Breaking: NBC announces 5% threshhold for SC debate

[bigtree]

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Hadas Gold ?@Hadas_Gold 17m17 minutes ago
Dem debate criteria announced: must reach an average of 5 % either nationally or in Iowa, NH or SC in 5 recent polls recognized by NBC


Gabriel Debenedetti ?@gdebenedetti 4m4 minutes ago
Just in: @MartinOMalley is in very serious danger of not making the debate stage on January 17. Story with @POLITICO_Steve coming shortly.

**update**

DNC says it expects him on stage
report here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251983829

[sufrommich]

1. Why? There's only 3 people on the stage.

Why would this be necessary in the Democratic debates?

[marlakay]

4. Maybe because he attacks Hillary

Sanders debates policy but doesn't attack in the same way O'Mally does.

[sufrommich]

11. Oh ffs,this isn't about Hillary. nt

[Hortensis]

71. Agree. We NEED to get commercial media interests

and decisions OUT of our debates.

[mrdmk]

85. Ever wonder why the League of Women Voters put an end to sponsoring the presidential debates?

LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"

WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

WASHINGTON, DC —"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on
September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.

Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.

more at the link: http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

[Hortensis]

86. Thanks for "LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"

I was around then, remembered generally, but mostly as an overview of the political parties getting rid of the League so they could take control of what we see and hear. I didn't remember this scathing public statement.

I've always wanted the League running the debates, but, although respect and prestige would be far higher, likely most people still wouldn't be watching anyway. Example, our Democratic Party debates - although careful to protect the candidates from serious risk, they've have been relatively substantive.

This recent Annenberg study points out that viewership has been rising, but only because more older people are tuning in. Young people and a lot of minorities give the whole thing a pass. The study suggests needed changes, and, actually, letting the moderators ask tough, substantive questions without campaign interference is not among them.

Democratizing The Debates A Report of the Annenberg Working Group on Presidential Campaign Debate Reform
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/democratizing-the-debates/

[valerief]

49. That makes sense, since DNC has made its support for Hillary very clear. nt

[Beacool]

59. Please stop with the nonsensical conspiracy theories.

This is not about Hillary, but NBC.

[Sheepshank]

76. This type of nonsense doesn't help MOM

or the credibility of Bernie supporters.

[Major Hogwash]

78. Exactly.

Gotta protect the Princess of Ivory Towers at all costs.

[bigtree]

6. thinking of the republican debates that have been allowed

...this is absolute nonsense.

[UCmeNdc]

53. Politico Propaganda

Fake story

[tammywammy]

73. There's a lot more than three people that have filed papers to run

Having a minimum keeps all those people out.

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

[treestar]

82. wow good point

the number of Ds and Rs running is astounding! Talk about clown cars. I wonder what those individuals think they are getting out of their "run" for the nomination.

[cali]

2. That pisses me off no end. It's not exactly a crowded field.

[Segami]

9. Ratings are driving this decision....

Sanders vs. Clinton would be promoted to death.....

The David & Goliath match....

[nc4bo]

3. Wth?! Is this some new rule they made up for 2016? nt

[TriplD]

5. in '08 Chuck Todd changed the debate rules

from the top 4 to the top 3 candidates when Kucinich beat out Richardson.

Apparently Chuckie liked Richardson better than Kucinich.

Wonder who made the decision to exclude O'Malley?

[Punkingal]

7. What horseshit!

No reason to do this at all.

[kacekwl]

58. I hope Bernie and Hillary

demand he be there. He is still a candidate in this race. No reason for this.

[Punkingal]

64. I am sure they will.

[bigtree]

80. here

Clinton and Sanders campaigns say O'Malley should be in the debate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251984111

[global1]

8. Wow!!! - They Are Really Trying To Tamp Down The Dems....

While I'm not an O'Malley supporter - I don't think he should be excluded from a debate if he is still in the race and didn't drop out.

How many Repugs are still in the clown car? That's where there is a need for paring down candidates - so that the Repugs can get to and discuss the real issues without just taking shots at each other and jockeying for the right sound bite for their next political campaign commercial.

Without O'Malley - we'd be just down to Hillary and Bernie. Yes - they are going head to head - but O'Malley has a way of interjecting comments that keep both of those candidates honest.

Which of these two candidates would benefit more without O'Malley there to keep them honest? Hmmmmm......

[Punkingal]

21. +1000

[KoKo]

25. .....!

[Amimnoch]

45. From across the aisle.. here here! I couldn't agree more.

I could understand if we had the crowded field that the Republicans have using a threshold to reduce the number.. but FFS, we have 3 candidates. If he's still running he should damn well have a podium to speak from at the debate.

[one_voice]

81. It's been Hillary vs Bernie from the start...

O'Malley rarely got any coverage. They shut him down during the debates. The media decided long ago who they wanted and it was Martin O'Malley.

[dsc]

10. there needs to be some thresh hold

or else the multitude of candidates who have made the ballot in Iowa and NH would be on the stage but I think 5% is too high.

[sufrommich]

15. That only necessary when there's a multitude

of candidates. This makes no sense when only 3 were going to be on the stage in the first place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Exactly. Especially when you factor in that O'Malley is a former Governor

By any sane standard he is a credible candidate, it's not like NBC is being pressured to include some small town mayor who declared as a Democrat. I'll be honest, I don't think it inherently unfair if a candidate trailing far behind in the polls gets a little less time to talk at a debate compared to the front runners, but give him a chance to make a case and build a following. Don't kick him off.

[dsc]

19. there are on the ballot

which is my point. We have many, many some dudes running who are on the ballot. We have only 3 who are real office holders etc but we have a multitude on the actual ballot.

[sufrommich]

22. They could have eliminated that problem by

ruling that only candidates who took part in the last debate will be allowed in this debate. I'm sure we'll be hearing from the O'Malley campaign regardless.

[NCTraveler]

12. I think this is understandable.

What stinks is I truly believe that anytime O'Malley has a mic it is better for us and the party.

[bigtree]

14. I don't remember there ever being this high a threshhold at this point in the race

...excluding him would be the absolute death of his campaign, before he's had a decent chance to gain traction from debate exposure.


This is coupled with the lower number of debates allowed this election, compared to this same point in other contests.

[NCTraveler]

18. I don't either.

But with only three candidates it isn't obscenely high. It would be abusively high if we had six plus candidates.

I'm not big on this bigtree. With just three people I see no reason to do this other than dollar signs. That in itself does make it understandable for me.

Bring back the League of Women Voters.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. Agreed.

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

People aren't stupid. They can see through this, and regardless of where the directive comes from it will turn Democratic voters off.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

13. Until the rethugs move Jeb! to the kids table, we should keep O'Malley visible.

Is there precedent for this (5% cutoff point) at Democratic debates? We started with a lot of candidates in 2008 (though nothing like the rethugs' book tour this time and '12) and they all seemed to have places on the stage until they chose themselves to drop out.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Is O'Malley being punished for THIS?

On Saturday, January 9 both Sanders and O'Malley will appear together in Des Moines, Iowa at an event.

Hillary will not be there.

Here are the event details, from the Des Moines Register:

First Christian Church, 2500 University Ave, Des Moines, IA
Putting Families First Presidential Forum with Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. Event is partnership of the Center for Community Change Action and the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund, in partnership with The Nation.

Today, in Iowa, Sanders is having a press conference on paid family leave. He'll be discussing his views as well as exposing Hillary Clinton's inadequate action on this issue (but who knows. She's craven enough to attempt to co-op Bernie's Wall Street message. She'll probably do the same with this issue).

Sanders, no doubt will be leveraging his pro-family policies and ideas at this Saturday event with O'Malley--after launching his ideas on Friday (today) during a press conference.

Is it possible that O'Malley and Sanders may be teaming up a bit?

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. DWS: making it up as she goes. n/t

[sufrommich]

23. DWS has nothing to do with this.nt

[CoffeeCat]

24. Oh please.

We're all grown ups here.

[sufrommich]

26. How many conspiracy theories is this now?

How many thousands of people are involved at this point?

[Ed Suspicious]

29. Do you seriously think they operate in a vacuum?

[sufrommich]

35. Who is "they"? nt

[Ed Suspicious]

36. NBC / Media outlets.

[sufrommich]

37. What does that have to do with the posts accusing

DWS of being behind this?

[Ed Suspicious]

40. I'm just saying she may or may not have influence on the debate host's decision makers, but it isn't

inconceivable that she does. You shouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand by labeling it a conspiracy theory, what with all the connotations that phrase implies.

[UCmeNdc]

52. No this is just Politico propaganda making up a story

[CoffeeCat]

42. Conspiracy indeed LOL!

You're hilarious.

Look at you. You support a candidate who took 900k from Boeing, and then turned around a brokered a billion-dollar arms deal for Boeing. Your candidate also takes money from Wall Street and leaves them to run roughshod all over the American people.

Corporate corruption is nothing new. Hillary is entrenched in it. That's what we're talking about here.

Try to keep up.

[stevenleser]

32. Apparently not grown up enough to distinguish television networks from political parties. nt

[CoffeeCat]

47. Is that why Time Warner (CNN owner) gave Hillary a bit, fat campaign donation?

Hillary Clinton Top Campaign Donors:

DONOR TOTAL
Citigroup Inc $824,402
Goldman Sachs $760,740
DLA Piper $700,530
JPMorgan Chase $696,456
Morgan Stanley $636,564
EMILY's List $609,684
Time Warner $501,831

Credit: Center for Responsive Politics


Sooooooo...no relationship at all between "television networks" and "political parties."

Oh, you kids! You've got this feigning ignorance schtick down to a science, don't you?

[stevenleser]

56. Since we are talking about NBC, the answer is no. nt

[reddread]

54. or their contributions from their bias

first rodeo, anyone?

[bigtree]

28. DNC says it expects him on stage

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251983829

[CoffeeCat]

51. Oh sure they do!

They must distance themselves from this shocking decision!

Oh, the horrors!

[stevenleser]

31. NBC<>DWS nt

[mmonk]

27. Our political debates should be determined

by The League of Women Voters, not the 1% and their media.

[WillyT]

30. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[mmonk]

39. .

[daleanime]

38. +1

[mmonk]

41. .

[nc4bo]

44. +1. I agree very much with your post. nt

[brooklynite]

61. The LWV has NEVER sponsored Presidential Primary debates

[Nonhlanhla]

33. This is nonsense

Personally I think MOM will be out of the race soon (his low polling and the Ohio disaster tell me that), but he is a decent man, and the Dem stage is hardly crowded. Stupid NBC.

Anyway, I think he's at around 5% in Iowa, so he should be safe.

[MADem]

34. He's a distraction at this point. He just--for whatever reason--didn't catch on.

He needs to hit that number in FIVE polls?

Eh--roll up the carpet, he's done.


He appears to be a very NICE man, and he has all the classic attributes of a successful politicians; brains, a nice personality, sincerity, good looks, a good looking family, a quirky habit (music) that makes him human, and an ability to engage/connect with people one-on-one. He just couldn't reach the crowd, especially when he was on the stage with passion and experience.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

67. The establishment couldn't have said it better.

[MADem]

68. He was a very "establishment" candidate. He was a paradigm in an election year where outliers are

in fashion: White, male, youthful, fit, good head of hair, nice family. He couldn't have been more Central Casting if he'd tried.

That's not what the public wants this go-round, though.

[bigtree]

72. interesting

...the criteria are your own.

"White, male, youthful, fit, good head of hair, nice family."

All of those are shallow judgments about this Democratic candidate, and have almost nothing to do with defining him as an 'establishment candidate'. His actual record of progressive fights and accomplishments however, are completely in line with any progressive aspirations voters may have.

Under O'Malley, taxes on the rich went up. So did the gasoline tax. The state curtailed gun rights and expanded same-sex marriage rights. It passed a state DREAM Act and capped college tuition increases. Maryland is also the home to a health care cost control policy known as the all-payer rate setting that is generally liberal wonks' dream. O'Malley expanded mass transit in his state and helped develop an alternative to GDP to measure real progress in living standards. Even a hideously unpopular O'Malley initiative like the so-called "rain tax" on impermeable surfaces was actually a perfectly reasonable idea

Not only did O'Malley do a lot of liberal stuff, but the outcomes were worth bragging about. Maryland has the highest median household income of any state, the most college graduates, and under O'Malley it had the nation's best-scoring K-12 students too. Maryland is a bottom 10 state in terms of per capita carbon dioxide emissions. It's the kind of record that might have made for a good presidential campaign. If the average American were as a rich, educated, green, and healthy as the average Marylander, we'd have made enormous progress as a society...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251983582

[MADem]

77. The outward attributes are his.

You can call them "shallow" if you'd like, but that's what most people who are Not From Maryland saw when they looked at the guy. They didn't look at him and say "Ooooh--let me run to Google and Find Out More!!!"

And those attributes -- in an ordinary election year that didn't include women, old men, Canadian Cubans, and Bankrupt/Boom Businessmen with Wonky Hair competing for the top job --would have been helpful to him, ordinarily. Those paradigm qualities of good looks, good hair, good speaking voice, good posture, etc....well, people may mock or pooh-pooh them when they're mentioned, but they DO have APPEAL on a visceral level, ordinarily.

But, as I said, this is not an ordinary election year.

Instead of being a "classic" or "paradigm" candidate, he looked ... Vanilla. Plain. "We've played this tune before." The other candidates are simply MORE INTERESTING--even the ones that the voters recoil from; they've just got more pizzazz.

It's not his fault; he is what he is. He just couldn't stand out in the way that he needed to in order to make an impact.

If this assessment were untrue, he'd be polling much higher than three percent...or less. He just has not caught on, and it is unlikely in the extreme that he can prevail.

I think he's a nice enough guy--but he is not going to be the next POTUS. It's not happening. In a few years, people will have a tough time remembering that he even ran for office.

[bigtree]

79. ffs, you chose the criteria for 'establishment'

...now you're saying he's saddled with your own biased impression.

Give your own candidate credit for running a good race (in the polls) so far.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

83. Sad, isn't it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. When you write "public" do you mean the general public or the Wall Street, Goldman Sachs public?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I stand by MOM in his right to be on the debate stage and ask all Clinton supporters to stand ....

I stand by MOM in his right to be on the debate stage and ask all Clinton supporters to stand by me.

[UCmeNdc]

46. This is stupid......

There are only three people on stage for the Democratic debate.

The only reason the GOP has two tier debates is there are so many of them.

So is Martin O'Malley suppose to be in the Democratic party's undercard debate before the main debate?

On second thought Martin O'Malley might like that. A full two hours of exposure on TV answering questions on a stage all by himself.

[FSogol]

48. Put the whole issue of who the candidate is aside, why does NBC get to decide? The DNC

should decide. We aren't the fricking Republicans and don't need Fox News (or any other news organizations) aid in nominating a candidate.

[Godhumor]

50. DNC expected him on the stage and so do I

Until he drops out, all three of our main contenders deserve to be there.

[jeff47]

55. Why only IA, NH and SC?

NV is before SC.

The whole plan is shitty, this particular part just wasn't discussed yet.

The DNC is doing a fantastic job of pissing off the voters it will desperately need in November.

[Beacool]

57. There are only three Democrats in the running.

O'Malley should be allowed on the stage.

[2pooped2pop]

62. this way they won't have to go to the trouble

of practically ignoring him and ACTING like he's not there.

I imagine the real reason is so that Hillary won't have two candidates bringing up her record. Two people saying something against her makes it appear more truthful than just he said, she said.

[Renew Deal]

63. Hillary and Bernie should demand he be there.

[blackspade]

65. What a crock of shit.

O'Malley should definitely be included.
The M$M is moving the goal posts again....

[Peacetrain]

66. This makes no sense!

There are only three or four candidates running..

[demmiblue]

69. This is heinous crap.

We only have three candidates!

I want Martin O'Malley's voice to be heard... he has some great ideas.

More debate, not less.

[sufrommich]

74. What does the DNC have to do with this?

The DNC is supporting O'Malley's inclusion in the debate.

[Sheepshank]

75. This arbitrary number makes no sense when there are only 3 candidates

who poll above 1%

A debate with only two candidates would just suck!!!

I don't understand the purpose of the threshold in the case of the Dem Debates?