DNC boss says candidates to be involved in debate lottery

[applegrove]

DNC boss says candidates to be involved in debate lottery

BY JONATHAN EASLEY at the Hill

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445483-dnc-boss-says-candidates-to-be-involved-in-debate-lottery

"SNIP.....

Democratic candidates for president or their representatives will be involved when the Democratic National Committee (DNC) does a lottery to determine who stands on stage during the party’s initial two-day debate, DNC Chairman Tom Perez told The Hill in an exclusive interview.

.....

“We’ll certainly make sure we do it in a way that is transparent for all of the candidates involved because obviously we want them to see for themselves that we meant what we said,” Perez said, seated on a brown leather couch in his DNC office overlooking South Capitol Street.

......


Some fear that the random lottery could result in a leading contender, such as former Vice President Joe Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), getting grouped with nine people polling at 1 percent.

“We wanted to make sure we didn’t have our thumb on the scale,” said Perez, who was dressed down in khakis on a Friday afternoon before the holiday weekend.


.....SNIP"

[Tiggeroshii]

1. I. Guess?

Clearly that doesn't seem fair to the top candidates who can be kept out of the debates despite having the most support?

[applegrove]

3. Oh I think the bottom three in terms of not qualifying will not even be in the lottery. Only the top

20. If that.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. That would make sense.

Hopefully you're right.

[Hortensis]

11. :) HOPEFULLY the sun will rise tomorrow,

but you wish otherwise if you choose.

[JI7]

2. i don't really see a problem with that unless it's some troll type candidate

<Some fear that the random lottery could result in a leading contender, such as former Vice President Joe Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), getting grouped with nine people polling at 1 percent. >

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread applegrove.

[applegrove]

6. You're welcome uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

7. ...

[Ford_Prefect]

8. The last time I believed that the party leadership was actually interested in fair

representation a Georgia peanut farmer proved them wrong. IMO their thumbs have been on the scales ever since to keep the establishment "centrist" view foremost among considerations regarding the party and candidates put forwards at any level.

If you find this remark concerning you need to look hard at who is running the party and just how much effort was put into quieting the newest crop of progressive candidates... some of whom are often cited here for their forthright remarks and honest assessments of Trump and Congress.

While I hope that the public pressure to maintain open access to the process will indeed result in a range of voices heard during the debates, I find it very hard to believe that politics as usual in one form or another will not bend the presentation to suit those who expect to steer the party in their preferred direction.

My concern is that in the rush to build a consensus candidate the party will plow under real key issues much as they are currently condoning anti-choice candidates for governor.

[Hortensis]

12. I actually voted happily for that Georgia small-government

conservative, in the GE anyway. I was young, and there was no internet then.

I didn't realize that doing end runs as "reform" candidates is a classic move by politicians rejected by their peers and colleagues, who know them. I just bought his "reform" posturing. Didn't really believe it was needed that much but never questioned his honesty in insisting it was or his story of why he sought funding from the "grassroots." Of course, that was what populist leaders typically do when knowledgeable people won't donate -- and claim to be too honest to accept big checks.

Carter is our first successful ex-president, yes, but he was a pathethically failed single-term president. Do you realize, we held BOTH houses of congress and he spent most of his time fighting them, trying to cut progressive government instead of using it to solve new problems? The New Deal ended with a bumbling attempted right turn under Carter, blocked by the Democratic congress.

Now, doesn't that make you wonder if perhaps the dozens of pros on the DNC knew something you didn't and was trying to keep that from happening, hoping to create an administration capable of great progressive accomplishments instead?

[Ford_Prefect]

15. The pros as you call them have been running to the right for decades.

Carter proposed a meaningful and detailed national energy policy and was way ahead of the curve on national health. He also had the benefit of the Gingrich run Congress after 2 years. And have you forgotten just who it was that colluded with Reagan/Bush to unseat him? The same MIC and CIA that looked in horror at the idea that a sitting president would attempt to reduce Pentagon spending, rationalize federal weapons purchasing and pursue a diplomatic foreign policy rather than one based on subversion and regime change.

They have cultivated the industrial and investment interests at the expense of programs we fought for. They have cozied up to the MIC to the degree that now we have endless war as economic policy rather than a side-effect.

Along the way, they have forgotten how to fight, and forgotten when and why it matters to fight for those programs which the Orange orangutan and his criminal cohort in the cabinet and Senate are now busily deleting from existence.

[loyalsister]

17. Parties running debates is a flawed approach

There was a time when the League of Women Voters sponsored debates without party input on who, where, and the terms of the debate. It's a shame we moved away from that model to an infotainment competition that has only served to provide a platform for conflict driven events with the greatest triumphs being meme worthy statements and responses.

[karynnj]

9. The risk if getting Biden or Bernie and the 9 weakest candidates is very low,

But the easy way to prevent that is to use any method to put the 20 candidates in a list that, no matter how roughly, ranks them by strength. Then randomly split the top and bottom half respectively into two groups, creating 2 strong groups and two weak groups. Then randomly combine a strong group with a weak group. Then each day has half the strong candidates.

Want the days even more even, take that same ranked list and split it into 5 groups, where the first group has candidates 1 to 4 ... and the last group has 17, 18, 19 and 20. Then create the two debate nights by randomly picking 2 candidates from each of the 5 groups.

Note that a particular candidate is not really impacted by where they are initially ranked. The whole point is to try to equalize as much as possible the two days.

[dsc]

10. yeah a stratified random sample is a better method here

than a purely random one. Though the downfall with this method is it is likely to prevent the top contenders from being on stage together. In short, no method is perfect but I prefer this to the one that is apparently being chosen.

[karynnj]

13. I think the probability of them being together is one half using either method

I was not sure many would understand if I said stratified sample, I just described it. I suspect that if they had to do it again, they would change the criteria. However, it is hard to balance the value of an open party willing to at least hear people with that level of support and having debates where candidates have enough space to differentiate themselves.

That said, I can not think of any ultimate nominee who won because they blew out the early debates. IN 2008, many pundits thought Biden had the best answers, but he gained no traction. Obama greatly improved as the primaries went on, but for all his eloquence and charm, that was never one if his strongest abilities.

In 2004, though Kerry was always a very accomplished debater, he only gained traction after he won Iowa mostly based on retail politics, talking one to one to many voters.

GWB was terrible at debating, easily beaten by Kerry, but on content also beaten by Gore. McCain did not win because of debating, but his life story.

[dsc]

16. According to the latest apparently they are doing something like this

Those above 2%, currently the top 8, will be split evenly. I agree that Biden and Sanders would be equally likely to be together under both scenarios. I do think that if it were groups of 4 then the 3 and 4 would possibly have been harmed (going from having some chance of being with both Sanders and Biden to have no chance).

[mcar]

14. This is the first of many debates

I think a lottery to determine which candidates, which night makes sense for this one.

[loyalsister]

18. Debates are no longer meaningful

There was a time when the League of Women Voters sponsored debates without party input on who, where, and the terms of the debate. It's a shame we moved away from that model to an infotainment competition that has only served to provide a platform for conflict driven events with the greatest triumphs being meme worthy statements and responses.

[Politicub]

19. This seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

Why shouldn't better-polling candidates appear alongside the other nominees? Some people may not be as adapt at fund raising or have name recognition. That's not their fault.

There's going to be a big shakeout after the first debates, anyway.