- cross-posted to:
- uspolitics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- uspolitics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15646050
Seven in 10 voters in a new poll want to see third-party and independent candidates in presidential debates this cycle, as President Biden and former President Trump prepare to go head-to-head.
The latest Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found 79 percent of voters want Biden and Trump to debate, while 71 percent think those debates should include candidates from outside the major parties if they clear a viable threshold — with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. listed as an example of one such candidate.
Seven in 10 voters in the poll also say they’ve made up their mind about who they’ll vote for in the fall — but half of independents say they’re still undecided, which could have an impact in what’s gearing up to be a competitive race.
The survey was conducted from May 15-16 among 1,660 registered voters by The Harris Poll and HarrisX. The margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2 percentage points.
I don’t disagree he’s got no chance at winning and is just going to hurt one of the 2 only real choices. Buuuuuut, having these fringe candidates on a stage with a national audience in a way that allows them to answer questions and critique the major candidates is a good thing. Someone who isn’t afraid of losing saying what they believe and baiting a real answer in a real discussion is what’s needed. The “debates” are too useless. Nobody says anything. It’s all talking points (marketing slogans) with deflection. Anything that is remotely contentious isn’t discussed or deflected in a prepared statement. You have to say certain things and do certain things like some weird ceremony but it has zero value.
For example, flag pins… Really? If a veteran asks a question you must pretend it’s the best question you’ve ever heard, thank them for their service with worthless over the top platitudes, and then say nothing of value in your answer.
I bet Chatgpt could write a transcript of the debate and it would be accurate. That’s exactly what LLMs do, regurgitate speech patterns with no meaning behind it.
That’s just it though, the June debate will be 5 months from the election and he’s not on the ballot in enough states to get the 270 electoral college votes required to win.
That means he’s not a “major candidate.”
The debates are intended to be an issues based debate between the candidates who can win, it’s not to help non-candidates gain relevancy.
If they can’t organize well enough to get on the ballot, they aren’t organized enough to actually be President.
No you misunderstood my point. The fringe candidates are the only ones that actually coax out real answers from the major candidates. The game has changed. It used to be (the whole thing is really modern, but whatever) the host asked tough questions, and the candidates responded. Now the hosts ask soft balls and all you get are prepared statements.
But the fringe idiot candidates can basically yell and scream at the other candidates and push them to say or not say something on record. And if enough audience/national-viewers hear the question and want the answer, the candidate has to put out a statement. From that you’ll learn just how meaningless it is or not.
And that’s where a lot of these special interest deals are forged. The major candidate agrees to give up a very small concession that may be of importance to a few fringe voters and overall meaningless to their campaign, and gets those voters. But if nobody presses them on the issue, they give up nothing and they still get the votes. It’s better to have some balances in there for a 2 party winner takes all system. It’s the only parliamentary part of the process. Forming a coalition before election.