> This might also be LBO-talk heresy, but at ~5% I don't think that he has a
> strong case for participation in the presidential debates. Merely gaining
> a nomination on most (?) state ballots should not be the sole criterion.
> Personally, I think that he might enliven the debate, but shouldn't be a
> criterion, much less the sole one. IMHO, participants should have a
> legitimate chance of being the next president, and that means building
> voter support well before the debate schedule is announced.
Jesse Ventura was doing about as well as Nader was before the debates started and he managed to win because he was allowed into the debates despite his low polls. Had these standards been applied in Minnesota Ventura would never have won. Nader could win if he was allowed into the debates. It would be close, but it could be done. Without the debates he doesn't have much of a chance.