When CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union Leader announced the candidates they had chosen to participate in their June 13th presidential debate, I was as surprised as anyone to see that an experienced, two-term Governor like Gary Johnson had been excluded, even though he routinely polls above some of the other invitees, and even though several of the invitees have not even so much as formed an exploratory committee.
CNN explained their criteria for inclusion, by stating that an individual could qualify for the debate in one of three ways:
1. A candidate must have received an average of at least 2.00 % in at least three national polls released between April 1 and April 30 that were conducted by the following: ABC, AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, FOX, Gallup, Los Angeles Times, Marist, McClatchy, NBC, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac, Reuters, USA Today and Time.
2. A candidate must have received an average of at least 2.00 % in at least three national polls released between May 1 and May 31 that were conducted by the following: ABC, AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, FOX, Gallup, Los Angeles Times, Marist, McClatchy, NBC, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac, Reuters, USA Today and Time.
3. A candidate must have received an average of at least 2.00 % in polls of New Hampshire voters conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released between May 1 and May 31.
Two discrepancies stood out to me:
One: the first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” whereas some of the invitees not only are not candidates, they have not even taken a single official step toward becoming one. CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.
Two: CNN only used the versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (individuals who should not have been eligible for invitations anyway).
Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13th debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.
In the May 27th CNN poll, three different surveys were taken. One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin but not Giuliani, and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Johnson earned 2%.
In the May 26th Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken. One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.
In the May 4th Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.
Taken together, Gov. Johnson qualifies for inclusion in the debate, by averaging 2.00% in three polls during May. The only way Gov. Johnson does not qualify is if one uses the versions of the polls that include the names of individuals who are not candidates (as CNN’s criteria defines a potential invitee), and have made no formal moves toward becoming a candidate.
I call upon CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union Leader to reassess their poll math, in light of the fact that the versions of the polls they used included the names of individuals who are non-candidates (and therefore not eligible for invitations), rather than the versions of the polls whose lists of names most closely reflect the actual field of candidates.
If you agree, then contact the debate sponsors and sign this petition.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:51 am
Who benefits most from him being excluded? My first instinct is to say “Ron Paul,” but having another libertarian voice in the debate may lend credence to Paul’s views …
When I think of the current crop of likely contenders, only 4 do I see as potentially being ‘Presidential’: Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and (border-line) Johnson.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Speaking of exclusion, I hereby petition the Race42012 powers-that-be to add Johnson to the banner!
June 6th, 2011 at 2:56 am
Who cares he’s irrelevant.
June 6th, 2011 at 4:25 am
Josiah needs to take Johnson’s johnson out of his mouth. These posts are getting ridiculous.
June 6th, 2011 at 6:29 am
Haven’t we already had 2 posts like this? I think Johnson has gotten more posts than Romney and Pawlenty over the last couple of days.
June 6th, 2011 at 7:26 am
I am upset and disgusted by CNN’s conduct here.
Something makes me want to boycott the debate… but I just cannot miss it for the world….ughhhhhh
June 6th, 2011 at 8:25 am
I really wish Ron Paul hadn’t gotten into the race. He vacuumed up all the intense libertarian interest and was instantly made into the media’s go-to guy for libertarianism, getting all the interest that might potentially have gone to Johnson.
Gary Johnson has a spectacular record in my view, but the case made here is marginal special pleading. Fact is, the event organizers can pick and choose whom they wish to invite, which they clearly did here when they invited non-declared non-candidates. So the rules for inclusion were drafted after the fact to justify keeping others out.
With Paul as the first-choice libertarian representative, the philosophy gets painted as something for creaking old squeaky-voiced cranks.
June 6th, 2011 at 9:34 am
I call upon Gary Johnson and all 12 of his supporters to stop wasting our time.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:37 am
7,
Johnson is a great libertarian. But he is running as a republican that is pro-choice and for drug legalization. He’s not going anywhere in this thing.
However, it is definitely wrong at this point in the race to exclude anyone. The debates are a great platform for name recognition and boosting support. Excluding someone based on polls shouldn’t occur until at LEAST after the aimes straw poll. Then they can get a little more serious with exclusion.
BTW: Ron Paul being in the race doesn’t hurt Johnson. His ceiling is 5%. Ron Paul has a much higher ceiling. And in fact, if Ron Paul were to get a small boost relatively soon…there are a lot of people that would consider him. He was painted as an anti-neocon last time. While he is anti-neocon…he is very conservative acrossed the board…and the last election wasn’t the right time for him. The mood of the country right now, is just right for a candidate like him. Though he needs to be more clear on his position on Israel.
June 6th, 2011 at 11:45 am
And let me make this clear just so we understand how little opportunity Johnson has. If the race somehow came down to Johnson and Romney…i would vote for Romney. Not because Johnson isn’t electable(in a general election i think he would do well)…but because Romney’s current position is pro-life. While i don’t trust romney on that issue a whole lot…at least his position is pro-life. Johnson is effectively pro-choice, and that means that even though he is more of a states rights guy…he’s not motivated to do anything on that issue. He’d rather concern himself with legalizing drugs(another thing that we should consider…but shouldn’t even be talked about until abortion is taken care of).
Johnson can’t ever be the anti-romney. This race is going to come down to Romney and maybe 2 other anti-romney candidates. Probably pawlenty and a a hardcore socon. Johnson can’t get traction from the socon wing…and since the socon wing happens to be very intertwined with the fi-con wing of the party…he’s going to have a problem. Ron Paul makes much more sense because he is pro-life…and holds almost all of the other same positions as johnson.
June 6th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Of all the issues facing our country the abortion debate is not very important. The president has no direct power to change the legality of abortion aside from appointing prolife candidates. On this matter Gary Johnson has acknowledged that the federal government does not have the power to decide abortion issues so he would more than likely require this opinion in any Supreme Court Justice he appointed. Beyond the issue of abortion there are far more pressing issues facing our country such as our every growing debt and budget deficits. Mitt Romney is a proven big government Republican who created the government healthcare system which formed the blueprint for Obamacare. He is insincere in saying that he will solve our economic problems.
Gary Johnson on the other hand has executive experience as both governor of New Mexico as well as singlehandedly creating a multimillion dollar business. As governor he significantly lowered the size and scope of New Mexico’s government and left the state with a massive surplus. How could anyone choose Romney over Johnson if it came down to these two?
June 6th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Why waste everybody’s time by including candidates in the debates who have no real shot at winning, and thereby limiting the debate to 30 second answers and one-liners that don’t even whisper at substance?
And yes, if you can’t even garner 2%… I think it’s completely reasonable to say that you have no real shot at winning. If you started off with no name ID, like say, Cain… well he was smart and formed an exploratory committee months ago; now he’s in the debates.
June 6th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
11,
There is NO issue more important than abortion. Our founding documents all express that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is a guarentee once it is real. And biblically based teaching on abortion proves that our country will be judged(and indeed has been judged) because of this issue. Abortion is destroying our country. I would rather have higher taxes, and no abortion. Fortunately is would likely be the other way around…that if we had no abortion…we would have lower taxes. I will not have blood on my hands by condoning abortion as an issue that is either less important at this time…or isn’t something the government can control. The government has a CONSTITUTIONAL obligation to end abortion. It is the UNCONSTITUTIONAL POSITION of the supreme court when they decided Roe…that has dictated our abortion laws. Their position was wrong…and they should have clarified the right to life for everyone that exists.
June 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Also, if Johnson were to win the nomination…and assured me that he wouldn’t expand abortion, and that he would work to send the issue back to the states…i would vote for him in the general election. However, if i had any doubt about his advancement of the pro-life agenda…i would vote 3rd party. Abortion is the most important issue politically to me. Our country would be much better off today, if we had no abortion.
June 6th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
11 – That’s not true. Roe v. Wade is one vote away from being overturned, and the next President has a more decent chance of appointing a justice that can do it than anyone in a while. Ginsburg has said she will not resign this summer, and it will be very difficult for Obama to have a confirmation battle during the middle of the election next year. If he loses, I don’t think Ginsburg would last another four years.
June 6th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
What say you take care of all the unwanted kids first before you worry about the unborn ones wateredseed?
June 9th, 2011 at 11:29 am
[...] (individuals who should not have been eligible for invitations anyway such as Palin and Giuliani). Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” [...]
June 12th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Its so very sad to see social conservatives once again trying to hijack the GOP with irrelevant topics yet again. To my: ” one vote issue voters” get you heads out of you arses and start looking at the greater picture. If in 5 years we have a systematic collapse of the U.S. Dollar, abortion or gay marriage is the very last of your problem.