A recent poll I saw concerning the nomination for President from the Democratic Party had:
Joe Biden 70%
Robert F Kennedy 17%
Marianne Williamson 8%
Should these candidates have a debate, as the Republican candidates are scheduled to do?
On the one hand, it seems silly. Joe Biden is almost certain to win the nomination; why should we worry about people who have virtually no chance of winning?
On the other hand, 25 percent of the Democratic party represents tens of millions of people. Shouldn’t their candidates have a chance to be heard?
I lean toward no, but I can see why some people would support the idea.
Joe gets plenty of coverage. You’ll hear more from RFK Jr. than you’ll want. I don’t know anything about Marianne Williamson but I’m sure she has a website if I want to find out. What would you expect to happen at this thing that for some unknown reason we call a debate if those three participants were there?
I agree it would be silly, especially given the non-serious nature of those two candidates. If we were talking about Bernie Sanders, Gretchen Whitmer, or Gavin Newsom, that would be a different story. But Joe Rogan already demonstrated what happens with RFK Jr. and debates, and it isn’t pretty. He’d make Trump sound like a normal person, which in is an impressive achievement, but not at all helpful in maintaining the sanity of the country.
ETA. And if there was any doubt about Biden’s electability, we would see serious candidates like the latter, similar to when Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and RFK Sr. (how did things go so wrong in just one generation?) ran in 1968 due to a clearly weak incumbent who ended up not running.
Kennedy and Williamson can go ahead and debate each other if they feel like it. I have no reason to expect that either Biden nor the mainstream media would show up if they did, though.
If there were one or more other candidates who weren’t entirely off the wall, then of course we should have debates, and a serious primary. But in effect, the potential alternatives seem at least so far to have ceded the field for this round. And I suspect they know more about the reasons for and against doing so than I do.
No incumbent President running for reelection has participated in a primary debate, even those who had legitimate primary challengers like Ford or Carter. This is a non-issue.
The U.S. does not have political parties that people join, in the way that many European countries do. Anyone can call themselves Democrats. Any polling organization wanting some publicity can put them onto a poll. Those that have name recognition can attract attention. No president ever has 100% favorability or backing, allowing others to garner some percentage of the pollees.
None of that means that the Democratic National Committee has to enable them by taking them seriously. Nor will they.
He flew under the radar for a long time. He lived near me in NY and was popped for drug possession at least once right down the road from me. Since he had no significant position in politics and being the son of a popular murdered politician and nephew of another one nobody was going to criticize him much. But now that’s he’s thrown his hat in the ring he’s got to face reality. He’s a nutcase, out of touch, clueless, and clearly spoiled from never facing consequences. There are plenty of Kennedy apologists in the world who will ignore it all but if you dig into his history, he’s a mess. Not even a hot mess, just the kind you don’t want to have to clean up.
It seems as if he started out with a generally anti-corporation viewpoint. From there, it’s not a long leap to “we can’t trust vaccines that are designed and manufactured by Big Pharma”.
Back to the original question, it looks like the consensus is NO. I wonder. though, how much support would a primary challenger have to generate to make a debate with an incumbent President worthwhile. Twenty five percent ? Forty ?
Who decides if there will be a primary, the Democratic party? Is the party run by some consensus, or by the President, who I think is the party leader?
The Democratic National Committee decides. The committee consists of all the Democratic party leaders, office holders, and registered Democrats from across the country. Through representative voting they will establish the rules, but the National Chair position is very powerful. A sitting Democratic president has no special position in the committee but of course is going to be highly influential.
Well, it stupidly gave itself that role in 2016, which resulted in nothing but heartburn for the party. All it did was make a party entity the punching bag in disputes over scheduling and participation. The DNC should withdraw from this question altogether and go back to letting campaigns fight with each other and the media, not with the party.
If any of the campaigns and any media organizations wish to organize a debate, more power to them. I doubt the Biden campaign would participate (nor is there any reason for it to, IMO) and I doubt that any major media organization would organize a losers-only debate. So, I guess that would be the market speaking. Maybe RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson will go debate an empty podium on the Infowars Youtube channel or something.
I fervently agree. The DNC in 2016 had been taken over by friends of Hillary Clinton who did an end around the Democratic base. Since then the rules have changed. It doesn’t matter for next year, not so far anyway, because there are no serious challengers to Biden, and it would be a traditional party function to back the current president in a re-election bid. The solution is the elimination of the political parties under RICO statutes and end this blight on democracy.