• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you guys feel about the qualification rules for the Sept and Oct debates?

VanceMack said:
Rat party supporters should be used to the rat party leadership ****ing them over by now. They bent over and took it with a smile in 2016...why would this year be any different?
Click to expand...

You know Vance, you’re one of a few people I’m glad are Retrumplicans. Hatred like yours makes it easy to be on the other side.
 
Irwin Corey said:
You didn't like President Obama? I would have never guessed.



How do you define "fundamentally"? Would that be someone that pisses off our allies and cozy's up to our enemies? Someone that lies when the truth would serve them better. A bloviating bull****ter that hasn't a clue what he's going to say until it's to late and his staff has to walk it back, make excuses, tell the world not to believe their lying eyes and ears, someone that's done so much damage to the Office of President of The United States that it is barely recognizable; that kind of fundamental change?



I know but I'm just reading words and punctuation, trying to figure out what the hell he did mean.



Whoo, that sounds like a personal attack to me, I didn't check a box, months ago, SO I'm gutless? I assure you my digestive system is in exemplary condition.



I don't know it sure seems to have gotten your undies in a bind. What do you want to call tRump, he sure as hell isn't a Republican and most of his followers can't spell it and never were Republicans until 16; and they won't be the day after he leaves office. I think Retrumplican is quite appropriate.



How should I label the opposition? Most of tRumps crowd would rather see this Country "fail" than have anybody else in the White House, they would rather tRump take over as dictator and to hell with the Constitution and so would tRump. AND HE WOULD DO IT IF HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH IT. That sounds like a fundamental change to me. So you can snipe at me as gutless but I love my Country and it's Constitution and would die to protect them.
Click to expand...

Then you need to stop supporting liberals who want to change it.

And now that you know what you are, you can change your lean, also. Unless of course you need to hid behind "undisclosed" a bit longer, which is what I believe will happen.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Well, you make me chuckle.

I believe, that given time America always finds its way; most of the time it’s only from one crisis to the next. From what I’ve read it started that we during the Revolution and here we are in crisis of unity and leadership again.

But, I think tRumps presidency proves the game isn’t completely rigged. If it was he wouldn’t be president.
Click to expand...

No, if it were rigged, Hilarity would be President. The DNC failed in their attempt at rigging the system.
 
BrotherFease said:
For the September and October debates, the DNC aka Tom Perez raised the bar a little as far as qualifications. In order to qualify for the September debate, you needed to poll at least 2% in four major polls between June 28th and August 28th AND get at least 130k individual donors. For the October debate, the same rules apply, except the polling deadline is at September 28th.

The DNC deems 16 polling sources as major: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Monmouth, Quinnipiac, Des Moines Register, University of New Hampshire, Wintrope, and the Associated Press. They recently discontinued Reuters and Las Vegas Review (which did not do any polling), before June 28th.

When I average together the five major national polls which came out in August, you have 11 candidates with at least 1% in the polls. You have in order: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Yang, Booker, O'Rourke, Castro, and Klobuchar and Gabbard tied with exactly 1%. That's 11. Williamson came close with 0.8% of the vote. 8/11 candidates mentioned polled at least 2% on average. Castro, Gabbard, and Klobuchar are barely hanging onto 1%.

I asked this question, because fans of Tulsi Gabbard seem to be outraged that she didn't make the debate stage. According to the rules, she met the individual donor amount, but only qualified in two major polls. She needs two more to qualify for the October debate.

My question to you guys is this: Is Perez/DNC setting the bar a little high for September and October, OR is he being too generous OR is the rules just right?
Click to expand...

Natural attrition is taking place. Hickenlooper, Gravel, Inslee, Moulton, Gillibrand and perhaps a couple of more I've overlooked have already dropped out. I personally favor national attrition. Jumping in with these rules gives the impression that Perez and the DNC have an ulterior motive here. After jury rigging the primaries in Hillary Clinton's favor in 2016, is the DNC at it again?

Stuff like this make me wonder, whether or not the DNC is at it again or not, that's the impression I get.
 
The DNC under Perez has vastly improved the primary process.
 
Irwin Corey said:
You know Vance, you’re one of a few people I’m glad are Retrumplicans. Hatred like yours makes it easy to be on the other side.
Click to expand...

1-I’m a registered libertarian and haven’t voted republican for any candidate or office since 2003.

2-I can’t tell you how pathetic it makes you look if you need someone else to feel good about yourself.

3-hatred? :lamo Come now. Stating the truth is not hatred...it’s simply stating the truth and the truth is the rat party went through an entire primary season in 2016 that was a sham. Every debate, every state primary was a sham. The rat party leadership imposed Clinton onto the party and what’s worse ...you and every rat party supporter KNOW they did. And you took it and smiled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am fine with them. We need to start the culling process. There is actually an opportunity( albeit a starkly heavy climb) for these 1%ers to get to 2% by the next round and make it into following debate. But they have get lucky and do something dramatic to gain some media spotlight to fuel a resurgence. I
 
btthegreat said:
I am fine with them. We need to start the culling process. There is actually an opportunity( albeit a starkly heavy climb) for these 1%ers to get to 2% by the next round and make it into following debate. But they have get lucky and do something dramatic to gain some media spotlight to fuel a resurgence. I
Click to expand...

All the participates in the September debate are eligible for the October debate. There are only 3 potential candidates which can ADD to the October debate - Steyer, Gabbard, and Williamson. Steyer needs one more 2% poll. Gabbard needs 2. Williamson needs 3.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The DNC under Perez has vastly improved the primary process.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. As much as he went ultra-generous, he had the right idea: Start the debates early, lower the bar, emphasis on individual donors, and split the debate into two nights. No junior and senior tables.

For the June and July debates, candidates could use polling results out of Iowa, NH, Nevada, South Carolina, AND nationally. There were so many ways you could muster out three 1% surveys. That was an easier task for candidates than simply taking the last 5 national polls and averaging them together.
 
BrotherFease said:
For the September and October debates, the DNC aka Tom Perez raised the bar a little as far as qualifications. In order to qualify for the September debate, you needed to poll at least 2% in four major polls between June 28th and August 28th AND get at least 130k individual donors. For the October debate, the same rules apply, except the polling deadline is at September 28th.

The DNC deems 16 polling sources as major: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Monmouth, Quinnipiac, Des Moines Register, University of New Hampshire, Wintrope, and the Associated Press. They recently discontinued Reuters and Las Vegas Review (which did not do any polling), before June 28th.

When I average together the five major national polls which came out in August, you have 11 candidates with at least 1% in the polls. You have in order: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Yang, Booker, O'Rourke, Castro, and Klobuchar and Gabbard tied with exactly 1%. That's 11. Williamson came close with 0.8% of the vote. 8/11 candidates mentioned polled at least 2% on average. Castro, Gabbard, and Klobuchar are barely hanging onto 1%.

I asked this question, because fans of Tulsi Gabbard seem to be outraged that she didn't make the debate stage. According to the rules, she met the individual donor amount, but only qualified in two major polls. She needs two more to qualify for the October debate.

My question to you guys is this: Is Perez/DNC setting the bar a little high for September and October, OR is he being too generous OR is the rules just right?
Click to expand...

I believe the rules were chosen specifically because of gabbard, if you do not know she has qualified in many polls, yet only 2 are considered legit by the dnc, and oddly in some of the polls she had to qualify in she was not even part of the polls. What does this have to do with anything? well the dnc demanded only msm polls, which are in favor of a tiny few candidates, but the bigger picture is that gabbard was former vice chair of the dnc during the 2016 primaries, and left due to how bernie was treated, and even herself tried to expose what was going on in the primaries before wikileaks did.

She was at one point told she was making a political mistake by backing sanders, given how upset the democrats were in 2016 over being exposed for corruption, and gabbards own fight to stop corruption before she resigned as vice chair and supported sanders, it is unlikely the dnc will ever let her win even if it means being more corrupt than they were in 2016. You can also see the same pattern after the last debate where the msm and the dnc went on the defense of harris after gabbard exposed here, like harris was one of the chosen ones and gabbard was just supposed to be seen and not heard.
 
VanceMack said:
1-I’m a registered libertarian and haven’t voted republican for any candidate or office since 2003.

2-I can’t tell you how pathetic it makes you look if you need someone else to feel good about yourself.

3-hatred? :lamo Come now. Stating the truth is not hatred...it’s simply stating the truth and the truth is the rat party went through an entire primary season in 2016 that was a sham. Every debate, every state primary was a sham. The rat party leadership imposed Clinton onto the party and what’s worse ...you and every rat party supporter KNOW they did. And you took it and smiled.
Click to expand...

1) Good for you.

2) I said you make it easy to oppose you. It makes me sad, not happy, that other Americans are wallowing in obvious hatred when we live in such diversity of culture and ideas. I think a lot of our differences would solve themselves if people would get out of their basements and away from their keyboards and talk to each other.

3) The way you state the truth is hateful.
 
Irwin Corey said:
1) Good for you.

2) I said you make it easy to oppose you. It makes me sad, not happy, that other Americans are wallowing in obvious hatred when we live in such diversity of culture and ideas. I think a lot of our differences would solve themselves if people would get out of their basements and away from their keyboards and talk to each other.

3) The way you state the truth is hateful.
Click to expand...
Its always funny watching an entire body of people that have been roiling non stop in their hatred for the last 3 years claim someone else pointing out their non stop hatred is 'hatred'.

The way I state the truth is brutally honest...but at least you can admit its the truth. So...bonus points for that.
 
smallvoice said:
Then you need to stop supporting liberals who want to change it.

And now that you know what you are, you can change your lean, also. Unless of course you need to hid behind "undisclosed" a bit longer, which is what I believe will happen.
Click to expand...

All change isn’t bad, I support those trying to make America better for all AmeriCANs.

I think I’ll keep my profile the way it is, you seem to be in desperate need of something to be petty and nit-pickie about. ;)
 
smallvoice said:
No, if it were rigged, Hilarity would be President. The DNC failed in their attempt at rigging the system.
Click to expand...

So, we agree. Will the wonders of the world ever cease? :)
 
VanceMack said:
Its always funny watching an entire body of people that have been roiling non stop in their hatred for the last 3 years claim someone else pointing out their non stop hatred is 'hatred'.

The way I state the truth is brutally honest...but at least you can admit its the truth. So...bonus points for that.
Click to expand...

You’re perfect Vance; have a nice life! :2wave:
 
No, not really. I just find it humorous that folks like you don’t have the spine to declare your position, yet take one that is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
beerftw said:
I believe the rules were chosen specifically because of gabbard, if you do not know she has qualified in many polls, yet only 2 are considered legit by the dnc, and oddly in some of the polls she had to qualify in she was not even part of the polls. What does this have to do with anything? well the dnc demanded only msm polls, which are in favor of a tiny few candidates, but the bigger picture is that gabbard was former vice chair of the dnc during the 2016 primaries, and left due to how bernie was treated, and even herself tried to expose what was going on in the primaries before wikileaks did.

She was at one point told she was making a political mistake by backing sanders, given how upset the democrats were in 2016 over being exposed for corruption, and gabbards own fight to stop corruption before she resigned as vice chair and supported sanders, it is unlikely the dnc will ever let her win even if it means being more corrupt than they were in 2016. You can also see the same pattern after the last debate where the msm and the dnc went on the defense of harris after gabbard exposed here, like harris was one of the chosen ones and gabbard was just supposed to be seen and not heard.
Click to expand...

The Democrats, with few exceptions, are utter scum.

No offense to scum.
 
BrotherFease said:
For the September and October debates, the DNC aka Tom Perez raised the bar a little as far as qualifications. In order to qualify for the September debate, you needed to poll at least 2% in four major polls between June 28th and August 28th AND get at least 130k individual donors. For the October debate, the same rules apply, except the polling deadline is at September 28th.

The DNC deems 16 polling sources as major: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, NPR, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Monmouth, Quinnipiac, Des Moines Register, University of New Hampshire, Wintrope, and the Associated Press. They recently discontinued Reuters and Las Vegas Review (which did not do any polling), before June 28th.

When I average together the five major national polls which came out in August, you have 11 candidates with at least 1% in the polls. You have in order: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Yang, Booker, O'Rourke, Castro, and Klobuchar and Gabbard tied with exactly 1%. That's 11. Williamson came close with 0.8% of the vote. 8/11 candidates mentioned polled at least 2% on average. Castro, Gabbard, and Klobuchar are barely hanging onto 1%.

I asked this question, because fans of Tulsi Gabbard seem to be outraged that she didn't make the debate stage. According to the rules, she met the individual donor amount, but only qualified in two major polls. She needs two more to qualify for the October debate.

My question to you guys is this: Is Perez/DNC setting the bar a little high for September and October, OR is he being too generous OR is the rules just right?
Click to expand...
Not being a Democrat I can't help being amused and bemused by the clown car gaggle of candidates the Dems are fielding. IMHO, it would benefit the Dems to weed out the no-chancers as quick as possible so
real candidates will have more time during debates to talk and describe their positions. These little 90 second sound bites are a waste of time.
 
VanceMack said:
Its always funny watching an entire body of people that have been roiling non stop in their hatred for the last 3 years claim someone else pointing out their non stop hatred is 'hatred'.

The way I state the truth is brutally honest...but at least you can admit its the truth. So...bonus points for that.
Click to expand...

The issue might be that the person doing the "pointing out" is steeped in decades of frothing hatred, so the whole thing falls kinda flat.
 
Rich2018 said:
What would be a "fundamental" change and why would that be bad?


Would people (voter) not support such changes?
Click to expand...

You’ll need to ask Barry(since he couldn’t get it done). Any changes can LEGALLY be accomplished via Constitutional Amendment. You folks don’t seem to have the stomach to make change legally,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
beerftw said:
I believe the rules were chosen specifically because of gabbard, if you do not know she has qualified in many polls, yet only 2 are considered legit by the dnc, and oddly in some of the polls she had to qualify in she was not even part of the polls. What does this have to do with anything? well the dnc demanded only msm polls, which are in favor of a tiny few candidates, but the bigger picture is that gabbard was former vice chair of the dnc during the 2016 primaries, and left due to how bernie was treated, and even herself tried to expose what was going on in the primaries before wikileaks did.
Click to expand...

Which polls did you want the DNC to include in their statistics? They have listed 16 news sources, all of which are considered major and the most accurate/credible. For the September debate, they got two months to chalk up 4 different polls with at least 2% support. For October, it's a 3 month window. This is an easier standard than simply looking at the major August polls. If anything, the system Perez sets up HELPS out the smaller candidates.
 
beerftw said:
I believe the rules were chosen specifically because of gabbard, if you do not know she has qualified in many polls, yet only 2 are considered legit by the dnc, and oddly in some of the polls she had to qualify in she was not even part of the polls. What does this have to do with anything? well the dnc demanded only msm polls, which are in favor of a tiny few candidates, but the bigger picture is that gabbard was former vice chair of the dnc during the 2016 primaries, and left due to how bernie was treated, and even herself tried to expose what was going on in the primaries before wikileaks did.

She was at one point told she was making a political mistake by backing sanders, given how upset the democrats were in 2016 over being exposed for corruption, and gabbards own fight to stop corruption before she resigned as vice chair and supported sanders, it is unlikely the dnc will ever let her win even if it means being more corrupt than they were in 2016. You can also see the same pattern after the last debate where the msm and the dnc went on the defense of harris after gabbard exposed here, like harris was one of the chosen ones and gabbard was just supposed to be seen and not heard.
Click to expand...

Gabber's odds have tanked to win the nomination since it was announced she
will not be included in the next debate. But she still is considered a more likely winner
of the nomination than 3 of the 10 who made the cut & is tied with one other
who will be debating when she is not. They definitely have it out for her!!!

Politics Futures Bettings Odds & Lines at BetOnline.ag Sportbook

2255 Cory Booker +4000 40 to 1
2271 Tulsi Gabbard +4000 40 to 1
2266 Beto ORourke +6600 66 to1
2261 Amy Klobuchar +8000 80 to 1
2260 Julian Castro +10000 100 to 1

Before Gabbard was excluded she was 20 to 1. She should have a chance to make the October debate & if anyone whose left off
can get back in it it's Gabbard. How is Castro at 100 to 1 in there and Gabbard isn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom