Yes, more serious than about 20 people no one has ever heard of, like Imperato.

“Cox has spent close to $1 million, hired staff in a few states, and done quite a bit of traveling. He’s not just slapping up a website and pretending to run, he’s making a real go of it.”

Cox has fired FIVE campaign managers, he’s hemmoraging staff, he’s raised a grand total of THIRTEEN THOUSAND (13,000) dollars in 17 months of campaigning, and has been trashed by every small and large newspaper in the East, because they’ve seen him up close. The party regulars he’s met along the trail (including me) think he’s a joke, and he hasn’t caught fire in all that time of campaigning. He’s not legitimate, viable or even serious.

Exactly. The debates are the great equalizer that can help third party candidates overcome disadvantages in money, organization, and media coverage.

Allowing third party candidates into the debates leads to the Democrats and Republicans being forced into a Hobson’s choice instead of the voters who don’t like either major party. Their choice would be to either share power with other parties under proportional representation, or risk losing power completely under simple pluarality.

I like this fellow’s plan of asking all these candidates this question, though. Just don’t expect an intellectually honest answer. Obviously, several minor party candidates could be accommodated; the major parties do it every four years at the debates during their primaries. All the claims about viability, number of people onstage, blah blah blah is just a bunch of nonsense when debates are going on right now with people like Tancredo and Kucinich participating. The real answer, which no one will come out and say, is “invite anyone who won’t affect my chances of winning the election……rig the rules so that anyone who will take votes from me can’t be included.” I would like to see one top tier, major party presidential candidate go on the record and say that any clearly serious minor party candidate in the general election, whom voters say (through polls) they want included in the debates, should be included. There is no reason, for example, that Nader and Buchanan (at the very least) shouldn’t have been onstage hashing out ideas with Gore and Bush in 2000.

Aside from the horse race aspect, though, I really think that the people in charge know that opening this up will finally lend a patina of legitimacy to minor parties in this country, and to most American politicos that is completely unacceptable. For those who like mixed metaphors, once that wall comes crashing down you won’t be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube. :) Then they’ll be forced to deal with a lame system that allows people with 30-35% of the vote to be elected as long as it’s a plurality, and massive changes will have to be made (IRV, proportional representation, etc.). None of these major party characters want to take on that headache.

Cox has spent close to $1 million, hired staff in a few states, and done quite a bit of traveling. He’s not just slapping up a website and pretending to run, he’s making a real go of it.

Still… I think he’s borderline for inclusion in the debates. His strength at the Ames Straw Poll will tell us more.

The SC GOP ruled that a candidate had to get one percent. Cox didn’t make it. He has been included in local and national polls and has failed to reach one percent. Same with the other 25 names filed with the FEC.

Ballot access is another issue and not one state has denied any one of the other freakishly long shots (Cox, Ron Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, a couple of Smiths, etc.) from getting on the ballot.