat") is still a problem for a lot of people whom I must sullenly concede still hold the franchise.  So there's a much larger pool than normal of people who really don't want to vote for the leading candidate, but have no affinity for the trailing candidate either.  Minor candidates give these people someone to vote for besides the theoretically dangerous trailing candidate, and thus, a way to vote against Obama without actually damaging him.

So, Nader as a home for those oddball "Hillary > McCain > Obama" people is a good thing for Obama, and Barr as a home for disaffected Republicans who still can't vote black is a good thing for him too.  If you accept that there's a pool of people who Just Can't Vote For Him, then adding candidates and splitting that vote off McCain is a good thing.

I'd kindof prefer to actually go for those voters hard, run a whole campaign that forces them to choose between McCain and Obama, and in the end let reality compel them to vote for the black guy even over their own objections.  It's kindof the difference between winning 48-42-5-5, versus 51-49.  The second campaign is closer and scarier but actually musters a majority, while the first set of numbers shows a 400-EV win, but no majority.  Forcing voters to pull the lever for our side means we have their buy-in down the road in a way we otherwise won't.  It means they've admitted to themselves that they agree with us -- a big and lasting deal.  Still, it's kindof a masochist who chooses to go for a 51-49 scenario when a 48-42-5-5 is available.

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:10:03 PM CDT

Obama majority? (0.00 / 0)

Not gonna happen.  Dems don't win with a majority - last time that happened was Carter, I think, and there were no real 3rd party candidates that time round.

P.S.  I think this is a great idea, and is democratic as well - there should be at least one 5 way debate (or 6 way, if Chuck Baldwin gets on enough ballots).

---

by: green in brooklyn @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unlikely this will happen . . . (0.00 / 0)

Nader will point out the disjunctions between Obama's progressive/change rhetotic and his actual political moves.

And despite all the reiterations of the same lame talking points --Nader is a spoiler, egostistical, etc.--he is a very good speaker when it comes to (re)framing and articulating the issues.  Given how tightly the talking points, messaging, and issues are controlled by the parties in Presidential campaigns, there is no chance he would ever be included in the debates.  

---

by: justinh @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 16:43:54 PM CDT

Pointing out political bigotry (4.00 / 1)

is not a lame talking point.

If every candidate has a constitutional right to run for the office of the presidency, then each candidate has a right to earn as many votes as they can to win. Therefore, either all candidates (Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, McKinney, etc) are spoilers, or non are spoilers.

The constitution doesn't establish one standard of participation for "major" party candidates and a different one for "third-party" candidates.

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:09:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you completely.  By "lame talking points," I was referring to the name-calling people resort to against Nader, and the cynical and illogical view of democracy that often presupposes--a view I think you point out well.  

---

by: justinh @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:37:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My sincere apology (0.00 / 0)

for misunderstanding your statements. My brain shuts down and my emotions kick-in whenever I see the word "spoiler" and "Nader" in the same sentence. Thanks for pointing it out.

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 20:35:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree for different reasons (4.00 / 3)

It's a total betrayal of democracy to exclude candidates with a mathematical chance of winning (i.e. on the ballot in enough states) from participating in presidential debates. To privilege the private party media polls as an indicator of electoral viability -- our actual current system for presidential debates -- is insanely unfair and fraudulent.

There is no good reason that "trusted" media corporations should be allowed to decide who is viable enough to debate, especially when participation in the debates is, in itself, a major boost in establishing a candidate's viability, obviously.

Obama can make a great magnanimous statement by sponsoring open debates with all five nationally viable presidential candidates.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 17:20:53 PM CDT

Potential FISA bombshell (4.00 / 1)

I'd like to see Barr there, so he could excoriate both McCain and Obama for their support of FISA.

Barr could emerge a big winner at the expense of both McCain and Obama.

If Obama is too gutless to challenge the idea of the national security state, let someone else do it for him.

---

by: Taylor @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 17:40:46 PM CDT

Absolutely. (4.00 / 3)

Nader, Barr and Mckinney should participate in every debate with McCain and Obama.

Yet, your statement, "So, I hope that Obama comes out with a proposal to include third-party candidates in at least one debate this cycle," betrays your power as a citizen to demand it. Yes we can (and should), but we won't.

So we end up with the likes of McCain and Obama who feel obliged to fulfill the wishes of their big money contributors and neo-liberal global policy wonks, rather than their obligation to voters who own the keys to the White House.

Citizens (We the People) own this republic, and it's not up to Obama or a corporation or a major political party to decide whether third-party candidates participate in our democratic process. Truly, we get the government we deserve.

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 18:56:41 PM CDT

Obama vs. McKinney & Nader in 2008? (4.00 / 2)

Given U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Member Obama's opposition to immediately withdrawing all U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, ending all Pentagon Iraq and Afghanistan war budget appropriations and immediately beginning impeachment proceedings against Cheney and Bush, it's not surprising that the Obama campaign is apparently afraid to appear in a televised debate with Nader and McKinney before the scheduled 2008 Denver Democratic National Convention antiwar street protests.

But if U.S. antiwar voters demand that Obama be required to debate Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader on television prior to the November 2008 election, it's quite possible that McKinney and Nader will actually get more antiwar votes than Barack "Send More Troops To Afghanistan" Obama on Election Day--despite the Obama campaign's promotion by the Big Media and bankrolling by Big Money corporate donors and billionaires like Penny Pritzker.

---

by: oldmole @ Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 19:08:28 PM CDT

What a totally excellent suggestion ... (0.00 / 0)

How about a pledge page where folks who support this idea could commit to donate x dollars to Obama if he agrees to include Nader, Barr and Mckinney in the debates?

twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

---

by: Chino Blanco @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM CDT