Well, I am arguing against it, for a simple reason that I outlined in a post at the beginning of the election:
This a serious issue for the Green Party. They have two options at this point: either pollsters are a lot more accurate and they're stuck at 6-7%, or they're facing a big drop on election day unless things turn around, and for some reason I doubt May's exclusion from the debates will be that thing.Well, surprise surprise, after the 14th day of the election, the Green Party's average was just 5.9%, meaning they were at the very low end of the threshold I described in that post.
The key thing to seeing of the Greens can pull themselves out of this decline will be whether or not, come the 14th day of the election, their average is within the range of 5.5% to 7.0% of the vote - if they can outperform 7%, then they'll have a good shot at turning things around. If not, well, it may be that the Greens aren't destined to be the force many thought they could be.
What does this mean? It means that the Greens were doomed to begin with, and the reason is relatively clear to me. While Lizzy May could have heightened her party's profile if included in the debates (though in 2008, there was no noticeable difference), the fact is that the Greens were on a downward spiral to begin with, and May 2nd was just the result of poor management.