At the time the phrase “the Gary Johnson rule” was coined by Slate columnist Dave Weigel, it was only semi-serious. Now, it’s becoming blatantly apparent that there is in fact such a rule. The rule is: Gatekeepers of the old media must find a way to just exclude Gov. Johnson, while including the less anti-establishment, but often lower-polling, Amb. Huntsman and Sen. Santorum.
The rule first came about in the run-up to the June 13th CNN debate, when CNN insisted that–seven months before the first votes were to be cast (and hence, about six and a half months before most voters start actually paying attention)–a candidate must earn an average of 2.0% in three national polls during a certain time period (because, at seven months out, it really matters whether a candidate is at 1.99% versus 2.01%). Amb. Huntsman squeaked in, while Gov. Johnson clocked in at 2.0% exactly with a 1% Quinnipiac showing, a 2% CNN showing, and a 3% Gallup showing. But alas, according to the more detailed numbers in the cross tabs, Gov. Johnson fell just short. Maybe next time, right?
As the September 7th MSNBC debate approached, debate organizers must have been frantic. Gov. Johnson was tying or outpolling Huntsman and Santorum in virtually every poll in which all three names were included. How can they possibly justify including the latters while excluding the former? Ah–by stipulating that the candidate must have achieved one, single 4% showing in any poll in the last year. By a stroke of statistical luck, Huntsman had met that mark just once, in a single outlier poll a few months prior. Gov. Johnson? His highest showing was 3%. Too bad, Governor. Just short.
FOX News, having been the only network with a modicum of fairness and having been the only network to set reasonable inclusion criteria for this early leg of the race, welcomed Gov. Johnson onto the stage in the most recent, September 22nd debate. Gov. Johnson gave a solid performance, delivered the most memorable single line of the election season thus far, and clearly scared the pants off of Bloomberg, who was to be the host of the next debate in October.
Gary Johnson supporters and sympathizers have waited on pins and needles since the FOX debate to see if Bloomberg would finally accept Gov. Johnson as a legitimate and qualified contender, or whether they would resurrect the “Gary Johnson rule.” With today’s declaration of Bloomberg’s October 11th debate inclusion criteria, it seems we have our answer.
According to the Washington Post, to be included in Bloomberg’s upcoming debate, a candidate must have “participated in at least three nationally televised Republican presidential debates during the 2012 election cycle.”
How convenient (and rather cute, if I may say so).
Tell Bloomberg how you feel about it here, and let October 18th’s debate host CNN hear your thoughts also.
October 7th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
What how many debates has Rick Perry done, let me guess,3. Okay, I am not a Gary Johnson fan, but this is so ridicules, its funny.
October 7th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I’m a Romney guy, but this doesn’t seem right.
I understand there needs to be some guideline to keep the stage reasonably populated, but that’s not cool.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
I’m not a Gary Johnson supporter but I agree he should be in the debates, as should Buddy Roemer. As for the three debate rule, if either Christie or Palin had decided to jump in you bet they would of been included!
October 7th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
I think they should boot everyone below a 5% or 7% average at this point. This process isn’t a search for policy ideas from a dozen different perspectives. We’re searching for the next POTUS. I think we should shut down the background noise and limit the debate to those w/some chance of success–Newt, Ron, Rick, Herman, Mitt.
That said, my wish will not be granted. And yes, it’s clear that Gary Johnson is getting screwed, though he likely never had a real shot.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
I think they should reduce the number of candidates at the debates as time goes on by raising the requirements as time goes on. So I’d agree that Gary Johnson should have been allowed at the early debates, but if he didn’t improve his numbers I cut him with the rest of the low polling people. I’d also look more at Iowa and New Hampshire as time went on than national polls. Also, if you aren’t actively campaigning in one of those states, then you’re not really running for President, and don’t belong in the debates. After all, these debates should be about running for office, not just getting on TV.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
2:
Josiah’s full of crap. Johnson has rarely polled above Huntsman or Santorum, and there are many people who think Huntsman was only invited to the debates because of media hype and anti-Romney sentiment. In other news, reasons having nothing to do with Johnson.
We can look at the trend lines from this site to see it:
http://race42012.com/2011/09/25/race42012-polling-averages-and-line-chart-september-25-2011/
October 7th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Thomas,
Yes, the trend averages come from all the polls, regardless of which candidates are included in them or not. In the overall averages, Santorum and Huntsman are above Johnson, but Johnson has hardly any polls to average together. In the few polls were Johnson, Huntsman, and Santorum are all on the same ballot, Johnson was routinely tying with or outpolled the former Ambassador and Senator as the September 7th MSNBC debate approached.
See for yourself, in these August polls:
8/29-8/31 FOX News – Johnson ties with Huntsman at 1%
8/24-8/25 CNN – Johnson outpolls Huntsman and Santorum, 2% to 1%, and ties with Cain
8/9-8/18 Reason/Rupe – Johnson ties with Santorum at *%
8/2-8/4 McClatchy/Marist – Johnson outpolls Huntsman, 2% to 1%, and ties with Gingrich
October 7th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
This is stupid. They HAVE been trying to exclude Johnson and include Huntsman. There is no doubt.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Huntsman is at least viable in New Hampshire, a rather influential state in the process. Johnson isn’t viable anywhere. And no, Johnson does not “often” beat Huntsman in polls.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
7:
Running around 1 and 2% isn’t anything to brag about.
The truth is you have things completely backwards. There isn’t a “Johnson Rule”. The debate organizers have been employing a “Huntsman Rule” to manipulate things so that he would qualify despite his incredibly low poll numbers. The media like him, they think he’s “the most sane Republican in the race” and the keep granting him interviews like he’s a real candidate. They’d be pretty embarrassed if he then didn’t make the cut.
It all has NOTHING to do with why Johnson wasn’t invited. He’s just another marginal candidate to waste the precious minutes of our lives on. And his supporters are acting like any supporters do for marginal candidates and whining about it.
October 7th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
MWS,
Yes, Johnson does often tie or outpoll Huntsman.
October 7th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Yeah, this stinks, is unfair, and is disingenious.
Are they afraid that by letting Johnson in, they have to let Karger in or something?
Johnson doesn’t deserve this….not this early in the race…
October 8th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Well, neither Huntsman or Santorum should be invited to the debates at this stage though, obviously, the organizers set their own criteria. But neither one is remotely viable and just takes up stage space. Maybe I’ll start a petition to get them excluded.
October 8th, 2011 at 12:30 am
Artificial media narratives reinforce themselves in bizarre ways. Jon Huntsman was treated, by the media and by Intrade, as a serious candidate for ages, despite the fact that neither polling nor other conventional barometers of support (endorsements, hires, establishment support) ever suggested he was anything but a complete also ran. Santorum, who has a run a more focused campaign, has polled higher, and is more ideologically in sync with the GOP electorate, has been ignored. The media decided after Ames that Pawlenty needed to drop out, despite the fact that he was polling higher than either Santorum or Huntsman have ever polled. It wasn’t clear to me why, like Santorum and Huntsman, Pawlenty couldn’t have run a completely shoe-string pointless campaign in the hope of a miracle. But no, he was doomed, but Huntsman was maybe going somewhere and Santorum had outperformed expectations. It’s a nonsense game. The good news is, the voters sort things out and manufactured media phenomenons like Huntsman never go anywhere. The voters are smarter than narratives. Johnson may, relative to Huntsman and Santorum, deserve to be in the debates but don’t worry: Huntsman and Santorum aren’t benefiting from it.
October 8th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Don’t care much about Johnson, but that is a really stupid rule.
October 8th, 2011 at 12:38 am
9 – Huntsman has only recently been “viable” in New Hampshire. There is really no excuse for including Huntsman and not Johnson. I think they should both be out.
October 8th, 2011 at 12:48 am
14: “voters are smarter than narratives”
Which voters? Certainly not the ones that put Obama in office!
October 8th, 2011 at 12:59 am
The media’s flagrant bias toward wanting to include and exclude specific candidates they are interested in and disinterested in has always sickened me. Be it to include Huntsman, or exclude Johnson. Huntsman has been in 4 debates, Perry 3, Johnson 2. How convenient for them they didn’t inadvertently keep Palin and Christie out of the debate since they declined to run. I’m certain we wouldn’t have seen different criteria if either had jumped in now would we?
Honestly, it’s just funny now how they don’t even care this time. This is strictly a “you have to be a member of our club” rule.
October 8th, 2011 at 1:26 am
Michele Bachmann has been in all the debates, and frankly, I am sick of hearing her incessantly repeat that she is a “Constitutional conservative” and that she introduced some legislation during her short four and a half years in Congress.
All the campaigning and debates got under way very early, and everyone has had time to garner support. It is time to thin the heard. Look at RCP polling since the last debate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul are the only viable candidates. I know the others have their supporters, and I am sure Gary Johnson has substantial support in his state of New Mexico. But with all the campaigning and debating that has already taken place, I have no interest in being “fair” to virtually anyone who ever said that they want the 2012 GOP nomination.
Gary Johnson could have easily taken every the debate question that was asked and written out replies on his website, but I guess that would have been too much work.
October 8th, 2011 at 4:17 am
The media is trying very hard to pick and choose the winners while controlling the nomination process, giving much love to some candidates for no real reason, then nothing to others.
My point is that it’s more than just who is or isn’t getting on the stage or tv, it’s that the media is in charge of the process at this point.
October 8th, 2011 at 5:59 am
After Romney Johnson is my second choice. Be that as it may, he is a two term NM governor, elected as a republican (unlike Buddy Roemer). He has to be in the debate. I will spam Bloomberg now!
October 8th, 2011 at 8:09 am
So if Chris Christie or Palin had decided to jump in, they would have been excluded??
…. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I think the first several debates should have had more lax standards, and now that we’re less than 90 days from voting, it should get more exclusive. Johnson should have gotten in other debates to see if he could gain traction, but not now. As much as I’d also like to also excluded Huntsman and Santorum now, I do think there should be an early state threat consideration… ie, since Huntsman is in second in NH, he should be allowed to debate. Santorum might squeak in by being a threat in Iowa, but I doubt it.
At this stage, I’d prefer to not see more than the top 6.
October 8th, 2011 at 9:20 am
To those saying time to “thin the heard”. Until this last debate Cain was in the basement polling as well. Rule #2 is the $500K rule for Q2. Perry didn’t get in until Q3. His Q2 is by law ZERO, but he will be there. If Johnson had been included in more polls, he would have been in more debates and Rule #4 wouldn’t have excluded him and ONLY him. Perry has 3 debates. NO other candidate has at least one debate and not three. Johnson has 2. This is blatantly obvious bias. This kind of bias actually violates FEC rules.
But we have our front runners right? 3 out of 4 of the “front-runners” either have staff or they themselves and have found guilty of breaking FEC rules. Those three are Perry & Romney ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/mitt-romney-rick-perry_n_974455.html ) and Cain’s Chief of Staff is Mark Block ( http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/03/meet-mark-block-the-man-who-talked-herman-cain-into-running-for-president/ )
Nope, nothing to see here move along folks… when will people stop letting these type of frauds anywhere near the White House. I challenge you to find a scandal involving Johnson!!! While even Paul has a few, but not directly his fault for the most part(I don’t think he wrote the racist letter, but I think allowing them out with his name on it was a leadership failure on his part), there is actually a discussion on the Talk page of GJ’s Wikipedia complaining about no scandals listed for a two term Governor…(hard to find something if it doesn’t exist)
He was a two term Governor of a BLUE state. Still today has POSITIVE favorability in his home state. NO other candidate does. He had the single best economic/spending/government reduction/tax/budget record of ANY of the candidates… and is excluded from an economy debate????
October 8th, 2011 at 9:34 am
@19 From the second debate, he did answer every question via YouTube. However, without camera time on national media, there is little to no way to raise national name recognition. (20K YouTube hits vs 2 Million viewers…)
October 8th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I don’t have a problem with this in the least. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: when Gary Johnson actually starts acting like a viable candidate, then they can start treating him like one.
Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem if the bar was raised by .5% for each debate the farther we go into the calendar. So to make the first debate, anyone can come. The second debate, you have to have pulled 0.5% – so practically anyone can come. The third has a 1% floor. Fourth, 1.5%, and so on.
Or, better than that, just let the debate moderators subjectively choose who they want to include. Then they don’t have to make up stupid rules about 4% this, $500,000 that, x number of national polls by y organization, etc. We have enough debates that folks will get a shot in at least one of them.
Gary Johnson doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning anything, but it’s not because of the debate qualifications.
October 8th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
As I said, it’s about exposure. Debates get higher rating than standard news casts or interviews and “without camera time on national media, there is little to no way to raise national name recognition.” 20k youtube views vs 2 million viewers. Would Cain have nearly the same numbers if he’d been excluded from the last debate?
Let the moderators pick? Why don’t we forgo the election process and just pick the president by letting Fox decide the R nomination and CNN+MSNBC dedicde the D pick. The vote on that…!
This has gone way beyond ridiculous… Perry is invited… but no way he met rule #2. MSM only cares about one thing $$$ and they get that from ratings. The Perry/Romney love fest won’t end. Paul is crazy enough for them to say, “see, we’re being fair…” Cain is the current flavor of the month, but you won’t hear a word about Mark Block on Fox… he’s an R. You won’t here a word about Aquila… because who cares if Cain was on the Board of Directors of a company that squandered people’s retirement so badly they got handed 5 lawsuits.
Curious Matt, who do you support?
(You can name ANY of the candidates except Johnson and each has been involved in either dirty politics, scandal or straight out fraud. Solyndra just means the left is as bad as the right. Neither side of the aisle like Johnson, but the people of New Mexico do, unlike ANY other candidate. ALL the others have NEGATIVE favorability in their home state. The only reason they win in an Obama head to head is hate of Obama + Name recognition. The only Gary is behind Obama is name recognition.)
October 8th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
This continues to stink to high heaven, Josiah.
You’ve definitely got a case to be made.
October 8th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
[...] Return of the “Gary Johnson Rule” [...]
October 10th, 2011 at 11:20 am
I’m sure that if Palin or Christie had announce last week, Bloomberg’s participation rule would have been changed to “any declared candidate whose last name does not begin with either the letter J or K”. What a discredit to the Bloomberg news organization. Shameful.
October 12th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
[...] #split {}#single {}#splitalign {margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;}#singlealign {margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;}.linkboxtext {line-height: 1.4em;}.linkboxcontainer {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;background-color:#eeeeee;border-color:#000000;border-width:0px; border-style:solid;}.linkboxdisplay {padding: 7px 7px 7px 7px;}.linkboxdisplay td {text-align: left;}.linkboxdisplay a:link {text-decoration: none;}.linkboxdisplay a:hover {text-decoration: underline;} function opensingledropdown() { document.getElementById('singletablelinks').style.display = ''; document.getElementById('singlemouse').style.display = 'none'; } function closesingledropdown() { document.getElementById('singletablelinks').style.display = 'none'; document.getElementById('singlemouse').style.display = ''; } Gary Johnson steps up criticism of the “Gary Johnson Rule”Return of the “Gary Johnson Rule” [...]
October 17th, 2011 at 12:09 am
[...] Continue reading here: Return of the “Gary Johnson Rule” | Race 4 2012 [...]