NY1: Tasini isn't rich enough to debate Clinton on our news channel

[BurtWorm]

:puke:

I'd like to see where these "rules" written down. :eyes:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--senate-debate0815aug15%2C0%2C1491415%2Cprint.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

NY1 stands by decision not to host Democratic Senate debate
By BETH FOUHY
AP Political Writer

August 15, 2006, 8:28 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- An all-news cable television station is standing by its decision not to host a debate between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the anti-war activist challenging her in the state's Democratic primary.

NY1 has been criticized in recent weeks for refusing to include a Democratic Senate debate among its political offerings this summer. So far, NY1 has hosted debates involving the state's Democratic gubernatorial candidates and Republican Senate candidates. It will host a forum for the state's Democratic candidates for attorney general later this week.

But a debate between Clinton and Jonathan Tasini did not materialize because NY1 executives determined the cash-strapped Tasini cannot be considered a viable candidate.

Under rules set by NY1, candidates must meet three criteria to be invited to debate: They must have qualified for the ballot, have at least 5 percent support in the polls and have raised or spent at least $500,000 in their campaigns.


Tasini has met the first two criteria. He gathered 40,000 signatures to appear on the ballot, far more than the 15,000 required, and recent polls show him winning about 13 percent support among Democratic voters.

But he's raised only about $132,000 and spent $120,000 in the race.

[rinsd]

1. I think he should be allowed to debate but....

if you have only raised that amount of money for a Senate seat a month out of the election, your "viability" as a candidate is an issue.

Especially when the candidate himself is responsible for roughly a 1/4 of that total.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_06+S6NY00268

[BurtWorm]

2. His viability is a problem because the media are ignoring him.

If he has enough support to be on the ballot, why should his campaign chest matter?

[baldguy]

3. All the more reason to have publicly financed political campaigns

[rinsd]

9. Chicken and egg thing.

If he had a decent war chest he would garner more media attention which would in turn enhance his war chest.

He got 40,000 sigs. If only half of those sent him $20, the issue disappears.

[BurtWorm]

13. The issue remains. How much of a role should money play

in determining the legitimacy of a candidacy in a democracy?

[rinsd]

17. In our current system? A sizable one.

The reality of the current system is the war chest and its size say alot about the candidate's strength. That is why Dean was such a big deal, his ability to fund raise made him the frontrunner for a time.

If you want to discuss a switch to public financing as a corrective measure to this issue, then we should do so.

[BurtWorm]

32. So it's a good idea for a news organization to let a wealthy incumbent

off the hook if her opponent doesn't meet the organization's wealth threshhold? That's the reality of the current system, after all.

Clinton's "strength" as a candidate is entirely rooted in her name, which draws media to her. Without her name she is a cipher. In the reality of the current system, being a cipher with a name is "strength." Go figure.

[Greeby]

4. You can tell Hillary is running scared of him

She doesn't want to end like Loserman. Because his policies are her policies

[BurtWorm]

5. She's not scared enough.

NY1 doesn't want her to be any more scared, apparently.

[rinsd]

10. I thought the best pot was in CA

I am all for Tasisni getting the chance to debate but Hillary scared of his candidacy with a 60 point lead a few weeks before the primary??

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. She's not scared of Tasini winning the election....

she's scared of Tasini winning the *debate*.

You know.... by talking about things like her brave and wise opposition to the Iraq debacle and her championing of marriage equality.

[rinsd]

18. Why would she even bother to debate him?

As an incumbent with a huge lead against a veritable unknown, I doubt she would bother debating him even if NY1 weren't being a bit douchy.

[Smarmie Doofus]

22. You're asking the wrong question, seems to me.

The *right* question is: Why should DEM primary voters nominate someone who is *clearly* trying to obscure the differences between herself and her opponent ?

[GreenArrow]

23. why debate him?

I suppose it's kind of an issue of honor, fair play and the like. Not that those sorts of things carry any weight.

[rinsd]

25. Incumbents with leads like that rarely bother to debate the challenger

It does carry some political risk though.

Cynthia McKinney skipped both of the debates scheduled before the primary, she was up something like 35 pts pre-debates. She as forced into a run off.

[GreenArrow]

27. Oh, I understand that.

Politics is about nothing, if not winning. Why should Hillary take the risk? I simply think it shortchanges the voters. If her ideas are really better, then let them stand up against her opponents ideas.

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. They aren't and she won't. n/t

>>>>If her ideas are really better, then let them stand up against her opponents ideas.>>>>

[rinsd]

30. "I simply think it shortchanges the voters"

Principles have no place in electoral politics! ;-)

"If her ideas are really better, then let them stand up against her opponents ideas."

That unfortunately usually means which campaign bullshit is more attractive.

[BurtWorm]

34. You don't have to work very hard to convince anyone to be cynical

about the system as is. There's plenty of good reason to be cynical about it.

Are you willing to put up with it as is? Aren't we all? And isn't that the problem?

[CollegeDUer]

36. She's certainly taking no chances

Not agreeing to debate him in an independent forum as her only opposition in the Primary. That's called FEAR.

[Renew Deal]

14. She's not scared.

She's got $33 million. He doesn't even have enough to buy a house in a bad neighborhood.

[EFerrari]

6. 'Way to compromise our democracy, NY1! Just what a "news outlet"

should be doing! :sarcasm:

[Rex]

7. Millionaires only club.

Working class need not apply.

[beyurslf]

8. I guess I am in the minority here. This sounds likea good policy.

A line must be drawn somewhere. Of course, I don't think HIllary is the demon of the party like so many here. Flame away.

[BurtWorm]

11. Why is the line drawn at money and not popular support?

Tasini has the popular support to be on the ballot. According to NY1--and you?--it's money that should speak for how viable a candidate is, whether he's legitimately on the ballot or not.

[beyurslf]

15. It costs money to run a Senate race. And in NY it costs a lot of money to

run a Senate race. I think funds spent by a candidate this late into the race is a good litmus test of his or her viability, yes.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. If that were the case, then gubernatorial hopeful.....

Suozzi ( who's loaded with $$$$ and has been invited to debate) would be *more viable* than Tasini.

However, Tasini is polling consistently at higher levels than Suozzi, money or no money. The evidence suggsts that Tasini is *more viable * than Suozzi.

Therefore, money raise and spent is not a good litmus test.

[EFerrari]

21. Why is viability the measure? The man is on the ballot.

The public has already validated his candidacy.

[Renew Deal]

12. I think he should be allowed to debate but....

How is it that he's only raised $132K in NY state? NY is full of political money. People come here nationwide to pick it up. Big time players can pull in $4 million+ per fundraiser. Tasini's fundraising is pitiful.

[mourningdove92]

19. Hillary running scared????? In your dreams.

[rinsd]

24. Found this on Tasini's website

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/2006/08/13/um_folks_youre_at_the_wrong_fundraiser

Perfectly illustrates that this is a not ready for prime time candidacy.

You have angry anti-war Democrats who want answers from Hillary yet the Tasini campaign can't seem to attract these folks?

[BurtWorm]

33. So Hillary shouldn't have to answer these questions in a public forum

with a candidate who will ask her all of those questions and then some because you and Time-Warner (which owns NY1) don't think Tasini's wallet is ready for prime time?

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. I'm curious about when these "rules" were first ....

...promulgated. Have NY 1 (Time-Warner Corp) rules consistently involved $$$ raised in past elections?

Or did these rules mysteriously come into being this year... when Mrs. Clinton faced an underfunded opponent?

If the later is the case, what good fortune for Mrs. Clinton. How con-VEEE-nient... and how nice for her.

[Stephanie]

35. no such rule in the past

previously only percentage points was considered (5%, +/- margin of error, so 3% would qualify - several atty genl candidates who debated last night are at 3%). it's an arbitrary rule and effectively excludes only Tasini, which leads me to believe it was created just for him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. That's Because Tasini Doesn't Have A Shot In Hell. The Signatures And

percent mean nothing towards him. Any one of us, myself included, could've said "Hey, I'm going to run against Hillary and I'm totally against this illegal war!" and garnished the same amount of signatures and support. We can't be so ignorant as to just boost up anybody as being a viable candidate and worthy of being in the Senate just based on them merely saying they are against the war emphatically.

[BurtWorm]

31. Tasini is not just anybody, OMC.

He's Lamont without the money and "noble" birth. I don't believe just anybody could garner the requisite signatures to get on the ballot.

I'm kind of surprised at the number of DUers who take for granted that money should be more of a determinant of access to the political table than popular support.