It's the Debates, Stupid

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted July 4, 2000.

At the Green Party convention in Denver in late June, keynote speaker Jim Hightower shouted to the crowd that Ralph Nader's candidacy was "hotter than high school love." Considering the attention that Nader has received from the media since the convention -- along with winning key endorsements from the influential California Nurses' Association and a good deal of attention from the Teamsters and the United Autoworkers -- Nader could be on his way to making high school love blush.

One of the smoldering issues in Nader's campaign is his fight to be included in the nationally televised presidential debates. With his remarkable grasp of facts and history, Nader is a formidable debater who's eager to do battle with Bush and Gore. But the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), the custodian of the debates, has decreed that to participate, a candidate must have at least 15 percent support in 6 specific polls. Nader is already polling between 7 and 10 percent in California, and close to that in several other states, but getting to a full 15 percent in the next few months may prove impossible. In light of this, many observers feel that the CPD -- which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties -- has unfairly stacked the deck against political insurgents.

At a recent speech in Oakland, CA, Nader got one of the biggest roars of the evening when he confronted the debate issue head on. "The only poll taken shows that more than 50 percent of the people want both me and Buchanan in the debates," Nader revealed. "The debates shouldn't be based on how many people might vote for you, but how many people want you in the debates." The crowd instinctively understood a fundamental rule of American politics -- unless you are a self-funded billionaire, you simply don't have the money for paid advertising. Instead, you are dependent on free media appearances to get your message out. And the grand slam of free media is the national debates, scheduled for October.

The major parties know that if Nader can get into the debates next to Bush and Gore, his popularity will skyrocket. As Nader told AlterNet in an informal interview, "Gore is supposed to be this great debater, but in the infamous NAFTA debate he took on Perot, a little guy who didn't know how to debate. Now he's got George W. Bush, another lightweight. If we want to have a real heavyweight debate, let him debate me. But he won't."

The Nader threat is so potent that it moved the New York Times to a pre-emptive attack in an editorial on June 30 -- more than four months before the election. The Times, perhaps out of touch with the country, used the "classic spoiler" argument, claiming that candidates Bush and Gore are different enough that voters shouldn't support Nader nor should he be in the debates because he threatens to take votes away from Gore.

What inspired the Times to make such an anti-democratic statement? Why not have an open forum and not treat the voters like imbeciles? Might voters want to hear what other candidates like Nader and Reform Party Candidate Pat Buchanan have to say before deciding whom to vote for in November? And might not Ralph Nader be just the person who can air out the political system and inspire a national dialogue about the future direction of the country?

What if Coke and Pepsi Controlled the Supermarket Shelves?

Curiously, the 15 percent threshold set by the CPD is an arbitrary one, with no basis in tradition or law. Commenting on the rule, Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura is reported to have quipped, "That's like Coke and Pepsi saying that you need 15 percent of the market in order to get your cola on the supermarket shelf."

Ventura should know. He was only polling at 10 percent when he was allowed into the Minnesota gubernatorial debates in 1998. By the time the election rolled around, he had captured a plurality and a win. No debates, no Ventura victory.

A similar phenomenon happened back in 1980, when the League of Women Voters, who ran the presidential debates then, allowed in third party candidate John Anderson. Although Anderson eventually lost the race, he finished with 7 percent of the popular vote.

But the League of Women Voters was pushed aside in 1987 by the CPD, which established the 15 percent threshold. It's hard to know where they got that figure. It's a whole lot higher than the only statutory figure -- the 5 percent threshold that will qualify a candidate's party for federal campaign funding in the next election.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »