How many Candidates do you want in the September debates?

[Funtatlaguy]

I have to be honest, I’m only up for one more of these 2 night 20 candidate free for all’s next week.
After that, I hope that we have it narrowed down to about the Top 8-10 for September.

Here’s the latest realclearpolitics averages for all of our candidates.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[oldsoftie]

1. Agreed. nt

[Sherman A1]

2. As many as qualify for them

[Farmer-Rick]

53. Yup, all of them...whoever remains or qualifies.

[mahina]

3. 8 or so. These aren't debates at all.

[Funtatlaguy]

4. There's just too little time for responses.

[trueblue2007]

40. i only want to see 6 up there .. 3 women and 3 men

[crazytown]

5. 8 is enough

[Funtatlaguy]

7. I'm old enuf to remember a tv show by that name

[crazytown]

9. Confession: me 2.

[brooklynite]

28. Fun Fact: "8 is enough" was based on a book by Tom Braden, the CNN "Crossfire" host

[LuvNewcastle]

6. If it was up to me, we would have no more than 10 next week

and 5 or 6 for September. After that, they would be required to get at least 10% in the polls to get on stage. Our candidates are much more similar than different, so we really aren't helping ourselves by having them all muddying up the water.

[BlueTsunami2018]

8. The five who have a shot.

Joe, Kamala, Elizabeth, Bernie and Pete. The other guys really should just go back to what they were doing. It’s absurd to have this many candidates in there who have zero chance. It comes off as ridiculous.

[crazytown]

10. For partisan political reasons I would add Beto -

ain't no point in alienating Texas.

[Funtatlaguy]

13. But if you let in Beto, you need to let in Texan Castro too.

[crazytown]

16. Beto scores 2.5x times Castro

so no I think.

[BlueTsunami2018]

20. He's barely at 1%.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter because it’s my personal preference. I’m sure the DNC isn’t going to listen to me. 😃

[crazytown]

23. RCP Average, 2.8%

[TexasTowelie]

27. 17% in Texas according to the latest poll.

That would actually earn him delegates for the national convention. Currently, Buttigieg would not be awarded any delegates based upon individual state polls since he does not meet the 15% threshold anywhere.

[Celerity]

43. Buttigieg was leading Iowa with 25% 3 weeks weeks ago in one poll has been in that 8% to 14% range

in most though, so it is an outlier and his trend-lines are down He is overall stuck now at in 6% to 9% area in most all state polls, except obviously SC, where he is . He and Warren are really hurting with A-A's overall. That South Bend cop shooting tragedy has really stalled Buttigieg out.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ymbocHDaQhK_kXU8VxIUdADKMZR3ZtDqjWUfuuk2GhA/edit#gid=0

[RDANGELO]

11. No more than five people on the stage at once.

If they want to have it for two nights fine.

[Capt. America]

42. Agreed

[Funtatlaguy]

12. My only codicil would be that I think that all

legitimate candidates should get a shot at being in one debate.
Would like to see Steyer, Sestak, and Moulton qualify in September.
Am glad that Governor Bullock gets a shot next week.

[crazytown]

18. If CNN had 2 debates of 5 it would have been

Night 1


Night 2


Can anyone say we would have been seriously worse off.

[Funtatlaguy]

21. I'd be ok with those if Marianne could still sage the stage.

[crazytown]

24. Williamson is a zero chance candidate don't you think?

We are not holding debates for entertainment.

[Funtatlaguy]

25. I was just being a little snarky. No, she shouldn't be there.

Some people think you should spread sage around rooms to wipe away demons.
I was just teasing Marianne little. Not very nice of me.

[Eric J in MN]

46. Five people on stage is plenty. NT

NT

[NurseJackie]

14. One. Two-hoo! Three.

Three!

[SouthernProgressive]

15. Warren and Biden.

I’m good there.

[Funtatlaguy]

17. Uh oh, you gonna get a lot of incoming, u better 🦆.

[crazytown]

19. Popcorn !

(and I agree with you + Harris)

[JustAnotherGen]

22. 7/8

That gives more time for more questions and each person can answer the same question.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

26. Four and no more

The rest out and supporting one of the contenders.

[crazytown]

29. It would be hard to pass over the guy who raised the most money last quarter,

and/or dropping Bernie would start a riot.

[Amimnoch]

30. 1.

Yes, I know it’s silly as hell to say it, but I’d so love it if we just had 1 that could start immediately going after Cheetolini.

Cheetolini’s war chest is getting HUGE without having to worry about a Primary.

Thanks to President Obama, and the Democratic Party majorities of 2009/2010 in Congress.. the ones that turned around the Great Recession, and have given us an economy so strong that even Cheetolini’s destructive crushing debt charity to the wealthy hasn’t been able to quash.. Wonderful for the country, but this is going to complicate getting Cheeto outed in 2020.. Very rare for an incumbent to be voted out during a strong economy.

Such a plethora of wonderful candidates we have to pick from, but damn if this isn’t a bad time for it.

[Amishman]

31. All who are polling over 3%

I'd also cut several debates from the calendar overall

12 debates is crazy, and makes it far too easy to beat ourselves up.

[oasis]

32. Seven, with none of them having the name, Cory Booker.

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

33. True undecided

As a true undecided, I am making a conscious decision not to get involved heavily with any of the candidates until there are far fewer. I don’t want to waste effort by investigating the platform and backgrounds of people, only for them to disappear before I ever get to vote in a primary (April 28). I don’t want to become emotional/intellectually invested in backing a contender only for them to drop out, then to do the same thing again before that person also drops out. This leads to depression and defeatism. If I were in an early primary state I would need to do due diligence on more candidates. But at this point I choose to wait.

Given that, I wish the debates were limited to candidates that were polling at least 3-5%. According to the RCP link that would leave us with 5 (6 if we round up on O’Rourke). I think that is reasonable.

At the same time I would like to see several of the other candidates (especially the current/former governors) target the Senate or the cabinet. There are a lot of good minds in the running. There are also a lot of offices that need filling. Maybe they should not all shoot for the top job this year.

Ultimately I will vote for the democrat in the general election. As I am in a swing state I hope that vote matters.

[SidDithers]

34. 3. Harris, Warren, Biden....nt

Sid

[TreasonousBastard]

35. 4. Maybe 5.

[Peacetrain]

36. 6 or 8 will be a good mix..

[tritsofme]

37. Biden Harris Warren Sanders, perhaps Buttigieg but he seems to be in decline

The rest are just distractions.

[crazytown]

47. Buttigieg raised $25m - the most money.

Can't count that out.

[crazytown]

51. Money - it's is not the amount per se

It is the indication that a candidate can conduct a prolonged, viable campaign, with the resources to maintain an effective ground game. It is for this reason, that Buttigieg deserves a place on the debate stage - he can't be counted in the long term on the basis of current polling.

[tritsofme]

57. Definitely a good to keep him around for now.

However his polling rut seems to indicate there is trouble ahead.

[Indygram]

59. He isn't in a position to get any delegates

No amount of donations will change that. You can't win the nomination without delegates. I don't foresee him ever improving his support with people of color, either.

[crazytown]

60. Beto's going broke

I would prefer to be in Pete's lane.

[Trumpocalypse]

38. I want a debate every week with all the candidates

moderated by Simon Cowell, Gordon Ramsey and Jennifer Lopez. At the end of each debate, they eliminate one candidate and do that each week until there are only 2 left.

[Amimnoch]

49. ROFLMAO! Okay, points for making me spill coffee through the nose.

Extra sad thing is.. that kind of sensationalized politicking might actually work to drum up interest in our election process with the low information low attention span population.

Maybe even cycle it out some.. do the Simon/Gordon/J-Lo for a couple of weeks then add in others..

Have a few weeks of Heidi Klum/Michael Kors/Nina Garcia judging where each candidate has 1 day to “tailor” up an 100 days in office agenda.

Then put all remaining candidates on an island for a few weeks where they vote each other off after each episode hosted by Jeff Probst.. Survivor POTUS.



Recommend NOT doing a Naked and afraid version..

[Trenzalore]

39. 7

I think that is a number that gives enough time for them all to speak longer than a minute and mix it up if they want to.

The top 7 should be on stage and the rest off.

[Blue_true]

41. No more than 10. nt

[RandySF]

44. 5-6

[Eric J in MN]

45. Four. NT

NT

[hlthe2b]

48. No more than six would be ideal; eight max

[BlueJac]

52. Let the people decide!

If they qualify so be it.

[Deb]

54. All of them. It distracts the media with something innocuous and helps bankrupt the troll employers.

I love seeing all these great people together.

[secondwind]

55. 4 sounds about right to me.

[Shrek]

56. All of them n/t

[MineralMan]

58. No more than six, I think. Four would be preferable.

Until we narrow the field down, we cannot begin to predict who the nominee will be. We need, in the later debates to limit the number of candidates so the finalists have time to give more detailed responses to questions and answer other questions.

Next week, we'll have another pair of debates. If candidates do not rise above 5% in reliable polls, they should withdraw from the race voluntarily. That would be the reasonable thing for them to do. If they do not, at some point the debates need to be restricted to no more than the 6 candidate who have achieved the best poll results on average.