All those who feel that Johnson should be in the debates might boycott the first debate and see what the reaction is. Get several million viewers to simply not tune in and the sponsors may notice.

Thats for sure. Trump will slow things down a bit, but not for long. The die is cast that we sink into more and more statism and less freedom.

Political races do not often inspire rational thought.

I think a libertarian view would be very refreshing and would attract a few more viewers. But Johnson having a whopping 8% doesnt say much for his appeal.

You would never hear an advertiser weigh in. All those decisions are made in smoke filled rooms behind the scenes. I agree the two parties control things, and they wouldnt want a third party candidate to have any influence in the election.

Advertisers pay the bills, so one way or another they assert their influence on the shows and the networks. Whether it be behind the scenes, or directly, advertisers control whats done. Consumers can affect what advertisers do through boycotts and threats to boycott, but only if there are a LOT of consumers that get together.

The rules are set and enforced by a group whose primary allegiance is to the two-party political structure, not to the TV networks or their advertisers. I have yet to hear an advertiser weigh in on who should or should not be in the debates. Nor has Gary Johnson ever suggested that advertisers are blocking his bid to be on the debate stage.

Furthermore, a three-way or four-way debate might actually draw in more viewers, since the two main candidates are so disliked.

Advertisers pay the networks, and consumers pay the advertisers. But advertisers do not dictate the structure or content of the shows where their ads appear (except for infomercials). This is especially true for news and news-related shows. Example, they do not choose who does and does not appear on the Sunday interview shows.

That's a good thing, but it's a little disturbing they would vote for a personality trait rather than what they would do in office. Although Bernie had the nice benevolent temperament, he is as much of the evil witch as Hillary and immediately sided with her instead of splitting off his movement from her. Bernie hasn't sided with Johnson either. And Johnson also praised Hillary. What an intellectually confused mess !!

To some of them Johnson is a lesser evil compared to Trump nad Hillary. Others(often the younger ones) are discovering they agree more with libertarians than with socialists. When they perceived the choice was between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, they chose Bernie, not because he was a socialist, but because he was seen as more ethical than Hillary and less authoritarian than Trump. They see now that Johnson is ethical and represents what they really believe.

It's encouraging to see that happen. Just hard to imagine a true blue establishment socialist voting for a libertarian

I didn't think it was the advertisers themselves who decide, but someone pays the bills and in the end they would have to be the ones to set the rules

But who pays to put it on?

Great Idea!

I like the way you think Circuitguy

That's a great idea!

RE: "Arent the 'debates' really just advertising revenue generators for the media? They make the decision as to which candidates will help them generate the most revenue."

The advertisers don't decide anything. They go along with whatever the Commission on Presidential Debates decides. And the Commission is composed exclusively of Republicans and Democrats, who answer to their respective parties rather than to the advertisers or the viewers.

There are a bunch of Democrats who are turned off by her ethical issues and are now concerned about her health issues. Then you have the die-hard Sanders supporters. They would probably never vote for Trump, but Gary is an acceptable second choice for many of them. The polls are reflecting this sentiment.

He already does. He's been interviewed on many network and cable news shows and has actually been endorsed for President by three major newspapers.

but they won't, because in the polls Gary is drawing
potential voters from Hillary more than DT. -- j
.

Re: " What gets you invited is your ability to get people to watch the debate." Not true, what gets you invited is meeting the "qualifications" set forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a Republican/Democrat controlled group set up to make it impossible for third-party candidates to participate. The advertisers have no say in the matter.

I heard that they were saying Johnson siphons from Hillary supporters. Who knows really. It just didn't make sense to me given Johnson is anti establishment and Hillary is the poster child for the establishment

What you think (re: siphoning) doesn't appear to be supported by the polls, but as you know, polls can be manipulated. It's all just a circus to cover up the con that both parties are running on all of us. Trump is in on it. Hillary is in on it. And it's mostly legal (since they create the laws), albeit unethical and unconstitutional if the constitution is applied ethically.

Look at the clowns on the CPD:
Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and CEO, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation
John C. Danforth, Former U.S. Senator
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., President, Purdue University
Charles Gibson, Former Anchor, ABC World News with Charles Gibson
John Griffen, Managing Director, Allen & Company LLC
Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Antonia Hernandez, President and CEO, California Community Foundation
Reverend John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
Jim Lehrer, Former Executive Editor and Anchor of the NewsHour on PBS
Newton N. Minow, Senior Counsel, Sidley Austin LLP
Richard D. Parsons, Senior Advisor, Providence Equity Partners LLC
Dorothy S. Ridings, Former President, the League of Women Voters and former President and CEO, Council on Foundations
Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator
Shirley M. Tilghman, Former President, Princeton University

3 college presidents
Two former republican senators ( but I kind of like Olympia)
Two media company representatives
California Community Foundation, Woodrow Wilson Foundation and League of Women Voters - clearly no axes to grind here
God knows what the remaining LLCs/LLPs are all about

Non-partisan, my petutie! Two party system reigns supreme!

He could never win over either of them. If the election is very close anyone who siphoned off a few electoral college votes could possibly throw it to the house to decide I suppose. So maybe you are right. But I think Johnson would siphon off trump votes (anti establishment) rather than establishment Hillary votes

The problem is Johnson is a threat to both, but and both are cowards