Dems Are Starting to Freak Out That Their 2020 Field Isn't Shrinking

[bluewater]

The networks are cool with it. But voters and top officials are concerned that the upcoming debates may end up being as messy as the last.

There will be no great winnowing. At least not yet.

After four nights of debates featuring more than 20 Democratic presidential candidates, the televised fall contests were supposed to be the moment where the party’s presidential field would be cut down to size.

But instead of entering the getting-serious phase of the race for the nomination, the Democratic National Committee, television networks and candidates themselves are bracing for a long haul—starting with the strong likelihood that enough candidates will qualify to require the debates to be split up again. Already nine candidates have secured spots for the Sept. 12-13 forum in Houston, and several others appear poised to qualify. At most, 10 candidates are expected to appear onstage together and a spokesperson for the DNC did not clarify how the group would be divided over two nights if more than 10 qualify. A recent DNC memo also granted the campaigns more time to qualify for the subsequent October contest, meaning that even more could potentially participate in the debates deeper into the fall.

Party officials and some campaign veterans insist that a crowded debate stage (or even two) isn’t an altogether bad thing. Many point out that voter engagement picks up much later in the fall, and argue that the eventual nominee will emerge battle-tested from a prolonged nomination process. At a minimum, party leadership will avoid the criticism that they got in 2016, when it was perceived that they tried to smooth things out for Hillary Clinton.

But there is also growing anecdotal evidence that Democratic primary voters are increasingly exhausted with the large field. And privately, some campaigns have grown eager to have the top-tier candidates onstage alone with each other, so as to showcase their direct policy contrasts.

The DNC seemed to be eager for that too. Following the first two debates, the committee raised the threshold for candidates to qualify, requiring any candidate to hit 2 percent in four polls, and have at least 130,000 unique donors, a measure intended to weed out the less serious contenders. But that criteria has had a perverse side-effect, insiders fear, by creating incentive structures for candidates that are largely unhelpful.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/2020-election-democrats-are-starting-to-freak-out-that-their-field-isnt-shrinking

[George II]

1. Who are these so-called "Dems" who are freaking out?

[bluewater]

2. Ask the daily Beast, it's their headline ;)

I suppose it's the usual anecdotal anonymous sources?

[George II]

4. I see. In other words, "Dems" are NOT "freaking out" about it.

[bluewater]

7. Maybe some campaigns are ansty, according to the article

"And privately, some campaigns have grown eager to have the top-tier candidates onstage alone with each other, so as to showcase their direct policy contrasts."

I'll give the Daily Beast the benefit of the doubt and assume they didn't make that up.

[George II]

8. "Privately", the equivalent of "unnamed sources" or "it has been reported".

[lapucelle]

19. ...

But there is also growing anecdotal evidence that Democratic primary voters are increasingly exhausted with the large field. And privately, some campaigns have grown eager to have the top-tier candidates onstage alone with each other, so as to showcase their direct policy contrasts.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/2020-election-democrats-are-starting-to-freak-out-that-their-field-isnt-shrinking

[George II]

21. "...some campaigns have grown eager to have the top-tier candidates onstage alone..."

In other words, "some" means "top-tier".

[left-of-center2012]

3. Money will start drying up for some

Some may choose to run for state races.

[bluewater]

5. Personally, I hope the September debate doesn't get split over 2 nights.

I would like to see everyone on the same stage.

[DrToast]

6. I didn't know I was supposed to be freaking out over this

So hard to keep track of all these things!

[bluewater]

10. I would have said "bored" instead of "freaking out", personally.

The format with 10 candidates on stage at a time seems a bit vacuous for a 3rd and 4th debate.

But hey, some people like 90 second replies with 30 second rebuttals for a total of ~5-10 minutes of speaking time per candidate, so what do I know?

[DrToast]

13. Yes, I'm ok with "bored"

[customerserviceguy]

22. The September and October debates

will probably not involve more than a dozen candidates.

Once we get to a 5% threshold, the herd will start to thin out considerably.

[onetexan]

9. early still. It will wane out the next couple months

[murielm99]

11. I don't know anyone who is freaking out.

I will be in Springfield tomorrow. The leadership will be there, including Durbin, JB and Tammy Duckworth. The speaker at our event is Nancy Pelosi. I will look for those who are freaking out.

I have a new bumper sticker. It says, "The Democrat 2020." Someone asked me to bring him one of those.

BOLO for freakouts!

[George II]

23. All four at the event? Good for you, enjoy!

[murielm99]

25. It will be even better next year,

because it is an election year. We have our rural, red areas, but we are a blue state. You can depend on us.

I think our new governor is the most progressive in the country.

[bluedigger]

12. I thought it was just indigestion.

Who knew?

[NurseJackie]

14. At most, the only ones who are "freaking out" are the ones who candidates are doing poorly.

Dems Are Starting to Freak Out That Their 2020 Field Isn't Shrinking

No we're not. At most, the only ones who are "freaking out" are the ones who candidates are doing poorly.

[Renew Deal]

15. I still haven't figured out how Williamson and Yang are allowed on stage

[totodeinhere]

17. If they meet the criteria set out by the DNC then they are on the stage.

Those are the rules that they are following.

[customerserviceguy]

24. The format

practically invited mischief from the enemy. There's no reason for someone who voted for Trump and is still Trump-leaning to not play havoc with our party.

Right-wingers have even contributed a dollar to keep these fringe candidates on the stage to embarrass us.

[murielm99]

26. Open primaries and caucuses invite mischief.

We need to do away with those entirely. My state has an open primary.

[customerserviceguy]

29. They do

but there's a bit of trouble to go through with that. Giving a buck to a lunatic or lying to a pollster is almost hassle-free.

[totodeinhere]

16. I don't have a problem with it.

Every candidate has the right to stay in the race for as long as they want to. And we know that eventually we will get down to one candidate, our nominee.

[Thekaspervote]

18. This!

[dalton99a]

36. +1.

[Hortensis]

37. And a 2-year campaign needs to be filled with something.

Besides keeping people from being bored, look what happened in 2015-2016 with our nominee effectively identified in the beginning and our enemies given most of 2 years to take her out.

[Me.]

20. OMG

The media has to stop trying to create division in order to earn their nickels

[JDC]

27. Nobody asked me...wonder what number of candidates

Is right for us? Maybe the Daily Beast will tell us next week...

Gosh, I will hand wring til then I guess...

[Sneederbunk]

28. I always thought it was primary voting that shrinks the field.

[floppyboo]

32. I've been thinking the same.

I'm more than a little worried at the narrative that media events should super cede the ballot box. It's been a slow erosion. But to implicitly make the MSM responsible for culling the field is downright dangerous.

[CentralMass]

30. I wonder if they are worried about anyone in particular ?

[floppyboo]

31. More candidates - more name recognition - more exposure post primaries

As long as everyone can stay civil, what a boon to campaigning across the country with now (or soon to be) well known faces standing side by side.
I'm trying to find the glass half full here. The full 2 night stages aren't good for anything but name recognition.

[zipplewrath]

33. Life expectancy of a metric

To some extent what is going on here is what a boss once described as the life expectancy of a metric. You can view data and determine various things to measure to try to detect accomplishment or progress. The problem is that those things that you measure were formerly done in ignorance of their connection to the understanding of progress. Once everyone is aware of what is being measured, their focus shifts to accomplishing those metrics, instead of actual progress or accomplishment.

The DNC explained what would be measured and therefor everyone focused on accomplishing exactly that. Unfortunately that doesn't exactly translate into actually building a candidacy. I've gotten a tremendous number of requests for a contribution in order to get someone into the next debate. It might only be a dollar or so, but the pitch is merely to allow them to participate, not actually support them. Others have gone to sufficiently deep pocket donors to get enough support to participate. The candidates have focused upon which ever metric will get them into the debates, which of course doesn't necessarily mean they are actually making progress with their campaign.

[DavidDvorkin]

34. "Growing anecdotal evidence"

It's hard to argue with that.

It's better to ignore it.

[Blue_true]

35. I have no concerns.

The field is so large because Trump clearly is so bad for the country. Time will winnow it down. Some campaigns will run out of money.