DNC makes it more difficult to qualify for 3rd debate

[Jose Garcia]

ABC News, in partnership with Univision, will host the third Democratic presidential debate in September, the Democratic National Committee announced Wednesday, saying it was raising both the polling and fundraising bars for candidates to qualify.

The debate is set for Sept. 12 and could extend to a second night, Sept. 13, if enough candidates meet the threshold to participate. The location and moderators have not yet been announced.

Like the first two Democratic presidential debates — which are set for next month on NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo and for July on CNN — the September debate and a fourth, to be held in October, will cap participants at 10 per night.

But it will be more difficult for the nearly two dozen 2020 Democratic hopefuls to make the stage.

More: https://www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/05/29/abc-univision-democratic-debate-1346099?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2019%2F05%2F29%2Fabc-univision-democratic-debate-1346099

[brooklynite]

1. Perez told me that was the plan at a lunch earlier this year.

Qualifications will get tighter as we approach voting.

[Skya Rhen]

7. Some people have all the luck - why can't I ever get a chance to meet someone famous? Not fair...

[George II]

11. It doesn't take much, just get involved in local and state politics....

You'll have lots of opportunities to meet some high level politicians.

[George II]

9. Remind me to ask Nancy when I have dinner with her in Hartford on June 21.

[Celerity]

2. Univision should hold one in Spanish

No es un problema para Pete!

[George II]

5. Or O'Rourke. My Spanish has fallen way off since I graduated from high school and moved out of NYC.

[Celerity]

6. yes! I forgot Beto. Castro is not fluent in it. Probably some others who can speak it as well.

Gillibrand is fairly fluent in Mandarin.

[LibFarmer]

18. No hay problema por Pete nt

[DownriverDem]

3. Good

There's too many folks running.

[NurseJackie]

8. Agreed! I often see posts where someone complains about being "disenfranchised" because...

Agreed! I often see posts where someone complains about being "disenfranchised" because they feel they won't be able to vote for their preferred candidate if that candidate is forced to drop out early.

1) That's not what disenfranchised means. (I think the word they ought to be using is "disappointed".)

2) That's the entire point of the primary process.

It's good to winnow-out the 3rd and 4th tier candidates early on and focus our attentions on ONLY the ones who actually have a halfway reasonable chance at becoming the nominee.

I always get the impression that the lower tier candidates are just padding their resumes, looking for book deals and increased speaker's fees, or hoping to be chosen as VP or some other cabinet position. And that's fine... but in the process, we shouldn't allow them to become a distraction to the larger goal.

[ehrnst]

10. +1000. (nt)

[Indygram]

12. You may be talking about my comment but you misunderstood my point

I was attempting to make the point that constantly calling for anyone to drop out and run for Senate PRIOR to debates even happening or allowing the process to actually play out is what disenfranchises voters. That is how voters become disillusioned and end up getting disgusted and staying home. The primary process MUST be allowed to play out.

[NurseJackie]

13. There have been others. Besides, that's not disenfranchising anyone.

You may be talking about my comment but you misunderstood my point

I did not call you out. There have been several. Besides, I can't emphasize enough that's not disenfranchising anyone. Who do you think is being disenfranchised? How so? Are they being PREVENTED from voting? Are they being DENIED the right to vote?

Cat-calls from the sidelines and from the cheap-seats for the candidate to "go home" or "return to the senate" IS part of the primary process that's playing out. Ultimately, it's the candidate's decision... or the facts on the ground (support, donors, poll results) that influence their decision or force their hand. --- All part of the "primary process" that is being "allowed to play out."

That is how voters become disillusioned and end up getting disgusted and staying home.

You're talking about immature voters who can't handle disappointment, or who have unrealistic expectations. I blame the "youth soccer culture" for this phenomenon (ie: no winners, no losers, everyone gets a trophy)

People who "stay home" because they didn't get a chance to vote for their favorite candidate... or people who vote third party because their preferred candidate wasn't chosen are immature and pouting. I guess those types of people are going to exist no matter what.

You can't please everyone, right? But at the same time, the "primary process" that's being "allowed to play out" can't be held hostage to accommodate the whims and vanities of the lowest common denominator and 4th tier candidates (and their supporters) who feel entitled to be there, just because they want it.

Look, all I'm trying to say is this: when it comes right down to it, people just need to learn to accept the fact that NOBODY is guaranteed a seat at the debate just because they want one, or just because their supporters feel that he (or she) "deserves" to be there. That's how it works and people just have to learn to accept reality.

[Indygram]

16. OK, so let's just call it voter suppression then

That's actually a more fitting term and actually much closer to what I meant. Trying to push candidates out without having a FAIR primary process IS voter suppression. I thought we opposed doing that.

[NurseJackie]

17. No, that's wrong too! It's not voter suppression.

OK, so let's just call it voter suppression then

No, that's wrong too! It's not voter suppression.

That's actually a more fitting term and actually much closer to what I meant.

No it's not. Nobody is denying people the right to vote. Nobody is making it more difficult for people to vote. Nobody is removing polling places or making voting requirements more strict. Nobody is making it harder to register. Nobody closing registration offices. Nobody is standing-guard at polling places to intimidate voters.

This is NOT "voter suppression". It's absurd to call it that. And in fact, I think that calling it "voter suppression" makes a mockery of everyone who is actually fighting REAL voter suppression tactics.

I think there's a real danger when anyone tries to dilute the actual meaning whenever they falsely claim that the ORDINARY process of winnowing out and eliminating candidates is "voter suppression" or "disenfranchisement". BOTH CLAIMS ARE WRONG!

Trying to push candidates out without having a FAIR primary process IS voter suppression.

So trying to WIN by eliminating other candidates is "unfair" and "voter suppression"?? Seriously? That's the argument you're making?

That's just part of the normal process. There are winners and losers. People get "pushed out" all the time... it happens every single time. People get heckled from the sideline and encouraged to drop out. Big deal!

There's ONE winner because everyone else lost, or quit, or withdrew, or "suspended their campaign", or ran out of money, or ran out of energy, or just lost the will or the nerve. Too bad for them.

I thought we opposed doing that.

If this was actually "disenfranchisement" or "voter suppression", the answer would be YES! WE ARE OPPOSED TO THAT! But, it's neither of those things.

In reality, by incorrectly calling it "voter suppression" that's just a way for the supporters of 2nd-tier (and lower) candidates to make their disappointment resonate with other voters who don't feel the same way.

[DesertRat]

24. Very well said. In no way is this "voter suppression"

You're correct. It's just disappointment. Thanks, NurseJackie

[sheshe2]

25. Thank you!

[ehrnst]

20. Because it's not "voter suppression."

Words have meanings, and while you can call the process which all candidates agree to when they enter the race "voter suppression" that doesn't make it so.

There are requirements and rules for debate participation, and the the DNC has the authority to set them, under the auspicies of FEC approval.

They DNC doesn't 'owe' any and every candidate a seat at a primary debate, regardless of how that makes you feel. I take it you are worried that your particular favorite might not make it? That's usually why people feel entitled to cry foul when their candidate isn't as popular as others....entitlement.



The POTUS debates are governed by a separate body, and their rules are approved by FEC.

[Hortensis]

19. How does someone calling for a candidate to drop out

"disenfranchise" voters? It doesn't. People didn't just call for Hillary to drop out but to throw her in jail (including despicables at our Democratic convention no less!), but that did not affect my vote in the least.

Btw, a pox on the whiny sophistry of feckless, irresponsible citizens. We all have a civic duty to vote. One of the candidates will take on the powers of each office, and we have a duty to make sure they go to the better person, or at very least to keep power away from people who will use it to do harm.

Voters have no more right to become "disillusioned" than anyone else with a critically important duty does to refuse it. They certainly have no right to abrogate their duty because they discover their first preferences don't have enough citizen support to compete.

If only we could put every able-bodied, able-minded nonvoter in the cages in detention centers that their depraved indifference (or "disillusionment" if you like) helped enable, and let them see how they like being their own victims.

[ehrnst]

21. People on DU talking "disenfranchises voters"?

I had no IDEA we had that much power..... Lawdy!!!

[DownriverDem]

14. Remember the clown car in 2016?

I just don't want to see it for our candidates now.

[NurseJackie]

15. I know... it was distracting. People only noticed the SPECTACLE of it all...

Remember the clown car in 2016?

I know... it was distracting. People only noticed the SPECTACLE of it all, rather than paying attention to the candidate's messages (and other warning signs).

The candidates who weren't INSANE had support that was spread out and diluted. The CRAZY candidate's support was not, so the idiot managed to rise to the top.

When it comes to the Democrats, we need to make sure that we create an environment that's fair, but that isn't SO LAX and without quality controls that just "anyone" can rise to the top even though he (or she) isn't qualified... or even though he (or she) is a weak candidate that Trump and the GOP (and Russia) can easily defeat.

Quality Control is important.

[ehrnst]

22. +1000. (nt)

[Me.]

23. What's The Problem?

Yes some will not make it but the weeding out will have to start sooner or later unless we want 24 candidates running a year from now. And frankly, I don't see 2% as that big a hurdle. This is what running a race is about and only one person is going to be the winner/ nominee.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Good. Too many means there can't be a real debate among the ones...

Too many means there can't be a real debate among the ones that most of the voters are supporting, one of whom will win.

If a candidate is still in but can't score on the polls or get the funding, that candidate isn't really running for President, IMO. He's in it for another reason.

[comradebillyboy]

27. Good.