Why can’t we remember that the DNC is part of team blue too! This story has been making the rounds and it is so misleading. Convention committees cannot be fully staffed until we know who the individual delegates are and the proportion of delegates the major candidates have.
doublemansays
The DNC just changed the qualifications for upcoming debates and the only beneficiary will be Mike Bloomberg. The DNC refused to change the qualifications when accomplished and still popular candidates of color like Julian Castro and Cory Booker were kept off the stage earlier and ended their campaigns despite offering unique policies and perspectives. Bloomberg also donated $325,000 to the DNC a little while before announcing his bid.
The DNC is a corrupt organization.
I can’t (of course I can!) believe they are making these types of moves. When they have the opportunity to motivate voters who are suspicious of parties and status quo politics, they decide to spit in their faces.
Prediction: Joe Biden will be the nominee and 90% of the coverage of the general election will be about who (and what party) is the most corrupt, and turnout will be below 50%.
Christophersays
I actually can believe they are doing this and it was entirely predictable and appropriate. In fact, I thought I had heard this was the plan all along. The new rules say that once we start tallying delegates anyone with any delegates gets to debate. With actual votes being counted there’s no need to rely on fundraising anymore. Yes, Bloomberg benefits by getting on the stage, but he also now gets to see how well he stands up to the scrutiny of questioners and fellow candidates, which IMO is a good thing. Obviously, we’re assuming Bloomberg does get any delegates. Remember, the fundraising thresholds were about number of donors rather than amount of money, so someone like a Bloomberg could not just buy polling numbers with his own money (as some have also claimed about Steyer, but he also fundraised so he could meet the requirements). I’m happy to have the DNC take as much of Bloomberg’s money as he is willing and allowed to give. I liked Booker and Castro too, but they weren’t going anywhere and even struggled with the demographics to which they personally belong, and no it was not because they couldn’t partake of later debates.
doublemansays
You don’t care about corruption. Full stop. It’s been clear.
SomervilleTomsays
Neither Julian Castro nor Cory Booker were EVER going to be nominated, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the rules of the debates or the way campaigns are financed.
Those two candidates never had significant constituencies. They were not “popular” — neither candidate ever had more than single-digit support. For example, Cory Booker never polled above 9%, and aside from four outliers stayed at or under 5% for the entire year. Julian Castro did even worse, with just one outlier at 8% in early January of 2019, another outlier at just 4% in late December of 2019, and rock-solid smear between 0% and 2%.
America is chock full of people with “unique policies and perspectives”, many of them people of color. The debate stage was far too crowded as it was, and the quality of all the debates suffered as a result. A major purpose of the debates is to help voters winnow the field of candidates to a manageable number. The debates are not intended as a part of an affirmative action plan for the Democratic Party — nor is one needed.
Marianne Williamson did about as well as Mr. Castro in the polls. She certainly offered “unique policies and perspectives”. Did the party nomination process fail when it caused her to be dropped? Not in my opinion.
The Democratic Party nominated and elected our nation’s first black President — twice. The Democratic Party was the first to nominate a woman as a major party candidate for President, and ran a campaign that caused that nominee to win the popular vote. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton needed charity or special arrangements to become the Party’s nominee. They instead built successful organizations, mounted successful campaigns, won a majority of the primary votes, and won the popular vote in each of three successive general elections.
I don’t support Mr. Bloomberg. I think he is very unlikely to win the nomination. I think Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and to a lesser extent Julian Castro are very likely to gain cabinet seats as a result of their campaigns if a Democrat wins the November election. I think that itself is one reason each of those candidates decided to jump in. Our own Deval Patrick belatedly put his hat in the ring. Is his lack of traction a fault of the process? Again, I think not.
If Joe Biden ends up being the nominee, it will be because he has won a majority of the primaries. If a majority of Democratic Party voters choose the nominee, then please tell us again why some other candidate should be nominated instead.
If the election turns out to be about corruption, it will be a result of months of explicit videotapes, audiotapes, and electronic documents showing that Donald Trump, Mike Pence, much of the cabinet, Lindsay Graham, Devin Nunes, and others knowingly participated in a conspiracy to betray American national interests in order to advance the agenda of Vladimir Putin, their own venal benefits, and their own political benefits.
If that happens, Democrats will almost surely take all three branches of government in November.
That’s good enough for me.
fredrichlaricciasays
Amen, brother Tom.
Christophersays
6 6s!
TheBestDefensesays
I am unconcerned about the change of the rules to who will participate in the debates. It was announced in the fall that the rules would change after votes begin to be cast. I am much more concerned about the DNC elevation of some of the worst elements in the party’s corporatist wing to positions of control for the Convention https://newrepublic.com/article/156341/tom-perez-stacks-dnc-deck-progressives.
I am not a Bloomberg supporter but as I predicted when Pablo asked, I do think he will be the nominee, which makes Perez’ stacking the deck with corporate lobbyists so dangerous for both (1) the chances of defeating Trump; and (2) having anything like a progressive voice should he win.
Why can’t we remember that the DNC is part of team blue too! This story has been making the rounds and it is so misleading. Convention committees cannot be fully staffed until we know who the individual delegates are and the proportion of delegates the major candidates have.
The DNC just changed the qualifications for upcoming debates and the only beneficiary will be Mike Bloomberg. The DNC refused to change the qualifications when accomplished and still popular candidates of color like Julian Castro and Cory Booker were kept off the stage earlier and ended their campaigns despite offering unique policies and perspectives. Bloomberg also donated $325,000 to the DNC a little while before announcing his bid.
The DNC is a corrupt organization.
I can’t (of course I can!) believe they are making these types of moves. When they have the opportunity to motivate voters who are suspicious of parties and status quo politics, they decide to spit in their faces.
Prediction: Joe Biden will be the nominee and 90% of the coverage of the general election will be about who (and what party) is the most corrupt, and turnout will be below 50%.
I actually can believe they are doing this and it was entirely predictable and appropriate. In fact, I thought I had heard this was the plan all along. The new rules say that once we start tallying delegates anyone with any delegates gets to debate. With actual votes being counted there’s no need to rely on fundraising anymore. Yes, Bloomberg benefits by getting on the stage, but he also now gets to see how well he stands up to the scrutiny of questioners and fellow candidates, which IMO is a good thing. Obviously, we’re assuming Bloomberg does get any delegates. Remember, the fundraising thresholds were about number of donors rather than amount of money, so someone like a Bloomberg could not just buy polling numbers with his own money (as some have also claimed about Steyer, but he also fundraised so he could meet the requirements). I’m happy to have the DNC take as much of Bloomberg’s money as he is willing and allowed to give. I liked Booker and Castro too, but they weren’t going anywhere and even struggled with the demographics to which they personally belong, and no it was not because they couldn’t partake of later debates.
You don’t care about corruption. Full stop. It’s been clear.
Neither Julian Castro nor Cory Booker were EVER going to be nominated, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the rules of the debates or the way campaigns are financed.
Those two candidates never had significant constituencies. They were not “popular” — neither candidate ever had more than single-digit support. For example, Cory Booker never polled above 9%, and aside from four outliers stayed at or under 5% for the entire year. Julian Castro did even worse, with just one outlier at 8% in early January of 2019, another outlier at just 4% in late December of 2019, and rock-solid smear between 0% and 2%.
America is chock full of people with “unique policies and perspectives”, many of them people of color. The debate stage was far too crowded as it was, and the quality of all the debates suffered as a result. A major purpose of the debates is to help voters winnow the field of candidates to a manageable number. The debates are not intended as a part of an affirmative action plan for the Democratic Party — nor is one needed.
Marianne Williamson did about as well as Mr. Castro in the polls. She certainly offered “unique policies and perspectives”. Did the party nomination process fail when it caused her to be dropped? Not in my opinion.
The Democratic Party nominated and elected our nation’s first black President — twice. The Democratic Party was the first to nominate a woman as a major party candidate for President, and ran a campaign that caused that nominee to win the popular vote. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton needed charity or special arrangements to become the Party’s nominee. They instead built successful organizations, mounted successful campaigns, won a majority of the primary votes, and won the popular vote in each of three successive general elections.
I don’t support Mr. Bloomberg. I think he is very unlikely to win the nomination. I think Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and to a lesser extent Julian Castro are very likely to gain cabinet seats as a result of their campaigns if a Democrat wins the November election. I think that itself is one reason each of those candidates decided to jump in. Our own Deval Patrick belatedly put his hat in the ring. Is his lack of traction a fault of the process? Again, I think not.
If Joe Biden ends up being the nominee, it will be because he has won a majority of the primaries. If a majority of Democratic Party voters choose the nominee, then please tell us again why some other candidate should be nominated instead.
If the election turns out to be about corruption, it will be a result of months of explicit videotapes, audiotapes, and electronic documents showing that Donald Trump, Mike Pence, much of the cabinet, Lindsay Graham, Devin Nunes, and others knowingly participated in a conspiracy to betray American national interests in order to advance the agenda of Vladimir Putin, their own venal benefits, and their own political benefits.
If that happens, Democrats will almost surely take all three branches of government in November.
That’s good enough for me.
Amen, brother Tom.
6 6s!
I am unconcerned about the change of the rules to who will participate in the debates. It was announced in the fall that the rules would change after votes begin to be cast. I am much more concerned about the DNC elevation of some of the worst elements in the party’s corporatist wing to positions of control for the Convention https://newrepublic.com/article/156341/tom-perez-stacks-dnc-deck-progressives.
I am not a Bloomberg supporter but as I predicted when Pablo asked, I do think he will be the nominee, which makes Perez’ stacking the deck with corporate lobbyists so dangerous for both (1) the chances of defeating Trump; and (2) having anything like a progressive voice should he win.