Trailing candidates angry over new Democratic debate rules

[TexasTowelie]

Frustration over how the Democratic National Committee is managing the upcoming presidential debates is bursting into the open as several longshot candidates say the party is stacking the process against them.

Most of the two dozen declared candidates will be able to participate in the first debate of the 2020 campaign next month. But those who are struggling to gain traction are alarmed by new rules the party announced this week for later debates that are sure to cull the field.

It's precisely the dynamic DNC Chairman Tom Perez hoped to avoid when he began crafting the rules governing the nomination process in the aftermath of the 2016 election. He sought to avoid giving any campaign room to argue that the national party unduly influenced the outcome, as Bernie Sanders did in 2016, contributing to a divide in the party that wounded Hillary Clinton going into the general election.

Yet Perez also wants to avoid an unwieldly gaggle of dozens of candidates that could splinter the primary electorate well into next spring while President Donald Trump consolidates Republican support and stockpiles cash.

Read more: https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national-govt--politics/trailing-candidates-angry-over-new-democratic-debate-rules/1NJsQ4UqhuG9uTmbnwEFRI/

[BeyondGeography]

1. Like the rent

The number of candidates is too damn high.

[EveHammond13]

2. is 2% in the polls really that unreasonable?

[JI7]

3. and don't they have the entire summer to work on it ?

including possible bump from the first 2 debates.

[EveHammond13]

4. agree. I know Swalwell is polling low but I really like him and I think his future

is going to be very big even if he does not prevail in this primary. Great spokesperson. Very likable. Good on the issues.

So I guess I'm saying those polling low should not take it as any kind of rebuke - we have a wealth of fantastic Dems at all levels.

[Shrek]

6. Not unreasonable at all

With 24 candidates and assuming an even distribution of votes, each would have just over 4%.

A threshold of less than half than number is more than fair.

[Blue_true]

5. Maybe they should have thought about that before getting into the race.

Or try to convince more voters. The field need to be made thinner, can't have 20+ people in debates for long before it becomes ridiculous.

[MineralMan]

7. It's called reality, candidates. Look into it.

There are maybe six candidates who have any ghost of a chance to win the nomination. All have easily met the criteria for inclusion in the debates. If you have not, random candidate, it is time to begin questioning your decision to run and consider withdrawing.

This will not be a primary season when someone who is unknown rises to the top and floats there to be selected. It simply will not.

So, if you're already not polling above 5%, you never will poll above 5% in this primary season. Think! Plan! Maybe you should run for the Senate, or dig in and do your current job even better. You will not be the Democratic nominee, though.

[marylandblue]

8. I agree, but I have a caveat.

One unknown did rise up - that's Butttigieg. If he shines in the debates, he will continue to rise. That's his best chance. The 1%ers also have that chance in the two debates open to them.

You can argue it's a low probability event, but it's not impossible. The leading candidates include some good debaters, so it won't be easy...

[MineralMan]

12. He might be one of the survivors, yes.

I like him. He's a good guy, and might work out OK, but I don't think he will rise to the top just yet. He's only been the mayor of a smallish city. That means something to a lot of people, and won't inspire confidence that he can handle things like international affairs and running the most powerful country on the planet.

His inexperience is his biggest stumbling block, nationally. Frankly, he's one of several candidates for whom inexperience is a drawback.

I imagine he'll make it until Super Tuesday. After that, though, I think it will be clear that he will not have a real chance.

[BannonsLiver]

9. Too bad.

[Hortensis]

10. Which ones are barely hanging on and already afraid

they'll have zero traction between now and September?

Let's compare those names with a list of those supposedly leaping to attack, excuse me, call the press to complain that the evil DNC target is "stacking the race against them" and see if there's any overlap.

[StevieM]

11. The national party played no roll in Bernie's defeat, nor could they have if they had wanted to.

There was no significant difference between the way the 2016 primaries played out and how previous primaries had operated.