DNC Is About To Cut The 2020 Field In Half, And Spark Plenty Of Controversy

[left-of-center2012]

The massive Democratic presidential field could begin its inevitable reduction this week with only half of the current candidates set to make the cut for next month's debate. The controversial decision will please many party stalwarts who worry that the often dizzying number of Democrats seeking the nomination could endanger their chances of defeating President Trump.

But other candidates who have struggled to gain traction and meet the debate qualifications set forth by the Democratic National Committee are already complaining that party leaders are trying to manipulate the process.

For the first two debates in June and July, the rules were more lenient. A candidate only had to reach 1% in at least four sanctioned national or early state polls in addition to reaching 65,000 donors from 20 different states. But for the September and October debates, those benchmarks doubled to 2% in four polls and 130,000 donors. So the 20 candidates who made the first debates has been cut in half. Ten candidates qualify so far.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez said that there was an expectation that candidates had to show they were gaining support and not just staying stagnant, especially in such a large field.

"We've said this all along, that in the fall we're going to raise the threshold because that's what we always do. You have to demonstrate that you're making progress. And 2% is hardly a high bar in my judgment," Perez said on CNN in June. "You can't win the presidency in the modern era if you can't build relationships with the grass roots."

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754882091/the-dnc-is-about-to-cut-the-2020-field-in-half-and-spark-plenty-of-controversy

[StClone]

1. "Massive" ?

It was a strong (rather than somewhat dismissive wording of massive) case of democracy in action.

[DURHAM D]

2. "spark plenty of controversy"

Sounds like media working hard to get it going. Reminds me of a story about an outlier poll a few days ago that they managed to whip into a frenzy.

[bearsfootball516]

6. Exactly.

I don’t think too many people will be heartbroken about candidates like Bill de Blasio or John Delaney not making the debate stage.

[democratisphere]

3. If there is little or no interest in a specific Democratic candidate then

they should get out of the Presidential candidate race AND find another way to make the Democratic Party, America and the World better.

[left-of-center2012]

5. As mentioned in the linked article ...

Not making the debate does not prevent them from running in the primaries.

[LincolnRossiter]

8. DNC Should Issue a Statement that Every Candidate is Free To Stay in As Long as Their Money and

organizations hold together.

It's none of the party's business.

[LiberalFighter]

10. The DNC does not need to do that.

And if it is not the party's business should they be telling what the candidates should or should not do?

If candidates need to be told they are free to stay in as long as... then maybe they shouldn't be.

[LincolnRossiter]

11. FTR I don't literally mean that the DNC should do that. Just my way of conveying (perhaps unclearly)

that the lower tier candidates need to stop whining. It's not the DNC's job to make or keep them viable. I think the debate criteria have been quite generous and honestly think we have more of these "debates," if you can really call them that, on the schedule than we need.

So don't blame the party.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Absolutely agree.

The debates might be helpful in getting candidates more face time. At least to the point of the public seeing first hand that the weaker candidates are winnowed out.

Some in the public may be looking for excuses for why their candidate is not included. And the same for some candidates. BTW... some of those candidates are members of the DNC with voting rights. Members of Congress, Governors... not sure if ex VP's are. So they really don't get to complain.

[SCVDem]

4. They only missed the debate.

With so many candidates, it's not really a debate and not many will notice who is missing.

They are still in the race so it's not that big of a deal.

Well attended town halls would be a better choice than this shitshow.

[JaneQPublic]

7. Bingo. (nt)

[Bradical79]

9. Not seeing the problem

Can't have 20 candidates in these debates forever. The requirements are pretty darn low already for anyone with even the slightest chance at winning the nomination. I don't see much real controversy from this.

[LiberalFighter]

12. The controversial decision? Cry me a river.

There is nothing controversial about the decision.

The DNC provided a format for candidates to gain national exposure with the debates. The schedule was announced in December 2018 giving candidates until June 12 to qualify for the first debate (June 26/27).

The second debate had the same criteria as the first. 1% in at least 3 polls and 65,000 unique donors with at least 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.

The third debate required 2% in at least 4 different polls and 130,000 unique donors with at least 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.

The fourth debate criteria remains the same but allows those that did not qualify in the third debate to qualify for the fourth.

Only Steyer, Gabbard, and Williamson met the donor criteria and not the polling. Of the three, maybe Steyer has a chance for the fourth debate. If that happens, it would require two days for the fourth debate. Unless any candidate that qualified for the third debate drop out before then.

[brooklynite]

13. Technically, not

DNC is cutting the DEBATE field in half; the field of candidates includes people who didn't make the first two debates but are still campaigning. Some or all them will continue on.

[LiberalFighter]

14. I agree with Perez's statement about it not being a high bar. nt

[LiberalFighter]

15. I disagree with the statement that the DNC is about to CUT the 2020 field in half.

The DNC did not specify the debate by rule or fiat that the debate field will only have 10 candidates. There were 2 out of 3 candidates that did not make the cut that would had been included if they had met the polling criteria. Under the rules, they could still qualify for the 4th debate.

It seems that media and others are trying to put the blame on the DNC when it was up to the candidates to meet the criteria. The DNC is being very reasonable and not to do so would had made it a wild circus and embarrassment. Some I suppose would argue that anyone that filed should be allowed to be on the stage. That would be foolish. Everyone had about 6 months to build their campaign and get their message out.