I voted Bernie, but I think I misunderstood what the premise was. I voted Bernie because I thought he won. I don’t care how close it is, the guy with the most votes should get it for better or worse. It seems like the least amount of drama. I’m not emotional about it.
Always the Bernie conspiracies.
Since there were no Nevada debate qualifications, they didn’t change anything. I think Bernie should be glad that the debate field will finally be rid of Yang and Steyer. And we may as well add Bloomberg since he’s polling well enough as of today.
Says the guy with no citations and thinks the Sanders subreddit is the most toxic place on the internet.
I gave you proof of the DNC considering rule changes after the primaries have begun and you hand wave them away as conspiracy theories.
You know who else does that? Trump supporters. Exact same thing. If the news doesn’t fit your narrative then ignore the news and claim the other side is nuts.
Seriously? It’s like you didn’t even read the links (shocker).
Anyway, of course there are debate qualifications unless you think you are free to walk on stage with them. I know you will not take my word for it though so maybe, just maybe, you will believe the Democratic National Committee itself:
???
These are the rules that exist now announced 1/31/20 that Bloomberg qualifies under.
The claims was that rules were not changed by this announcement, and a charge of changing existing rules is what you claimed.
“Don’t fall in love with a candidate before March” was a lesson taught to me by a Dr. Howard Dean.
Exactly. They announced the qualifications and they haven’t changed. And it is time to get Bloomberg up there. I don’t like it, but he’s polling well and flooding Super Tuesday states with money.
Yang dropped out today and there was an incorrect report of Steyer dropping out, but I have to believe that there was some smoke there.
Or, you know, you could read the original linked article.
The second link I provided was to show that dalej42’s claim that there were no qualification needed for Nevada was completely wrong.
Since you will not read my original link I’ll put it here for you:
He’s “bought” himself a chance to be looked at, a chance to sell himself. Whether not voters buy what he is selling is to be seen.
Ok, I read my other post, it should have said there were no NEW Nevada debate requirements.
In other words, the Nevada debate requirements were established and have not changed since they were announced. Yes, they are different from the New Hampshire debate qualifications.
I read the link. They did NOT change the rules for Nevada. The article is spinning that the rules made for Nevada are a change from what the other debate rules were as something done to benefit Bloomberg. Pragmatically it would be insane to not allow someone polling well to be on the debate stage. Moreover anyone who wants him to fail should want him there. Excluding him makes attacking him less effective. If he’s the wrong person for the job the debate stage can show it. Or not.
Huh, well this is odd then…
- DNC Loosens Rules for Nevada’s Democratic Debate, Potentially Including Bloomberg
- DNC scraps donor threshold for Nevada debate, opening door for Bloomberg to qualify
- Campaigns slam new debate rules, as DNC changes make way for Bloomberg to be on stage
- Democrats drop donor threshold for Nevada debate, opening door to Bloomberg
- National briefs: DNC rules change for Nevada debate may enable Bloomberg to participate
- D.N.C. Rules Change for Nevada Debate Could Open Door for Bloomberg
Why is it always a conspiracy with Bernie Bros?
Let me say it again: the debate qualifications are different for Nevada than they were for New Hampshire.
Since they’ve announced the Nevada qualifications, they have not changed the Nevada qualifications.
Yes? The fact that Nevada debate qualification rules were NOT changed. Your original source material proves that. Yes one could get the impression from media reports, buying the Sanders camp spin, that they DID change the rules. Having read that NYT article I had that impression… before your cite reduced my ignorance. It is a different rule than other debates but was not changed. Was it created different specifically to deal with the reality of Bloomberg polling well self-funded? Likely so.
And again there not having him, polling that well, on the stage would be dumb and counterproductive for those who want him taken down.
Are you suggesting all those publications I cited are run by Bernie Bros? All the authors are Bernie Bros too?
So, the DNC had different rules prior to the Nevada rules then, when it came time to setup rules for Nevada they backed off previous rules and loosened it up for Bloomberg.
So they did not “change” the rules for Nevada but put in place rules that were less stringent than previous rules to get Bloomberg on the stage.
That is some masterclass level of rationalization you have going on there. Generally the rules become more stringent as the process continues. Not less and certainly not to let one guy on the stage because…reasons.
If you could write a $100 million check to your own campaign should they let you on the stage too?
I don’t even use the phrase “Bernie Bros”. It is a dumb phrase.
Nah media spins to make stories that get interest. Simple as that.
The rules were tightened in terms of polling threshold, and got rid of the donor threshold. Past results matter though. Having won a delegate is an in. If you think that someone polling 10% or higher should not be on the debate stage while those polling much less are would be good for the process, well I’d disagree. Per one of your links
Ok. Cool.
I was asking dalej42 who I was responding to but good to know anyway.
As for the donor threshold I think it makes eminent sense. The point being to demonstrate you have support among a wide swath of voters and are not being funded by a few deep pockets (or your own deep pockets).
The DNC tossed that to allow someone to (potentially) buy an election.
Polling demonstrates “support among a wide swath of voters”. Votes do too. Advertising for donations (spending more to get them than you take in, to meet the debate threshold) does not.
The donor threshold didn’t work. Far too easy for Republicans to rat fuck it with $1 donations.
Yang needed to go. Thankfully, he took care of it himself. He was only there to sell books anyway.
Steyer bought his way on stage but there’s no way he could meet a more stringent donor requirement and he certainly isn’t polling well. He’s had enough time.
Bloomberg is horrible and also is buying his way on stage. Regrettably, he is polling decently enough so he needs to be on stage because people might vote for him. I can only hope that Bloomberg destroys Bernie in the next debate.
So, its your preference that the person currently in the number three spot in the 538 polling average NOT be allowed in the debate? Because it’s no fair he’s spending his own money.