The Fringe Candidate Paradox

I'm very interested in the fringe candidates in the Republican and Democratic primaries, and how they fare throughout the process. In a two-party system where one person is chosen from each party, there are bound to be candidates who aren't very popular. But there's a big debate about why they're unpopular - are they unpopular because people genuinely don't want to support them or because the media has shut them out of the meta-narrative about which candidates are viable and therefore won't allow these candidates the opportunity to be known by the public?

The second is certainly the argument of these candidates, particularly when it comes to access to the primary debates. Last night in the ABC Facebook debate there were several candidates who are still in the race who were not invited - Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel for the Democrats, and Duncan Hunter for the Republicans. Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC on behalf of these three candidates for being excluded from the debate, claiming that it violates the equal time protection. He is definitely pushing the argument that if the people were given the opportuntiy to meet these candidates they would be doing better, but it is the media and the big donors who have shut them out of the process and given them negligible support.

But is that anywhere near true? Certainly, they lacked the exposure of participation in the debate, but did we really need to hear from three candidates who are unlikely to be presidential candidates? These guys aren't Biden and Dodd, who do have a clear claim to be able to fulfil the office of the President competently. Kucinich, Gravel and Hunter are all minor or former players in the current process. If people supported their world views broadly, they wouldn't be congressmen and former Senators.

And I'm not even going to start talking about Alan Keyes. He's a loser. His highest office has been an appointed one - Ambassador - and he has never won an election in his life, despite trying now...what? Five? Six times for different offices?

I really don't think that these candidates are being forced out by the media - they're just not supported very widely. Look at Ron Paul to see that a candidate not widely regarded can make it to the table. Paul has a message that resonates with a section of the population, not a very large one but enough for him to make a hell of a load of money very quickly and create an army of internet devotees who flood message boards and comment sections with pro-Paul comments. If he can do it and just be a Congressman, it's clearly not just about the media choosing which candidates to cover and which to ignore.

Kucinich and Gravel have provided plenty of comic value - Gravel's ad (from which comes the image above) and Kucinich's UFO nonsense. But their time has passed. The people of Iowa don't rate them, and neither do people in the national polls. Quit it. It's not like we're just listening to a couple of candidates - there are an unprecedented number of viable candidates in this election, which is what makes it so much fun to follow. We're hearing from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee and Paul.

Isn't that enough for us to be widely considering our options?