New Democratic Debate Rules Will Distort Priorities, Some Campaigns Say

Democracy is dead.

Why is Facebook stealer of our democracy being allowed to charge so much and pocket the money. When are the politicians going to take on Mr. Russia Facebook and stop giving him money. I don't know which activity has outraged me more, the New Debate Rules or that Mr. Creepy is involved in torching our democracy. Mr. Creepy who has a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi on the web, and once we listen to his kindergarten reasoning. Let someone put his family on the web n a doctored video and see how fast it comes down. Oh I forgot he guards his privacy, everyone else has to put up with his nonsense. Capitalism never changes the more corrupt you are like Facebook the more you are rewarded with American dollars. Wonder how many trolls are working for Facebook right now, that the CEO doesn't even know about..

Of course you won’t like this if you’re not even at the 65,000 donor mark yet or have just scraped that number. But this election isn’t about you and there are not 23 worthy ways to differentiate a Democrat. People are competing for the same lane. In this race, you have two elder statesman who have very different views. For those motivated by identity you have a leading black candidate (sorry Senator Booker) and you have two leading female candidates (sorry to those who use combs for salad and torch a popular Senator’s career for personal gain — shockingly that doesn’t endear you to the public). You have a near Millennial candidate (who is gay, despite the insulting premise one can be “not gay enough”). You have a candidate who demonstrated he could raise heaps of out of state money in a bid to unseat a Republican. Six candidates is more than enough when they are this different. Then Warren and Bernie compete to be the economic populist. Warren and Harris compete for the “I want a woman” vote. Buttigieg v Beto for, well, “you remind us a bit of Barack”. And the truth is that Gabbard and Yang will make the cut because they are internet darlings, regardless of the seriousness of their candidacies. Booker may too on the back of a strong debate performance. So be it 6 or 10 come September, we will not miss anyone.

Even if the DNC manages to trim the current number of candidates, there are simply too many candidates left to have a meaningful "debate". Have more debates, give everyone equal air time, but limit the number of participants to maybe 6.

I like the new rules. Frankly, my argument is with about 11 candidates who haven't dropped out of the race yet--despite consistently polling at zero support. There are fabulous people running for the Democratic nomination for President representing every imaginable lane of liberal thinking. How arrogant do the rest of the candidates have to be to decide that every other Dem running isn't good enough?

It is obscene that our democracy has been reduced to Facebook ads. All political advertising should be banned and voters should be forced to learn about candidates the old fashioned way, by reading about them, listening to their positions and watching the debates. The fact that Facebook continues to reap in billions and has received no punishment after allowing Russia to infiltrate it's website and influence our democracy is sickening

Campaigns shouldn't run this long and debates this early are already making me exhausted of all of the candidates and the media rhetoric. Why not implement a policy like in other countries where campaigns are limited to a set amount of days? Oh yes, I forgot that big money is at play with giant advertising corporations and tech companies raking in millions from campaigns trying to get their name out in the ethers.

I am horrified by this rule. Money should not play a role in a democratic election. DARK MONEY has already distorted the underlying ideals of a democratic society and produced a president that reflects its unfortunate emphasis.

The DNC is gonna take a lot of heat for this, but they're doing voters a favor. If after numerous town halls and many months of campaigning you can't build a healthy following, then you're not a strong enough candidate for this very important election. This gives voters more time to contemplate and compare candidates who've built viable organizations. I'm all for it.

I think the objections raised here are convincing from a procedural perspective—it seems pretty clear that the party is winging it and getting some things wrong. On the other hand, you have to ask yourself if having thirty plus candidates or even twenty is healthy for the debates the Democratic Party is going to have to have within itself. We do not need thirty candidates to represent the ideological diversity within the party, as broad as it is. We have very liberal candidates like Sanders and Warren, fairly liberal with Buttigieg, and several who tack toward the center, like Beto, Booker and Harris. But if we continue to prioritize accommodating so many voices, it’s really only going to be Biden who benefits.

Wow, talk about democracy up for sale! The test should be a certain number of signatures—not tied to money at all.

Now that a billionaire--say, a Russia tycoon--can single handedly finance a Democratic presidential candidate, it is important that the candidates have a real voter base. Otherwise, we could have a swarm of pretend candidates chosen solely for the purpose of stealing votes from a certain front runner and giving the election to an underdog with less chance to win the general election. Or a billionaire could finance his own campaign and skew the results of the primary just by throwing a lot of money around. Voters count, not money.

I support this rule The campaigns of the current leadership of Democratic Party are financed by Silicon Valley and Wall Street. That is not the way to represent the American people Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018 Charles Schumer Goldman Sachs Citigroup Inc Paul, Weiss et al JPMorgan Chase & Co Credit Suisse Group Nancy Pelosi Facebook Inc Alphabet Inc Salesforce.com University of California Intel Corp

Here goes the Democratic leadership, again, ticking off their voters. Tipping the scales again. The rules for entire primary season and every debate should have been stated up front. Enforcing new rules midstream looks suspect.

Interesting note: Nate Silver stated the 130,000 threshold would help DNC insiders and hurt candidates like Sanders. Sanders leads individual contributors by hundreds of thousands. Bernie has 525.000. His closest competitor is Beto O'Rourke with 163,000. Bernie refuses PAC money. He cannot be bought. Sanders or Warren are our best shot in defeating plutocracy.

This policy just furthers the institution of Donocracy over Democracy. In today's world, money is the benchmark for a viable campaign. Not poll support, number of states campaigned in, or anything else. Money. I thought we were trying to reduce the influence of money in politics.

I'm a 75 year old progressive that has never missed voting in any election. And, I'm no fan of the DNC. (Their debate schedule last election was a disaster and disservice to voters and candidates.) But I'm with them on this one. 23 candidates is too many for us all to keep track of (let alone on a debate stage where we're trying to get information) and most certainly thins out the amount of donations available overall. I've watched interviews and town halls with all the main ones and many not listed so I feel pretty well informed. And more may qualify by September. But for all Americans and Democratic voters the field has to be reduced, and this seems to be as good a way as any.

It's not practical to have debates with 20+ people so there needs to be some way to separate the candidates with at least some chance of winning from the "flavor of the month" candidates that have zero chance of winning.

This phased approach makes sense so long as it's transparent with all of the campaigns. All these candidates should be meeting certain thresholds to demonstrate that their campaigns are viable, and are resonating with Democratic primary voters. Polling and donors are sensible metrics. And for those campaigns complaining that these requirements will crowd out Senate and House races, maybe they should ask themselves if we need this many presidential candidates chasing donors. Let's also be honest here. We simply don't need 20+ candidates running for president. Hopefully, this will force some candidates (Beto and Bullock, specifically) to reconsider Senate races. Winning the presidency will mean nothing for the Democrats if Mitch McConnell and the Republicans still control the Senate.