The Democratic National Committee has made it progressively harder to qualify for debates ...

[redqueen]

for some candidates.

For others?

Why leave the donor requirement unchanged for two cycles in a row?

And why drop one entirely now?

If anyone thinks this stuff isn't noticed, or that it doesn't matter - or even worse, that it isn't a problem - you are sorely mistaken.

[squirecam]

1. I agree

Steyer and Yang and Booker got hosed.

[denem]

2. The criteria should have been announced at the outset.

Then set in stone.

[redqueen]

5. Or they should strengthen each requirement for each debate.

That's reasonable.

This? This is just feeding the narrative.

[denem]

7. Agreed. After last time, the DNC should have done everything to avoid that narrative.

Inconsistent winnowing, and changing the rules smacks of favoritism. It's an own goal.

[DanTex]

3. Is Yang likely to qualify?

If he's out and Bloomberg is in, then a lot of people are going to be pretty unhappy and justifiably so.

[squirecam]

11. I'll be unhappy

If Steyer is out and Bloomberg is in, because Steyer followed the rules, like everyone else did.

Except Bloomberg.

Now. This change DOES NOT help moderates in any way. It isn’t placing a finger on the scale between our wings. If it DID do that, then it’s effect would be to help sanders and Warren. The more vote Bloomberg gets, the less Biden gets. He’s not taking Bernie voters away.

I’m against the idea because you don’t change the rules mid stream.

[SharonClark]

28. Well said.

[redqueen]

13. It would take a big turn in momentum.

If all goes as well as we're hoping in Iowa, that is definitely possible.

If not? Well, like we've said before - they barely let him talk at debates anyway, and he was trending #1 internationally despite not being there last time - so we'll keep fighting to get his message to as many Americans as possible either way

[polichick]

4. The powers that be in our pretend democracy need to make sure...

the people don’t actually get what they want - and need.

Yep - people in both parties protect the status quo when it comes to corporate and wealthy donors.

[jalan48]

9. +1

[redqueen]

15. This is most definitely why so many don't vote.

We keep claiming to want to change that.

Sure would be nice to see actions and not just words.

[polichick]

31. So true.

[Turin_C3PO]

16. You're parroting

both-siderism bullshit. In no way is the Democratic Party loyal to the wealthy. Rhetoric like yours will help us lose in 2020 and give us 4 more years of Trump. You don’t want that, do you?

[polichick]

30. Dem leaders need to get clear about their part in our rigged system...

Both sides are guilty of protecting the status quo, like it or not.

As a Dem activist for 40+ years, I learned this the hard way.

[Sherman A1]

6. Yes, I saw the debate rule change yesterday on Facebook

and was just slightly upset.

The DNC gets zero dollars from me going forward but I did send Yang a few more yesterday.

I can hardly wait until I get my next urgent mail survey from the Democratic Party. I suspect they will "enjoy" my tirade in the return envelope.

[redqueen]

8. Peehaps the DNC isn't worried about losing our money. Check out the second pic in this tweet.

Link to tweet

[Sherman A1]

12. I'm sure they are not worried about my money

in any sense of the word.

I'm also sure that they are not worried about me or my vote.

Giving me a good reason to stay home in November.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. Support Democrats or leave this site.

[jalan48]

10. This is how we lose elections.

[Sherman A1]

14. Precisely

[redqueen]

18. Yep!

This is what gives ammo to the GOP to portray US as the party of corruption to low information voters.

Sigh.

[totodeinhere]

17. I like the idea of making it harder to qualify for the debates.

If there are too many people on the stage it's like a circus. There just isn't enough time for every participant to get their say. I would rather just have a few front runners on the stage and give them each enough time to really talk. Then it can be a real debate and not just a series of quick sound bites.

[redqueen]

19. Most people like the idea. But when it's executed in this manner?

Yeah, no. People see exactly what is going on.

It is clearly not in good faith.

[squirecam]

22. This was negligent, not intentional

It’s hurts the moderates. Not Bernie or Warren.

If the DNC were trying to “rig this”, they wouldn’t be hurting Biden with the move.

I didn’t see ONE AD by Bloomberg claiming that he was getting screwed by not being in the debates. Or any protracted argument from him at all. It’s just been anti trump ads. I’m not sure he even cares.

[Tiggeroshii]

20. Why wait for Booker and Kamala to drop out over donor qualifications

But change the rules for a billionaire?

[redqueen]

21. You are definitely not alone in wondering that.

Not by a LONG ASS SHOT.

[squirecam]

23. Bloomberg

Could have spent 20 million in Iowa or NH and won a single delegate. That would get him into the debates. He decided not to do that.

The rules should not be changed mid stream to make them easier.

[W_HAMILTON]

41. Booker and Harris didn't drop out over donor qualifications.

It never fails that the conspiracy theorists out there always get even the most basic of facts COMPLETELY WRONG.

Harris actually qualified for the last debate before she dropped out, meaning she met both the polling and donor qualifications.

Booker met the donor qualifications, but he did not meet the polling qualifications.

[Tiggeroshii]

44. Kinda silly to assume that just becaue somebody is wrong about a piece of information, they are

automatically a conspiracy theorist.

The fact is that Bloomberg's poll numbers are manufactured through his own self promotion with his own billions of dollars, which no candidate was able to compete with, including Booker, Castro and Kamala. They are changing only one category of qualifications for a specific person. Both are necessary, and the change is completely arbitrary without respect to that individual who happens to be a billionaire.

[W_HAMILTON]

46. You are a prolific poster around here...

...and I didn't base it off of just this one post.

And they changed the polling qualifications as well because we are now getting into actual voting where that should take precedent regarding the support a candidate actually has rather than proxies like polls or donors.

We are at the point where it doesn't matter if you can raise a lot of money from a lot of different people or can get a lot of people to say they will be supporting you on the phone during a poll if they aren't supporting you when it comes to the actual votes. And the actual votes are now almost here.

[Tiggeroshii]

55. Yes you did.

[Turin_C3PO]

24. I see some people

on this site are already to blame the DNC when Sanders or Yang doesn’t get the nomination. Same old song and dance as 2016.

[redqueen]

26. Not at all. I like that Bloomberg is in now!

But we have got to stop giving the other side ammo.

This? This is ammo.

[W_HAMILTON]

42. Did the "other side" start this thread or did you?

[redqueen]

49. I started my thread supporting Bloomberg's inclusion first.

Then someone came on that thread to challenge me on my observation that these rules are NOT straightforward and fair. So I started this one.

Sorry if y'all don't like the optics but I'm not one of the disruptors on Twitter using this kind of shit to say the DNC is corrupt and no different from Republicans.

I understand the eagerness to shoot the messenger but cool your jets.

As for Yang - he barely gets to speak at debates anyway. And he was trending #1 on Twitter and got more exposure after being shut out - so yeah, not a big deal.

[W_HAMILTON]

54. That figures, given that everything is a conspiracy theory to conspiracy theorists.

Case in point:

Link to tweet

It was a conspiracy theory to keep Bloomberg off the stage. Now, it's a conspiracy theory to include him on the stage.

Just stop with the *%@&!%$ conspiracy theories already.

[tritsofme]

25. Bloomberg now commands non-trivial support, he should be on the stage. Simple as that.

[redqueen]

27. More than that - I think we need to see him defend his past actions

and be challenged on them.

But the way this was executed is all kinds of fail.

[lapucelle]

35. Every candidate will have to answer for his or her record.

[redqueen]

48. That's a very good ad.

Cameron Kasky is another survivor of the Parkland school shooting, but he's supporting Andrew Yang. Yang would be smart to get a similar ad on the air.

[lapucelle]

51. Does Yang have Blommberg's record on fighting gun violence?

If not, it would be difficult to get a similar ad.

Bloomberg has 15 different ads from gun victims attesting to what he has done to help stop the violence.

[redqueen]

53. Good for him

He also has a history of backing republicans, displaying vile misogyny, and infringing on black citizens'' civil rights. So, pros and cons.

[squirecam]

29. What is

Non trivial support?

Where is the magic # between that and trivial support.

Stein didn’t have large # of voters, but her support in certain states wasn’t trivial to the outcome.

Thresholds kept INCREASING every month. Until one was dropped to zero.

Why shouldn’t Bloomberg have to demonstrate non-trivial grass roots support?

[tritsofme]

32. He's breaking double digits in many polls. Excluding him would be madness

Not just for his supporters, but for his opponents to challenge him.

We can wish he didn’t rocket to the top tier, but there is little use in pretending he didn’t.

[squirecam]

33. By spending $

In states the other candidates aren’t even participating in?

Steyer had to spend $ getting donors. Maybe he would be at double digits by now if the rules had been changed just for him. We will never know, because the rules were not changed.

It’s not fair. Let Bloomberg earn a delegate in Iowa or NH and he gets in automatically. He has a few million he can drop for that purpose.

But an absolute waiver? Nope.

[tritsofme]

36. Meh, life isn't always fair.

I think having a candidate on the stage who has substantial support from voters is more important than the appearance of “fairness” toward former minor candidates.

[squirecam]

37. Ah. Life isn't fair

But if your rich rules don’t apply to you.

I though that was the other party.

[tritsofme]

39. There's nothing sacrosanct about these rules.

Changing them to avoid excluding a candidate with real support just makes sense.

[W_HAMILTON]

38. Because we are now at the point where we don't need polls or donors...

...as a proxy for what voters think -- we will soon have the voters actually voting.

Does everything have to be a conspiracy theory for you Yang/Sanders/Gabbard supporters?

[redqueen]

50. See post 49 nt

[CentralMass]

43. Isn't it obvious. Bloomberg is rich and he's not Bernie.

[sarisataka]

45. Money opens many doors

And a certain candidate has a history of having rules changed in his favor.

[stopdiggin]

47. disagree. at least in part.

we were heavily criticized early on for having way too many people on the stage.

Somebody has to make some decisions on who has a realistic shot, in order to prevent the above chaotic situation. Any such decisions (and criteria for reaching) are going to be criticized in some quarters. As long as the DNC is making sincere efforts not to eliminate contenders with a realistic chance (they have not to this point) they are doing the electorate, and the primary field, a service in thinning the herd. And finally .. nobody missing from the stage at this point has any chance of the nomination. Might be sad, but it's completely true.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread redqueen.

[dustyscamp]

56. Things like this gives a bad perception of the DNC to the public

A lot of voters are going to be even more distrustful now if the nominee isn't Sanders and Republicans are going to use this to their advantage