The DNC has set the criteria for meeting the threshold to qualify for the third debate: 130,000 unique donors and 2 percent in four qualifying polls. Anybody else not a fan of this? I follow the candidates on Facebook, and I suspect if it weren’t for these thresholds, the candidates would spend more time actually campaigning on issues rather than asking for money. Plus, many candidates will spend more money on digital advertising to receive donations than they wind up making from the donations! (More details in this story.
But what irritates me the most is that I really don’t want to donate money to a candidate until I’ve seen them in a few debates. The debates are meant to be the way for candidates to get their ideas out there, and if candidates are getting disqualified before they’re even given that opportunity, then I don’t like that. But I know some people are of the opinion that they don’t want air time wasted on no-names, and would rather only watch the candidates that are already well-known and have a decent chance of winning. So I’m interested in hearing everyone else’s thoughts.
I understand your point of view. But a debate stage with too many contenders is not a good recipe. (Arguably, it was too many R’s on the 2016 stage that led to Trump’s success.)
Why not organize mini-debates without any big-name sponsors and post them on YouTube? Or interested Democrats could just view and share the speeches and interviews already on YouTube.
It’s the DNC responding to too many players - including extremely low probability candidates - in the game. They need to winnow the field somehow.
The requirements aren’t really that high. There are roughly 44 million registered democrats in the country - at least as counted in the 31 states with party registration - so getting to 130,000 individual donors shouldn’t be that hard. It’s only, I believe, 2/10 of once percent of registered democratic voters and much less than of all registered voters.
Also, the 2% threshold seems reasonable. If a candidate isn’t polling at least that level the odds of them moving up are very, very small. It’s better to concentrate on more viable candidates.
This is AFTER the first two debate. If you haven’t made enough of an impression after the first two to pick up another 65K donors and 1% more in polling, do you really have a shot at being president?
I have no problem with this either. The DNC is bending over backward to avoid the bullshit accusations from 2016 about thumbs on the scale and screwing Bernie. The candidates have plenty of time for town halls and social media to get their message out. When Pete Buttigieg announced, my initial reaction was ‘that’s cute.’ Now, he’s my number one candidate and I’ve donated several times to him. He’s shown me that not only is he a genuine decent person, he’s thoughtful and intelligent.
