Hard choice ahead for low-polling Democrats

[TexasTowelie]

Low-polling candidates are facing banishment from the prime-time glow of a national audience. The party’s rules for the next faceoff, on Sept. 12 and 13, will cut off any candidate who can’t score at least 2 percent in four approved polls and attract 130,000 donors.

After the first two Democratic debates, Rep. Tim Ryan’s audiences grew from two or three people to 20. Former congressman John Delaney noticed an uptick in people approaching him in airports: “They grab my shoulder and say, ‘Hang in there. Your message is what we need to hear.’ ”

But now those low-polling candidates, and at least six others, are facing banishment from the prime-time glow of a national audience. The party’s rules for the next faceoff, on Sept. 12 and 13, will cut off any candidate who can’t score at least 2 percent in four approved polls and attract 130,000 donors.

That means the first real winnowing of this historically large field is at hand. About half the current candidates could be tossed off the debate stage and see their profiles sharply downgraded within days - a change likely to be cheered by many Democratic voters, who often say they find the sprawling field overwhelming.

Read more: https://www.brownwoodtx.com/zz/news/20190823/hard-choice-ahead-for-low-polling-democrats

[calguy]

1. This is as it should be

All the candidates have had two debates to make their case. They've all had an equal chance. Many of them, like Williamson and Tulsi, had no business being on that stage in the fi place. It's time to focus our attention on those who actually have a serious shot and eliminate those who are only in it for notoriety.

[liskddksil]

4. Williamson and Gabbard met the same qualifications that everyone else did

not sure why you say they had no business being on the stage.

[calguy]

7. Yes they met all the qualifications to be up on the stage

And they were given their justly earned debate slot. When I said they had no business being on the stage I meant they had no viable chance to even move up in the polls, and they haven't. It's time to move on from the vast field of attention seekers and focus on the viable candidates who actually have a significant following of voters. Maybe I should have chosen different words to express my opinion. I didn't mean to discredit any particular candidate.

[DownriverDem]

2. Too many

were running. Besides the presidential race, we need to focus on the Senate too. In order to change things, we will have to win the House, White House and Senate. Those that can should stay or run for the Senate.

[Dagstead Bumwood]

3. There's such a sharp drop off

Between the upper tier candidates and the rest of the field. Appears the Democratic electorate really only sees five or six realistic candidates for the nomination, and that it's time the candidates themselves recognize this. It's time for them to put side their candidacy, no matter how altruistic their campaign was, and focus their talents and resources to either aiming for another elected office next fall or assisting their fellow Democrats in being elected somewhere.

You did your best and fell short. There's no shame in that. Now go do some good somewhere else, and thanks for your efforts.

[Garrett78]

5. If you can't beat Andrew Yang, it's probably time to leave the race.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. It's time those candidates did what Inslee did a few days ago:

He realized that he was not going to be the candidate, graciously bowed out, and announced he was running for another term as WA governor. He will keep his high profile fighting for climate change solutions. Hickenlooper realized he'd have more impact on national politics by running for the Senate (even though he'd previously said he wasn't going to do it). He has a good chance of winning. The other low-polling candidates who won't be in the debate (and a few who will) might do likewise and consider how they could really make themselves useful instead of tilting at this particular windmill.