So the donor requirement came back to bite us on the ass

[dsc]

who knew? It was always utterly untenable to have a requirement that would keep a candidate off the stage who was doing considerably better in the polls than several people on the stage. No matter what one feels about the fact Bloomberg has risen to at least 4th in the polls, he has indeed done that. I would be willing to bet for all of the complaining about the rule change that will get him on that stage from rival campaigns, one or more of those campaigns wants him to be there. He is currently able to put out his message, unchallenged, and it is working. He needs to be challenged on the debate stage. He needs to be vetted. He is a serious candidate, like it or not. The donor requirement was always a dumb idea. I said so at the time. Now you see why.

[4139]

1. Agreed.

[aikoaiko]

2. He needs to be kept off the stage and criticized through ads.

Changing the rules for him is why we needed the rules.

[dsc]

3. and who is going to pay for those ads?

you really think the solution is to get into a spending war with a man who has $50 billion dollars.

[aikoaiko]

4. Better that than break the rules and kowtow to his billions.

Bloomberg could also be hit hard on news interviews and campaign speeches by the candidates.

Even in the debates without him there -- it could be brought up.

Perez could be out there reminding folks that Bloomberg had every opportunity to qualify for the debates but didn't have the campaign infrastructure to do so.

[dsc]

6. except Bloomberg does have the infrastructure

he is choosing to use it differently. And money we spend now, we won't have to beat Trump. Also all the other candidates would benefit from Bloomberg being taken down but only one would be buying the ads. The rest could spend as they currently are. This was a disaster in the making with no good option.

[aikoaiko]

10. Maybe you're right -- there is no good option and I just need to accept it

[Blue_true]

9. I really think that the rule change could damage Bloomberg.

Right now he is putting out an unchallenged message. In a debate he can't do that.

[Blue_true]

7. Why keep him off the stage? Put him up there and force him to defend his proposals. nt

[Sherman A1]

5. I do not believe the change in the rules midstream

is a good idea.

[dsc]

8. actually the rules changed for each debate

so there is that. I don't know what should have been done now. I think the best thing might have been to say a candidate either has to be polling in the top 5 nationally, or meet the polling/donor requirement. That would have been less problematic.

[judeling]

11. A year ago with the Rules the DNC used

Between Booker, Beto, Harris, Castro and Klobuchar which one would you have picked to drop out first.

It says something about the abilities of the Candidates as Candidates and the ability to strategize a campaign.

The rules did what they were supposed to.

[dsc]

12. Harris made every debate, including the one scheduled immediately after she dropped out

so the rules didn't do her campaign in. Beto and Booker made the donation requirements it was polling which did them in, and I am in favor of those. I don't know if Castro made the donation requirement or not but he didn't make the polling one.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Bloomberg is a real threat to Trump

He’s a real New York billionaire and that gives Trump hemorrhoids. I like that. If he has risen to 4th, then he deserves to be on stage. There, others can contrast their ideas with his. May the best candidate win.

In an election where we are facing a stone cold criminal who will break any law, ratfuck any candidate, and use foreign influence to stay in the White House - “it’s not fair” seems like pretty weak sauce. We need a killer to take Trump out. If that’s Bernie, fine. If that’s Biden, great. If that’s Warren or Klobuchar, Super. If it’s Bloomberg, so be it.

One thing, and only one thing matters - beating Trump. There will be no participation medals awarded in November.