More to the point, why do they need extra qualifications at all? There are only three active candidates, Biden, Sanders and Gabbard. It might be worthwhile to hear from the candidate who won delegates from the American empire (Didn’t anyone at the DNC read “How to Hide an Empire?).
Under these new rules, by my calculation, neither Warren, Bloomberg or anyone else would have qualified. There is not a chance in hell that the DNC would have come up with these rules if Warren, Bloomberg, et al were still campaigning.
Please share widely!
The DNC is changing the rules because Ms. Gabbard doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in the netherworld of gaining the nomination. There are now two candidates in this race. Any air time given anybody else is a distraction.
That’s why,. You might not like it, but you asked the question and the answer is obvious.
The DNC is changing the rules because what the hell is a party that will let just anyone in? It’s not a party at all… That’s just a catch-all, grab-bag of permissiveness.
If you ask me, they should have started by telling Bernie Sanders, a deliberate outsider who has continually despised the Democratic party and has, just as continually, held it at arms length except when it benefits himself, to go take a long walk of a short pier. Had they done that in 2016 they’d have had a much easier time in 2020 telling Steyer and Bloomberg to suck it.
If Tulsi Gabbard wants a party that will bow to her every wishes she has every right to start her own party. Good look to her.
Verily, it is harder to get into Petr’s version of the Democratic Party than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. And they call me “Holier than Thou.”
Yeah, well, maybe you just need to hangout with a different herd of Dromedary…
What part of: the Party gets to define exactly what the Party is, and exactly what the Party stands for, do you not understand?
My dude, I’m assuming this is all rhetorical, and you know how the DNC operates.
Bloomberg puts his people on the committee and gives the DNC some actual finances, time to remove a qualification requirement.
Gabbard gets a delegate or two in the native home of one of her parents, pull out the carpet.
Dem leadership does this every damn time. The Democratic Party is not a real political party in any reasonable definition of the concept. It’s a private organization that has gone to court with a principal argument that they have the right to not have to be held accountable to anyone in the community, anyone who is not a major player in the party, nor anyone who’s not saving them from bankruptcy.
Of course, there are those outside the reins of power of this org who have internalized this mindset, and who are very defensive about the notion of any real democratic structures and accountability to the public, and they obviously get very, very mad when appeals to the bedrock foundational principles of reform and transparency are voiced.
What sort of “bedrock foundational principles of reform and transparency” are advanced when a candidate with NO visible support anywhere is put on the same stage as two candidates with millions of supporters spread across the entire nation? Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders will be on the debate stage because they have the votes of millions of people, small (under 5$) campaign contributions from millions of people, and because innumerable polls show that these are symbols of genuine support.
Extremists peddling conspiracy theories always yell unsupported tropes about “major players” and “the establishment”. It’s a small step from that to the “deep state” and the “liberal media”.
No matter how much lipstick is smeared on this pig, it remains an argument that says that actual votes of actual people don’t count for anything if the recipient of those votes is different from the choice preferred by the commentator.
The actual facts are that Ms. Gabbard has the support of about 31 people nationwide. Her campaign failed.
The people I see getting “really really mad” are people who show utter contempt for the millions of voters who have chosen Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden over Tulsi Gabbard or Marianne Williamson.
Is it just coincidence that the loudest and angriest voices are old white men complaining about the choice of millions of Latino and AfAm voters?
Honestly let her debate. Biden and Bernie would shred her to bits. It’s also a good test run of how to go up against Trump since she and her base are basically Trump supporters in all but name. I said this with Stein and Johnson too back in 2016.
It’s a bigger risk to make them martyrs for their minuscule base of supporters. Better to expose them on a national stage so they can have their Aleppo moments and depart in humiliation rather than play the victim and “DNC rigged” it card. Hell, if they hadn’t changed the rules for Blooomberg he might be the nominee right now
Perhaps. I’m just weary of the wading through hour after hour of meaningless noise in the debates. The questioning has been empty and meaningless, and the entire exercise has turned into a badly-done version of “Survivor”.
I would like to actual exchanges with substance between the two leading candidates. I don’t care what Ms. Gabbard thinks or says. I don’t want to see anybody depart in humiliation.
I’ve seen enough public displays of humiliation.
If Klobuchar hadn’t dropped out (because she has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning) this brand new set of rules would have excluded her.
Do you think in a million years that the DNC would have done that to her?
Gabbard would at the very least make the debate a little more about foreign policy, which has been severely underrepresented so far.
I agree that whichever Democrat wins in November will have very difficult time getting anything past Mitch McConnell, who even got away with using the “Biden Rule” to stop Merrick Garland. And Biden’s the one who supposedly can get things done.
So let’s have a debate where we find out what the candidates are going to do with regard to foreign policy, where Mitch McConnell can’t stop them.
I feel bad for anyone who has to wade through meaningless noise, especially if it is cutting into the time they are spending picking the next vice presidential candidate. I don’t know how the nominee will be able to pick a running mate without the help of the bloggers here at BMG.
That chip you carry around on your shoulder must weigh a ton, it’s so large. No wonder your commentary so often so cranky.
I confess that I’m cranky on this blog sometimes. But “Perhaps. I’m just weary of the wading through hour after hour of meaningless noise . . . “
Perhaps you should address your complaints to whomever it is pointing a gun at your head, forcing you to spend hour after hour…
All this talk about guns and loyalty to the Party. Let’s go back to my original question. What’s your objection to letting all three candidates who are still officially running into the next debate? Or more to the point, since all three candidates would have qualified under the rules in effect as of the last debate, why change the rules to exclude one person?
Asked and answered:
Tulsi was objectively way behind Klobuchar. The early debate criteria were very generous, but eventually you just have to say some aren’t getting anywhere. Foreign policy gets few votes unless there’s a major problem, and for me that was exactly what made her my last choice among those who made it to the voting rounds – way too isolationist (and a bit too forgiving of the wrong people) for my tastes.
I understand changing rules with changing circumstances, but part of me thinks that instead of objective-sounding rules that only two “happen” to qualify for the party should just honestly say look, we know only either Sanders or Biden is going to be the nominee at this point so we want a debate between just those two.
I could care less about her. She got 2 delegates from American Samoa (at a fraction of the cost of Bloomberg’s 4), under 1% of the primary vote anywhere, she isn’t running for re-election since she know she will lose, and she spends more time bashing Democrats on Fox than bashing Trump anywhere else. She wouldn’t impeach and Trump voters I know and I overheard have called her their favorite Democrat, so her supposed left wing bona fides are a heap of dung to me. A lifelong hostility to gays and affinity for authoritarian butchers does not a liberal make. Not in my book. When we did let her debate she embarrassed herself.