Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[shanek]

Go ahead, feign more ignorance. Wave your hands, scream all you like.

This is really pathetic. I wonder how far you will take this self-destruction of yours.

Go ahead, refuse to answer direct questions. Continue with your ad hominem attacks. You're only letting everyone see what a pseudo-skeptic you really are.

 

[shanek]

I want to know how shanek knows that the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters.

The claim about registerd voters had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Badnarik's poll. It pointed to a discrepancy as to what the CPD said and what they apparently did.

He needs to show that the CPD demands just that.

Which is very difficult, as the CPD apparently hasn't bothered telling anyone which polls they used. But every time someone points to a poll supporting the CPD's exclusions, it's always a poll that is either of likely voters only, doesn't include Badnarik, or both.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I want to know how shanek knows that the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters.

If he can't show that, then he can only show that those who wanted Badnarik to be part of the debates consist of polled people - that is, someone who does not (necessarily) vote.

If the CPD demands that those polled also vote, then his claim that Badnarik should attend the debates falls flat.

But the comparison fell flat a long time ago. One poll looks at which candidate someone would vote for, the other whether some candidate should be allowed to join the debates.

Two completely different questions, no matter the makeup of those polled.

The fact that this comparison isn't valid, however, doesn't really address shanek's criticism that more candidates should be allowed to join and that 15% is an arbitrary (low) level.

 

[Rob Lister]

The fact that this comparison isn't valid, however, doesn't really address shanek's criticism that more candidates should be allowed to join and that 15% is an arbitrary (low) level.

HIGH level, arbitrarily HIGH level, I think is his assertion.

I think it's about right but on thinking about it, it pretty much assures that no more than four candidates will ever debate, especially if any one or two of the four are well known and well backed.

I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. Maybe 10% is a better level.

I never did get what Shank's candidate was (actually) polling at. Last I heard it was less than 1%.

I suppose by Denmarks standards, he'd be in there. Even at 1%, that would represent some 1.5 million possible voters (but check my math - u.s. pop 300m and about half are possible voters)

 

[shanek]

I never did get what Shank's candidate was (actually) polling at. Last I heard it was less than 1%.

It depends on the poll. Some have him below 1%, at least one has him as high as 8%. It depends on how the poll is structured, how the questions are asked, what questions lead up to it, how they "screen" likely voters or if they just to adults or registered voters, etc.

I suppose by Denmarks standards, he'd be in there. Even at 1%, that would represent some 1.5 million possible voters (but check my math - u.s. pop 300m and about half are possible voters)

Heck, just look at everything he (well, the LP, really) had to go through just to get on the ballot.

(And I think I remember reading that 1% is about a million voters.)

 

[CFLarsen]

The claim about registerd voters had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Badnarik's poll. It pointed to a discrepancy as to what the CPD said and what they apparently did.

...

Which is very difficult, as the CPD apparently hasn't bothered telling anyone which polls they used. But every time someone points to a poll supporting the CPD's exclusions, it's always a poll that is either of likely voters only, doesn't include Badnarik, or both.

O.........K.

Time to recap.

You and Badnarik want Badnarik to appear in the debates, because of this:

"A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates"

You and Badnarik point to the Rasmussen poll: It says 68%.

Now, you said:

"The CPD requires 15% in five national polls (most of which don't even give respondents the option of any third-party candidates) in order to participate in the debates."

And:

"68% of American voters want to see Badnarik in the debates."

As we have seen, this is only one poll, and it is unclear whether the polled are from the national electorate. As you have conceded, it probably isn't. Ergo, this poll doesn't count.

Badnarik needs 15% in 5 national polls, drawn from the national electorate. He has none.

That Badnarik has 68% of people in one poll saying that he should attend the debates is an entirely different matter than Badnarik needing 15% in 5 national polls, in order for him to attend the debates.

Now, I am not going to address your faulty logic any more, but we can look at the two points separately:

"Polls are not a valid measure of who should be allowed into the debates and therefore Badnarik should be included."

If polls are not a valid measure, then you cannot point to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for Badnarik attending the debates. And neither can Badnarik.

"The 15% requirement of the CPD is invalid as it does not accurately represent the will of the people as far as who should be in the debates are concerned and therefore Badnarik should be included."

• You feel that he needs 15% of the voting pie is unreasonable.
• You also point to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for him to attend the debates. A poll of voters and non-voters.
• But then, you don't want to go with a poll at all, because it doesn't accurately represent the will of the people.

So, why should Badnarik be allowed in the debates?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

O.........K.

Time to recap.

You and Badnarik want Badnarik to appear in the debates, because of this:



You and Badnarik point to the Rasmussen poll: It says 68%.

Now, you said:



And:



As we have seen, this is only one poll, and it is unclear whether the polled are from the national electorate. As you have conceded, it probably isn't. Ergo, this poll doesn't count.

Badnarik needs 15% in 5 national polls, drawn from the national electorate. He has none.

That Badnarik has 68% of people in one poll saying that he should attend the debates is an entirely different matter than Badnarik needing 15% in 5 national polls, in order for him to attend the debates.

Now, I am not going to address your faulty logic any more, but we can look at the two points separately:



If polls are not a valid measure, then you cannot point to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for Badnarik attending the debates. And neither can Badnarik.

• You feel that he needs 15% of the voting pie is unreasonable.
• You also point to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for him to attend the debates. A poll of voters and non-voters.
• But then, you don't want to go with a poll at all, because it doesn't accurately represent the will of the people.

So, why should Badnarik be allowed in the debates?

Nice summation.

I predict a hissy fit is imminent.

 

[shanek]

[snip Claus talking out of his arse]

Now, I am not going to address your faulty logic any more

You never addressed it in the first place! As evidenced by this:

If polls are not a valid measure, then you cannot point to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for Badnarik attending the debates.

When I SPECIFICALLY SAID that if polls are not a valid measure then the CPD's 15% requirement is invalid as well as it's based on those same invalid polls.

And neither can Badnarik.

And neither can the CPD exclude him on that basis.

So, why should Badnarik be allowed in the debates?

Because he meets the Constitutional requirements for the office and he is on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning the electoral college. That's the first two of the CPD's requirements, and they are more than reasonable.

But what your bigoted mind wants to do is dismiss one poll you don't like in favor of others. You can't have it both ways. If polls are invalid, then the CPD's polling criteria is INVALID. If you allow for those polls to be valid, then you HAVE to allow for the possibility of the Bandarik poll being valid.

 

[Donks]

One question, the 5 polls that the CPD requires have to say that 15% of those polled (filtered whichever way is necesary) would vote for the candidate or that 15% would like to see the candidate in the debate?

 

[Larspeart]

Woo Hoo!

I finally made an impact on those two! Neither one has said 'liar' or 'strawman' since I pointed it out!


See? One small person CAN make a difference in this world!


(now that I have done my good deed for the day, I am going to go to bed. Why chance wrecking a good thing, ?)

 

[Furious]

One question, the 5 polls that the CPD requires have to say that 15% of those polled (filtered whichever way is necesary) would vote for the candidate or that 15% would like to see the candidate in the debate?

As I stated earlier, 15% of people polled would probably want to have Jessica Simpsonn and Britney Spears wrestling in jello at the debate, so that's what makes opinion polls invalid.

The CPD has specific guidelines for who it has at its debates, and Badnarik doesn't fit all of them. Since the one requirement that he doesn't meet is an arbitrary percentage of likely voters, Shane claims it is invalid, acting like it is the same thing as an opinion poll, when it would be more accurate to call it a measurement.

In an opinion poll listed by Shane, 68% of the people polled would like to see Badnarik at the debates.

What's making this thread retarded is that Shane makes the claim that ALL polls are invalid for determining who should be at the debates, simply because of the apple and orange comparison of a poll of likely percentage of the votes with an opinion poll of whether a specific candidate should be allowed.

The 15% of likely voters requirement is not an opinion poll, it is a (relatively) objective measure of how legitimate the candidate is, based on how many people are probably going to vote for him. It might be unreasonably high (it certainly is arbitrary), but Shane is not offering a different percentage, he wants the whole measurement thrown out, acting like it is an opinion poll, when it really isn't. It's just a measure of how many likely votes each candidate will get.

My issue with Shane's analysis is that he's perfectly fine with the other arbitrary measurements the CPD has, but because his particular candidate doesn't meet one of the CPD's objective requirements, that requirement should be thrown out.

Notice he doesn't rail against the other objective requirements, like U.S. citizenship (what if Schwartzenegger met all the other requirements and was obviously popular?) or having a mathematical chance of winning in the electoral college (what if a candidate is able to get 49% of the electoral ballots and 40% of the voters nationwide were going to vote for him/her. Wouldn't that also be enough to be "debate worthy"?), most likely because Badnarik happens to have them.

 

[CFLarsen]

You never addressed it in the first place!

Yes, I did. I pointed out that your logic was faulty. I am not the only one, mind you.

When I SPECIFICALLY SAID that if polls are not a valid measure then the CPD's 15% requirement is invalid as well as it's based on those same invalid polls.

So, Badnarik is wrong in pointing to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for him to join the debates?

And neither can the CPD exclude him on that basis.

Yes, they can. They did. If it is illegal, let us know how the lawsuit went.

Because he meets the Constitutional requirements for the office and he is on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning the electoral college. That's the first two of the CPD's requirements, and they are more than reasonable.

What is a "mathematical chance for winning the electoral college"? How do you compute that (without resorting to polls)?

How many states does he need? It seems very much to me that you are simply pointing to existing "conditions" and then say: "Hey, look! My man fulfills every condition!!"

But what your bigoted mind wants to do is dismiss one poll you don't like in favor of others.

You do have a serious reading comprehension problem. Nowhere have I claimed that.

You can't have it both ways. If polls are invalid, then the CPD's polling criteria is INVALID. If you allow for those polls to be valid, then you HAVE to allow for the possibility of the Bandarik poll being valid.

Because he already fulfills two conditions you simply declared were necessary to fulfill?

 

[CFLarsen]

I finally made an impact on those two! Neither one has said 'liar' or 'strawman' since I pointed it out!

That is a lie and a strawman!!

 

[CFLarsen]

Nice summation.

Thank you.

I predict a hissy fit is imminent.

[snip Claus talking out of his arse]

But what your bigoted mind wants to do

Close enough. Shanek cannot seem to let go of his foul mouth.

 

[DanishDynamite]

HIGH level, arbitrarily HIGH level, I think is his assertion.

You're right, my mistake. It was late.

I think it's about right but on thinking about it, it pretty much assures that no more than four candidates will ever debate, especially if any one or two of the four are well known and well backed.

I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. Maybe 10% is a better level.

I never did get what Shank's candidate was (actually) polling at. Last I heard it was less than 1%.

Actually, I don't see why there should be any limit at all. I suppose that in order for the debate not to be too unwieldy one could perhaps limit it to the top 6-8 candidates.

I suppose by Denmarks standards, he'd be in there. Even at 1%, that would represent some 1.5 million possible voters (but check my math - u.s. pop 300m and about half are possible voters)

Actually, Denmark doesn't have a history of such debates. Instead, the main national channel is obligated to let each eligible party present its program and be grilled by a couple of journalists during primetime. Size of party is immaterial as long as it is eligible for election.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The 15% of likely voters requirement is not an opinion poll, it is a (relatively) objective measure of how legitimate the candidate is, based on how many people are probably going to vote for him.

No, it is still an opinion poll.

It might be unreasonably high (it certainly is arbitrary), but Shane is not offering a different percentage, he wants the whole measurement thrown out, acting like it is an opinion poll, when it really isn't. It's just a measure of how many likely votes each candidate will get.

Once again, it is an opinion poll. The difference between shanek's 68% and the 15% requirement is in the question being asked. Which is a fairly important difference.

shanek, as is his wont, has gotten himself into a corner trying to defend this initial mistaken comparison, but the underlying opinion that the 15% requirement is unfair and serves to support the two major parties, is IMO a very fair and relevant criticism.

 

[shanek]

One question, the 5 polls that the CPD requires have to say that 15% of those polled (filtered whichever way is necesary) would vote for the candidate or that 15% would like to see the candidate in the debate?

Would vote for the candidate.

 

[shanek]

The CPD has specific guidelines for who it has at its debates, and Badnarik doesn't fit all of them. Since the one requirement that he doesn't meet is an arbitrary percentage of likely voters, Shane claims it is invalid, acting like it is the same thing as an opinion poll, when it would be more accurate to call it a measurement.

Um, they are opinion polls, taken by the same polling companies using the same methodology. And pretty much every Presidential election shows how unreliable they are.

In an opinion poll listed by Shane, 68% of the people polled would like to see Badnarik at the debates.

Which is no more or less a measurement than a poll of who people will vote for.

The 15% of likely voters requirement is not an opinion poll,

Yes, it is. That's ALL it is.

it is a (relatively) objective measure of how legitimate the candidate is,

No, it isn't. Not AT ALL. Again, election after election shows us how unreliable they are.

It's just a measure of how many likely votes each candidate will get.

Even if it is, it's a completely inaccurate measurement, and therefore is still invalid.

My issue with Shane's analysis is that he's perfectly fine with the other arbitrary measurements the CPD has,

The Constitution is NOT arbitrary. Neither is the electoral college majority. Man, are you reaching...

Notice he doesn't rail against the other objective requirements, like U.S. citizenship (what if Schwartzenegger met all the other requirements and was obviously popular?)

Because that would require a Constitutional amendment, something the CPD is powerless to do.

or having a mathematical chance of winning in the electoral college

Again, this is how we elect Presidents under the Constitution. The CPD cannot amend the Constitution.

More lame apologetics I have not seen in a long time...

 

[shanek]

So, Badnarik is wrong in pointing to the Rasmussen poll as a reason for him to join the debates?

Not as long as the CPD insists their polls, with all their problems and biases, are valid.

What is a "mathematical chance for winning the electoral college"? How do you compute that (without resorting to polls)?

You need 270 electoral votes to win. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes. You take all the states where a candidate is on the ballot and add up the electoral votes. Then you see if it's 270 or more.

Again, this is all UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Nowhere have I claimed that.

Uh, yes, you have. You are defending the CPD's 15% polling requirement while saying that Badnarik's citing of the 68% poll is invalid. That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

Because he already fulfills two conditions you simply declared were necessary to fulfill?

No, because he fulfills two conditions THE CONSTITUTION says is necessary to fulfill.

 

[shanek]

Close enough. Shanek cannot seem to let go of his foul mouth.

Again, I have used no profanity. You are a desperate person slinging ad hominems.