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

[BrotherFease]

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?

 

[smallvoice]

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?

I personally, don't GAS what they do. Until they offer up a rational candidate, they are wasting their time.

 

[chuckiechan]

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?

Let me put it to you this way. You have to push the flakes aside to create an opening for a new “Bidenesque” candidate from the left of center. The easiest way to accomplish that is to mark time until after the first of the year, and gentlemanly dump Perez and then use that management shake uo to push a new candidate to the front.

Or..The choice they wish to avoid:

Stick with the existing program, and admit defeat and do what the Republicans did in 1966 running an “honorarium” candidate against a popular Bill Clinton. (Bob Dole).

 

[KevinKohler]

Does it matter?


The DNC will choose your candidate, not to fear.

 

[Craig234]

I'm ok with it. I like different views to be heard, but we have IMO a lot bigger problems with that than limiting the presidential candidates to 'only' 25, with the first two debates having 20 candidates on stage.

For example, even if, say, Jerry Yang has incredibly important ideas about how to deal with poverty, even if Jay Inslee has incredibly important ideas about climate change, they have huge obstacles with or without the debates to the public really hearing about those ideas and their getting wide acceptance.

There are all kinds of biases, from the media having a profit motive to determine who they cover more and less and how they cover them, rather than having the public interest to cover the ideas more, to 'institutional' biases such as name-recognition, to money differences, that hugely warp the public opinion already.

As a practical matter, we do need to 'winnow the field' as we approach the primaries. We need to improve how 'lesser known' candidates can get a real chance, but big debates all the way to the primary votes aren't really the right way to do it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Nobody wins or loses a presidential primary on a debate stage. If you can't scrape together 2% in the polls, being on that stage and getting 180 seconds of cumulative speaking time isn't going to save you.

 

[BrotherFease]

As a practical matter, we do need to 'winnow the field' as we approach the primaries. We need to improve how 'lesser known' candidates can get a real chance, but big debates all the way to the primary votes aren't really the right way to do it.

We're getting a 3-hour debate on the 12th.

Overall, I think debates are a good thing. They help with gain national recognition, allow candidates to clash with each other, and encourage people to attend rallies and visit their website. But as you point out, large debate formats are terrible. When you have 20 candidates for two nights, it's hard to get to know any of them or their ideas. Smaller debates, especially between two people are the better way to go.

Since late May, we have only had between 9 and 11 candidates actually averaging at least 1% in the polls. Everybody else is pretty much irrelevant.

I think a better alternatives would be to have a scheduled sit down interview with all the major candidates, between June 1st and August 31st. Have them start out by highlighting their personal upbringing/qualifications and then ask them relevant policy questions. You can do two candidates a night for one hour each, and then have them get interviewed for a second interview if they continue to poll well.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The qualification rules, like our entire political system, constitute a travesty of a sham.

The corruption, exclusion and arbitrary nature of these rules are designed to do one thing:

Perpetuate a system of complete plutocratic control of the political process from top to bottom.

 

[Craig234]

I think a better alternatives would be to have a scheduled sit down interview with all the major candidates, between June 1st and August 31st. Have them start out by highlighting their personal upbringing/qualifications and then ask them relevant policy questions. You can do two candidates a night for one hour each, and then have them get interviewed for a second interview if they continue to poll well.

That sounds good, for a start.

 

[Irwin Corey]

I personally, don't GAS what they do. Until they offer up a rational candidate, they are wasting their time.

How do define "a rational candidate"?

 

[Irwin Corey]

The qualification rules, like our entire political system, constitute a travesty of a sham.

The corruption, exclusion and arbitrary nature of these rules are designed to do one thing:

Perpetuate a system of complete plutocratic control of the political process from top to bottom.

"A travesty of a sham" … Wow; I'm going to write that down.

It's easy to say it's a corrupt, exclusionary and arbitrary process; how would you do it different?

I wouldn't have thought you, of all people, would be against a plutocracy; aren't you a Retrumplican; you sure seem to be.

Honestly; until the winnow it down to the final five or less it's a not worth getting your drawers in an uproar over. They have to winnow the field someway, I think the polls and contributions (voting with your wallet) are doing that. The debates, regardless of the questions and answers, are a good way for viewers to judge who has the presence, composure and oratory skills to be President. It's easy to expect to much out of these preliminary rounds. I get why your being so judgmental, why miss a chance to snipe at the opposition.

 

[Irwin Corey]

The qualification rules, like our entire political system, constitute a travesty of a sham.

Sorry, my mind just wouldn't let that go.

Travesty: a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.

Sham: a thing that is not what it is purported to be.

Are you saying, that in spite of best efforts, the qualification rules and our entire political system constitute a well run machine that was meant to fail but are succeeding splendidly? I would have neve expected such praise from you. Like I said I'm going to write that down.

 

[Eriech]

Perez is successfully keeping out those who are qualified. Keep on keeping on....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

I personally, don't GAS what they do. Until they offer up a rational candidate, they are wasting their time.

Be assured that their candidate will oppose Trump.

What other rationality do you need?

 

[smallvoice]

How do define "a rational candidate"?

Sorry to say, but Biden is the only one so far, and he's still got the stench of Obama on him....

 

[smallvoice]

Be assured that their candidate will oppose Trump.

What other rationality do you need?

One that doesn't want to "fundamentally change" the US.

 

[smallvoice]

Sorry, my mind just wouldn't let that go.

Travesty: a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.

Sham: a thing that is not what it is purported to be.

Are you saying, that in spite of best efforts, the qualification rules and our entire political system constitute a well run machine that was meant to fail but are succeeding splendidly? I would have neve expected such praise from you. Like I said I'm going to write that down.

You already said that. I'm not convinced that your interpretation was what the poster had in mind.

 

[smallvoice]

"A travesty of a sham" … Wow; I'm going to write that down.

It's easy to say it's a corrupt, exclusionary and arbitrary process; how would you do it different?

I wouldn't have thought you, of all people, would be against a plutocracy; aren't you a Retrumplican; you sure seem to be.

Honestly; until the winnow it down to the final five or less it's a not worth getting your drawers in an uproar over. They have to winnow the field someway, I think the polls and contributions (voting with your wallet) are doing that. The debates, regardless of the questions and answers, are a good way for viewers to judge who has the presence, composure and oratory skills to be President. It's easy to expect to much out of these preliminary rounds. I get why your being so judgmental, why miss a chance to snipe at the opposition.

Since "Retrumplican" is a word, that you liberal/undisclosed (ie, no guts)/progressives made up to snipe at/denigrate (yet failed mightily) the opposition, there are none to be found.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Sorry to say, but Biden is the only one so far, and he's still got the stench of Obama on him....

You didn't like President Obama? I would have never guessed.

One that doesn't want to "fundamentally change" the US.

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?

You already said that. I'm not convinced that your interpretation was what the poster had in mind.

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

Since "Retrumplican" is a word, that you liberal/undisclosed (ie, no guts)

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.

progressives made up to snipe at/denigrate (yet failed mightily)

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.

the opposition, there are none to be found.

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.

 

[3leftsdoo]

"A travesty of a sham" … Wow; I'm going to write that down.

It's easy to say it's a corrupt, exclusionary and arbitrary process; how would you do it different?

I wouldn't have thought you, of all people, would be against a plutocracy; aren't you a Retrumplican; you sure seem to be.

Honestly; until the winnow it down to the final five or less it's a not worth getting your drawers in an uproar over. They have to winnow the field someway, I think the polls and contributions (voting with your wallet) are doing that. The debates, regardless of the questions and answers, are a good way for viewers to judge who has the presence, composure and oratory skills to be President. It's easy to expect to much out of these preliminary rounds. I get why your being so judgmental, why miss a chance to snipe at the opposition.

You make some good points, but alas, the sham operates as the travesty intended.

Not a Retrumplican, no.

How to do it differently is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the current system is a farce of a fraud.

:hm

 

[Irwin Corey]

You make some good points, but alas, the sham operates as the travesty intended.

Not a Retrumplican, no.

How to do it differently is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the current system is a farce of a fraud.

:hm

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.

 

[3leftsdoo]

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.

More good points.

 

[VanceMack]

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?

 

[noonereal]

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

its freakin ridiculous.

 

[VanceMack]

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.

The election is completely rigged...but the rat party primary sure is.