The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

[wareyin]

No one proposed "allowing any random person in to the debates". Nice strawman.

Those who are proposing that Stein, who cannot get 5% of the vote, participate are proposing to allow any random person in to the debates.

Why do you think my "3 mil votes" is based on something that not yet happened? Any reasonable human would think it is more like "count of votes based on polls" or something like that - possible to determine right now. Looks like you aren't reasonable.

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch?" Same thing here, don't count your votes before they are cast. Candidates like Stein often poll much lower when we get closer to the election.

Yet you deny it is elitist. Pathetic. When you will understand it is not about disallowing people that you think they have no chances?

I thought you weren't proposing to allow any random person to participate?

I think Trump has no chance to win (in fact, he is hovering around 15% right now). Rabble out! What about it?


I see no point in discussion with you if you are going just to make up things.

I'm going to leave those two paragraphs together to show how silly you are being. Trump currently polls around 38%, more than 10 times what Stein polls at.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I think Trump has no chance to win (in fact, he is hovering around 15% right now). Rabble out! What about it?

Did you notice that Stein has so little chance of actually being elected, 538 gives her less than the <0.1% odds they give Johnson. Stein doesn't even rate mentioning.

 

[carlitos]

I think he is getting 1 in 7 by finding the best poll for Stein, and the best poll for Johnson, and adding them together with every single other fringe candidate. Stein's polling average is 3.4%, which I get as 1 in 29.

The latest Quinnipiac poll has Johnson at 10% and Stein at 4%. That's 14%, which I ballparked at 1 in 7. I certainly wasn't adding "every single other fringe candidate, there you go with the strawmen again.

The RCP average gives them around 13%, so call it 1 in 8, the point still stands that:

Two candidates who have virtually no support are trying to change the rules in their favor? And this is news?

13 or 14% is not "virtually no support." If 1 in 8 of your co-workers had the ebola virus, would you say that there is "virtually no ebola" at your workplace?

They collectively have the support of around 1 in 7 likely voters. That is not "virtually no support."

See - I was replying directly to your point. Does that clarify for you?

Why is your hurdle being on enough ballots? Why can't you accept write in candidates with virtually the same shot as Stein? (Note, I did not say I have the same, I said virtually the same, i.e. far less than 1% chance)

Being on enough ballots seems like a reasonable hurdle to me. In the US, we have erected tremendous hurdles to get on the state ballots. A candidate that gets on enough state ballots to have a chance at 270 has built an organization, gathered thousands of signatures, etc. They sure aren't "some random person" at that point.

Stein does not have the support of 1 in 7 voters. Why must you make your argument using such hyperbolic claims?

As you can see by reading the thread, I never claimed she did. I was responding to your point that Johnson and Stein had "virtually no support," which is demonstrably untrue.

Same question which you did not answer before: Why are you against Stein (and Johnson) being in the debates?

 

[carlitos]

I'm going to leave those two paragraphs together to show how silly you are being. Trump currently polls around 38%, more than 10 times what Stein polls at.

You were the one who brought up the fact that Stein "has no chance." Why are you switching arguments when it's brought up that Trump also has no chance?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stein can't seem to break 4%. Trump has around 30 something to Clinton's 40 something. I'd say Stein has no chance and Trump has a small chance of turning that around in 2 months. Not a big chance, especially since those numbers seem pretty firmed up.It's not like we don't already know all the Clinton scandals and it's not like there's hardly a scandal in the world that could make Trump an acceptable candidate.

But still, I don't think you can compare Stein's lack of a chance with Trump's nearly lack of a chance.

 

[wareyin]

You were the one who brought up the fact that Stein "has no chance." Why are you switching arguments when it's brought up that Trump also has no chance?

Stein has no chance, Trump has a slight chance. To compare Stein and Johnsons poll numbers (dishonesty added together) to Trump's odds of winning is an apples plus grapes to oranges argument.

 

[wareyin]

The latest Quinnipiac poll has Johnson at 10% and Stein at 4%. That's 14%, which I ballparked at 1 in 7. I certainly wasn't adding "every single other fringe candidate, there you go with the strawmen again.

The RCP average gives them around 13%, so call it 1 in 8, the point still stands that:


13 or 14% is not "virtually no support." If 1 in 8 of your co-workers had the ebola virus, would you say that there is "virtually no ebola" at your workplace?


See - I was replying directly to your point. Does that clarify for you?


Being on enough ballots seems like a reasonable hurdle to me. In the US, we have erected tremendous hurdles to get on the state ballots. A candidate that gets on enough state ballots to have a chance at 270 has built an organization, gathered thousands of signatures, etc. They sure aren't "some random person" at that point.





As you can see by reading the thread, I never claimed she did. I was responding to your point that Johnson and Stein had "virtually no support," which is demonstrably untrue.

Same question which you did not answer before: Why are you against Stein (and Johnson) being in the debates?

As I thought, in the Jill Stein thread, you are adding Stein and Johnson's poll numbers together in order to show that they each have enough support to get in the debates. At the time I guessed at your method, RCP averages were 3.4 for Stein, 8.9 for Johnson. Add those up, and we are still well under 1 in 7, so you must have been adding something.

When you add the support or multiple candidates together and that sum still doesn't reach the 15% threshold for individual candidates, that should tell you something.

And same answer I gave before: I am not in favor of adding random people that have virtually no chance of winning the presidency. If we allow anybody with less than 1% of a chance, we are going to have a crowded stage. If we start adding every fringe candidate we can find so that their collective poll numbers are the minimum 15%, we are going to have a stage full of people who cannot win, obscuring people the chance to compare the 2 candidates who have any shot at winning.

 

[Mader Levap]

I'm going to leave those two paragraphs together to show how silly you are being. Trump currently polls around 38%, more than 10 times what Stein polls at.

I can't ignore bold-faced lies. According to source that I given in earlier post, CURRENTLY (at time of writing this post) Trump polls at 16.9%. Since you said you would set threshold even higher than 15%, logically that means only Hillary should be let into "debate".

Did you notice that Stein has so little chance of actually being elected, 538 gives her less than the <0.1% odds they give Johnson. Stein doesn't even rate mentioning.

You and wareyin must be glad that undeserving rabble is kept out. I personally consider eternal two-party system as degeneration of democracy and things like letting into debate only nominees from those two major parties as contribution to this pathetic state of affairs.

Have fun with your "you want to allow literally anyone into presidential debate" moronic strawmans. I proposed three million votes (as example, mind you), others having theoretical possiblity of 270 electoral votes. No random person on street is capable of fulfilling these conditions, so your argument is simply pure elitist BS.

 

[Suddenly]

I can't ignore bold-faced lies. According to source that I given in earlier post, CURRENTLY (at time of writing this post) Trump polls at 16.9%. Since you said you would set threshold even higher than 15%, logically that means only Hillary should be let into "debate".

Trump does not poll at 16.9%.That is his projected chance of winning.

By that measure Stein "polls" at something like .001%

 

[Stacko]

Think of what letting her in could do.

[IMGw=640]http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/rfstack/000000_17.jpg[/IMGw]

He's got better poll numbers so it could happen!

Here's the piece WaPo did on her sit down with her.

Ms. Stein sat down with our editorial board Thursday, as Republican Donald Trump and Libertarian Gary Johnson have done previously. She stressed some important issues, especially climate change. As an activist in her home state of Massachusetts, she worked to shut down polluting, coal-fired power plants, and she says she would bring that activist’s sensibility to the Oval Office.

But Ms.*Stein’s policy ideas are poorly formed and wildly impractical. Her “activist” approach, she said, involves building “broad coalitions,” but she criticized Hillary Clinton for reaching out to Republicans. She proposes to end all use of coal, oil, gasoline and nuclear power by 2030, guaranteeing a federal job to anyone who wants one along the way, and says she can accomplish this revolution for $500*billion — less than the cost of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus. Even this trifle would be recouped in health savings, she said, as her “Green New Deal” reduced the incidence of asthma, diabetes and other illnesses.

 

[wareyin]

I can't ignore bold-faced lies. According to source that I given in earlier post, CURRENTLY (at time of writing this post) Trump polls at 16.9%. Since you said you would set threshold even higher than 15%, logically that means only Hillary should be let into "debate".

Apparently, you can't read your own source. Trump has a 16.9% chance of winning but is projected to get 41.6% of the vote. Trump's current polling is 38.6%.

 

[varwoche]

I like the idea of a looser standard for the first debate, like 5%, then enough time before the second debate for polls to show if 3rd party candidate is able to exceed a higher threshold, like 10%.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I like the idea of a looser standard for the first debate, like 5%, then enough time before the second debate for polls to show if 3rd party candidate is able to exceed a higher threshold, like 10%.

I'd have no problem with that idea. Give everyone with 3% or 5% a piece of the debate pie - pick the figure you want for a cut-off, it doesn't matter to me. But put 'em in a Labor Day debate, or "weekend of". If they're not polling to a sufficient, higher, level by the end of September, they don't make the cut for the next debate.

 

[carlitos]

Stein has no chance, Trump has a slight chance. To compare Stein and Johnsons poll numbers (dishonesty added together) to Trump's odds of winning is an apples plus grapes to oranges argument.

You said that the two candidates had virtually no support. Adding them together is not dishonest.

Yes, adding Trump's odds of winning to you adding Stein's odds of winning, to you saying that the third-party candidates have "virtually no support" to now you bringing up Trump's poll numbers is completely losing the flow of the discussion. Maybe you could stick with one argument.

I know that this is the politics section, but this is still supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

 

[carlitos]

As I thought, in the Jill Stein thread, you are adding Stein and Johnson's poll numbers together

You started it! For Pete's sake. You said that they (plural) have "virtually no support." One in 7, one in 8 is not, by any reasonable definition, "virtually no support." Do you disagree? Would you kindly directly reply to this point and address it please?

in order to show that they each have enough support to get in the debates.

Eh? No. I was merely refuting your assertion that they had "virtually no support." As I've now stated clearly what, four times? Can you not understand this yet?

At the time I guessed at your method, RCP averages were 3.4 for Stein, 8.9 for Johnson. Add those up, and we are still well under 1 in 7, so you must have been adding something.

I have no idea what you are talking about "adding something." You said that Stein and Johnson had "virtually no support." Your words. I just did a ballpark estimate that Stein plus Johnson was around 14% which is indeed 1/7. As I admitted above, the RCP average is indeed 3.4 + 8.9, so make it 1 in 8. My point still stands, and you are still wrong.

When you add the support or multiple candidates together and that sum still doesn't reach the 15% threshold for individual candidates, that should tell you something.

It tells me that the artificial barriers erected by the two major parties are excluding third parties from the debates. Which is a complete scam, and a disservice to democracy.

And same answer I gave before: I am not in favor of adding random people that have virtually no chance of winning the presidency.

The grand total of people in this thread who are discussing the addition of "random people" to the presidential debates = 1. That would be you. Will you ever tire of this silly straw man?

If we allow anybody with less than 1% of a chance,

Unlike you, I am not going to assume dishonesty on your part in switching back and forth between poll percentages and "chance of winning," but it is a bad argument. Would you kindly make up your mind? Should we use poll numbers or should we use "chance of winning?" Have you decided on a threshold for either or both of these numbers that suits you? Why?

If we allow anybody with less than 1% of a chance, we are going to have a crowded stage.

Yes indeed, since "anybody with less than 1% of a chance" would include you and me and 270 million others. Good thing that no one but you is suggesting that we add "anybody with less than 1% of a chance" then!!!

If we start adding every fringe candidate we can find

Well, it's a good thing that no one but you is suggesting that we add "every fringe candidate we can find" then!!!

so that their collective poll numbers are the minimum 15%,

Eh? I have explained a handful of times what I was replying to above. Please go back and read; it seems clear to me. I apologize if my adding 2 candidates together to show that they did not have "virtually no support" seems unclear to you, but I didn't ever mean to add candidates' poll numbers together to get them (all?) on the debate stage? I can't see how you inferred that, but it was not my intent.

we are going to have a stage full of people who cannot win, obscuring people the chance to compare the 2 candidates who have any shot at winning.

So - in any debate, only one candidate will win. There will either be one, or two, or three, or more non-winning candidates on the stage with them. Those candidates all have ideas, and the non-mainstream ideas are the ones that our major party candidates will find the most uncomfortable. I would welcome such a discussion.

What is the benefit to our democracy of having only 2 candidates on the debate stage? Was Ross Perot such a threat in 1992 or 1996? Did it help Jimmy Carter to run in fear from debating John Anderson in 1980? Can you please explain why 2 is a magic number, and 3 or 4 is a big problem for you?

 

[carlitos]

I'd have no problem with that idea. Give everyone with 3% or 5% a piece of the debate pie - pick the figure you want for a cut-off, it doesn't matter to me. But put 'em in a Labor Day debate, or "weekend of". If they're not polling to a sufficient, higher, level by the end of September, they don't make the cut for the next debate.

I agree, especially the first debate. A solid debate performance could propel one of the third-party candidates into the mainstream.

 

[wareyin]

You said that the two candidates had virtually no support. Adding them together is not dishonest.

Yes, adding Trump's odds of winning to you adding Stein's odds of winning, to you saying that the third-party candidates have "virtually no support" to now you bringing up Trump's poll numbers is completely losing the flow of the discussion. Maybe you could stick with one argument.

I know that this is the politics section, but this is still supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

Yes, adding together the amounts of support for multiple candidates in order to claim that each individual candidate has that support is dishonest.

Also, dishonestly comparing Trump's odds of winning to the sum of at least 3 other candidates poll numbers is certainly losing the flow. I am glad we agree, and hope that those doing so stop.

 

[wareyin]

You started it! For Pete's sake. You said that they (plural) have "virtually no support." One in 7, one in 8 is not, by any reasonable definition, "virtually no support." Do you disagree? Would you kindly directly reply to this point and address it please?


Eh? No. I was merely refuting your assertion that they had "virtually no support." As I've now stated clearly what, four times? Can you not understand this yet?

You do understand that we can only elect one president at a time, right? So, because of that, we must compare each candidates poll numbers separately, not added together.

I have no idea what you are talking about "adding something." You said that Stein and Johnson had "virtually no support." Your words. I just did a ballpark estimate that Stein plus Johnson was around 14% which is indeed 1/7. As I admitted above, the RCP average is indeed 3.4 + 8.9, so make it 1 in 8. My point still stands, and you are still wrong.

You have no idea what "adding something" means, yet you had to add together 2 candidates, and the number you quoted was much higher than the sum? Math is not your strong suit, is it? Tip: when writing an equation, the + symbol indicates addition

It tells me that the artificial barriers erected by the two major parties are excluding third parties from the debates. Which is a complete scam, and a disservice to democracy.


The grand total of people in this thread who are discussing the addition of "random people" to the presidential debates = 1. That would be you. Will you ever tire of this silly straw man?

Jill Stein may as well be a random person for all the shot she has of winning. Will you never understand that point?

Unlike you, I am not going to assume dishonesty on your part in switching back and forth between poll percentages and "chance of winning," but it is a bad argument. Would you kindly make up your mind? Should we use poll numbers or should we use "chance of winning?" Have you decided on a threshold for either or both of these numbers that suits you? Why?

Now that I am aware of your difficulties with mathematical concepts such as addition, I can understand how you struggle differentiating odds of winning from poll numbers. Apologies, but I didn't realize how confusing simply defined terms could be.

Yes indeed, since "anybody with less than 1% of a chance" would include you and me and 270 million others. Good thing that no one but you is suggesting that we add "anybody with less than 1% of a chance" then!!!

Good, so no one is suggesting that Stein should be added, as she has less than 0.1% odds of winning.

Well, it's a good thing that no one but you is suggesting that we add "every fringe candidate we can find" then!!!

Good, fringe candidates with no more chance of winning than the other 270 million Americans should not be added. But I thought you wanted fringe candidate Stein added?

Eh? I have explained a handful of times what I was replying to above. Please go back and read; it seems clear to me. I apologize if my adding 2 candidates together to show that they did not have "virtually no support" seems unclear to you, but I didn't ever mean to add candidates' poll numbers together to get them (all?) on the debate stage? I can't see how you inferred that, but it was not my intent.

Each candidate, taken separately as they will be in the vote, has virtually no support. I'm not sure why you think adding multiple candidates' support together makes each candidate not have virtually no support.

So - in any debate, only one candidate will win. There will either be one, or two, or three, or more non-winning candidates on the stage with them. Those candidates all have ideas, and the non-mainstream ideas are the ones that our major party candidates will find the most uncomfortable. I would welcome such a discussion.

What is the benefit to our democracy of having only 2 candidates on the debate stage? Was Ross Perot such a threat in 1992 or 1996? Did it help Jimmy Carter to run in fear from debating John Anderson in 1980? Can you please explain why 2 is a magic number, and 3 or 4 is a big problem for you?

There is no benefit to only having 2 candidates. There is a benefit to only having viable candidates. Can you explain please why nonviable candidates with no hope of winning should be added?

 

[carlitos]

Yes, adding together the amounts of support for multiple candidates in order to claim that each individual candidate has that support is dishonest.

I'm really sorry that 1) I can't make myself even more clear that I am not claiming what you say above, and that 2) you seem to want to score points rather than understand and reply to my posts. I will stop now.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

There is no benefit to only having 2 candidates. There is a benefit to only having viable candidates. Can you explain please why nonviable candidates with no hope of winning should be added?

I remember seeing opinion polls a while back, where people were asked to choose on a Likert scale what they thought of each candidate. One of the options was "don't have enough information".

So, IIRC Clinton and Trump got favorable ratings in the 50%-60% area, with Clinton having a slight lead over Trump. When you asked people about Jill and Gary Johnson, though, the vast majority "didn't have enough information". This was somewhere in the 90%-98% area.

It's clear to me that the reason why these candidates are "non-viable" is because people don't know about them. They're stuck in a catch-22: They can't get into the debates because they're "non-viable", and they're "non-viable" because they can't get into the debates.

In a democracy, the voters have the right to vote for whomever they want, and they have the right to know about who they're voting for. If the Debate Commission wants to serve the public interest, they should allow all candidates who are capable of winning (i.e., they are on enough ballots to win if they get a plurality of votes).

That would be a debate between 4 people. It would make the debate more interesting, the voters would be better informed, and society as a whole would benefit from it.