While I am doing my best to follow the wise advice several here have offered---

[Atticus]

---to "stay positive" and not criticize Democratic candidates---that is be coming increasingly difficult. Some who have or are about to throw their hat into the ring seem to have announced their interest because it was a slow news day and they had nothing else planned. "Why not me?" is hardly a slogan to inspire the passion we'll need to take our country back.

I understand the reasoning that, hey---if Trump can be POTUS, "ANYONE" can, but we don't want just anyone to lead our party or our nation. The best thing some could do to help us win would be to step aside. There is no way to plan a fair, serious and meaningful televised debate among two dozen candidates. The most often asked question from viewers will be "Who?".

[patricia92243]

1. How do you suggest Democrats winnow the field even further. Candidates are not going to drop

out voluntarily.

I understand their will be two days of debates the first time around, and that will disqualify most of them so that debates will be smaller in the future.

[Atticus]

5. I suppose I'm just suggesting that we, the Democratic voters, need to focus early on a serious

core of viable candidates.

[hlthe2b]

2. The thought that with few restrictions, anyone can run is an endearing one

but the possibility that we may be crowding out our candidates who have the best chance to beat Trump and obscuring their messages is not a comforting one.

I just have to hope it will work its way out reasonably quickly and the field will "winnow" down. I think there is time, though and there is the benefit of giving more press attention to Democratic policies and philosophies. Up to now, Trump has been able to monopolize the airwaves and media coverage. With this many candidates, that is much harder

[njhoneybadger]

3. It reminds of a poker tournament

If you have a chip and a chair you have a chance to win it

[Cha]

4. It's my understanding that..

for the candidates to be on stage for debates.. they have to have raised money from..

DNC Releases Candidate Thresholds for First Two Debates

Democratic candidates in the 2020 race will either need to register 1 percent in three polls or raise money from at least 65,000 people in 20 different states.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2019-02-14/dnc-releases-candidate-thresholds-for-first-two-debates

[Atticus]

7. Thanks for that. I was aware some threshold had been established, but had not read

the actual details. This will definitely help and should prune the field in a constructive and understandable way.

[FM123]

6. There will not be dozens of candidates debating at one time, just ten onstage per night.

With 14 high profile candidates already in the running, a maximum of 20 candidates will be selected to participate in the debates. Rather than have them all on stage at once, 10 candidates will appear over two consecutive nights on NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo.

[MH1]

14. Even 10 in one debate is A LOT.

I would love something like: questions are provided and candidates give written - concise, with a word limit - responses. These are posted online. Viewers can go and rank responses to the questions. Sum the rankings and determine the overall ranked order for each question, and who scores best over all questions. Then set up smaller debates (smaller = fewer candidates head to head), based on where the differences in responses are. The goal of the debate should be to see who can best articulate the reasons for their nuanced policy differences with the candidate(s) they are debating. I think this would better show us who would handle a debate with a contentious opponent. I'm not interested in a round robin of mostly "me too" responses, that downplays the important differences.

[Ohiogal]

8. I understand what you're saying

But weren’t Bill Clinton and Barack Obama unknown to the nation for the most part when they ran?

[Atticus]

10. Somewhat, yes, but not "unknown" to the extent of some now in the race. Both, I believe, had

previously addressed our convention.

[MH1]

15. Yes, Obama was a star of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Clinton played a saxophone on a late night show. (probably something else, but that's the event I remember)

[brooklynite]

9. We certainly don't want to repeat the debacle of having a large field in 1976...right?

[Atticus]

11. I take your point, but 1976 was a very different time. The primaries were suddenly made

determinative and only Jimmy Carter seemed prepared to take advantage of the change. And, there was no social media capable of "creating" a candidate or a movement out of memes and endless repetition.

I'm just saying we need to use caution before climbing onto a bandwagon that may not have wheels.

[Kentonio]

12. We'll be fine I think.

Most will drop out before the primaries start, and who knows whether a surprise star might emerge.

[Merlot]

13. I think its great we have so many qualified candidats

And I like the single issue candidates, for example, Inslee on climate. The more people we have out there talking about the democratic platform the better.

Eventually the field will get smaller. Some won't qualify for debates. It's a year away. Right now a lot of positive energy is out there on tv shows, etc.

's all good, man.