-19

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
-19 points (22.9% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4146 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS