If the Libertarians got it into the debate, what would happen?

Anyone want to guess?

My best guess is that it would hurt Bush, and might even lead to a win by Kerry. The logic in play here is that Libertarians are closer ideologically with Republicans (favoring small government). Its a tough call though, because I get the impression that lots of Bush's supporters are pretty dedicated. Even though many of Kerry's supporters may be simply anti-Bush, their move towards Kerry rather than Nader shows a willingness to vote Democrat in the name of change.

Or maybe.... a Badnarik landslide?

What do you think would happen? Is anyone opposed to letting Badnarik into the debate?

Edit:typo in subject

[edit on 11-10-2004 by PeaceBeWithYou]

Originally posted by PeaceBeWithYou
Is anyone opposed to letting Badnarik into the debate?
[edit on 11-10-2004 by PeaceBeWithYou]

The Federal Government.

They have made it clear to the media that this race will be between TWO people only

I dont think Badnarik would win just by being allowed in this debate but I would be willing to bet we would get matching funds next election. (If you get more than 5% of the popular vote you get matching funds)

And the next election would be a whole other ball game

Originally posted by PeaceBeWithYou
Anyone want to guess?

My best guess is that it would hurt Bush, and might even lead to a win by Kerry. The logic in play here is that Libertarians are closer ideologically with Republicans (favoring small government). Its a tough call though, because I get the impression that lots of Bush's supporters are pretty dedicated. Even though many of Kerry's supporters may be simply anti-Bush, their move towards Kerry rather than Nader shows a willingness to vote Democrat in the name of change.

Or maybe.... a Badnarik landslide?

What do you think would happen? Is anyone opposed to letting Badnarik into the debate?

Edit:typo in subject

[edit on 11-10-2004 by PeaceBeWithYou]

I agree with your assesment. I am a conservative guy, and am generally impressed with Libertarian ideals.

However, like many conservatives, I will not even consider voting for anyone but Bush, because that would be akin to allowing Kerry into office.

Kerry is the worst of the three BY FAR. He has a more liberal voting record then Ted Kennedy and Hillery Clinton.

Amuk...your spot on there.

I would guess quite a few undecides and others would join 3rd parties. You know, the best thing about being a third party supporter is that many get along well. I'm voting for Nader, yet I would like to see Badnarik do very well or even become president, which is something you don't see with the big two. The Big 2 are so filled with hate toward each other they forget what being civil and democratic means, and essentially are in shambles. If they were not in shambles they would not have to resort to scare tactics, and telling people "A vote for _____ is a vote for _____."

Originally posted by PeaceBeWithYou
Is anyone opposed to letting Badnarik into the debate?

[edit on 11-10-2004 by PeaceBeWithYou]

Not at all. I think the third party candidates should be allowed into the debates and get more exposure, to reaffirm why we vote for one of the two major candidates !

I'm totally kidding. I would love to see third party candidates taken more seriously. They have great ideas and valid points. Not to mention more competition makes everyone strive to do better.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by Anathema]

I have always felt, and said many, many times on here, that the American people need more choices. The big 2, added together, represent less then half of the people in this country. We need to hear from other voices so that people can truly find the candidate that represents them.
That way we aren't left to choose heads or tails.