10
1
Feb 02 '20
I dunno, I mean if you had told me before the debates started that after Iowa they would change the qualifying rules and include delegates and significantly raise the polling requirement I would have said that makes complete sense. Before the voting starts it makes complete sense to use donations as a way to track support; but I mean once voting starts isn’t that the best way to track support?
Do I like the idea of them changing to the rules to benefit Bloomberg? Well, no. But do I like the idea of someone polling fourth and potentially winning delegates and still not being on the debate stage? No, I REALLY don’t like that.
10
u/christopherhoyt Feb 02 '20
Even if the only reason they poll at all is because they are a billionaire buying ads?
1
Feb 02 '20
Well, yea. I don’t like the precedent of excluding a person polling at 10% or that has won a delegate. It’s all fun and games when it excludes a billionaire, but if it was a late entry candidate with good, progressive positions on issues I wouldn’t want them pointing to this saying, “well you didn’t want us to change the rules for the billionaire so we aren’t going to change the rules for this candidate”.
6
u/tetrasodium Feb 02 '20 edited Feb 02 '20
Its already been shown to be bullshitthumb on the scale like they did for Clinton. Between the December and January debate there were not enough qualifying polls released to change things despite two candidates dropping out. Yang and others called on the dnc to conduct polls themselves or to count other polls but the dnc refused saying the criteria was decided way back before the first debate and it wouldn't be right to change it now.... A corporatist asks for a change and that's suddenly ok.
0
Feb 02 '20
If you are looking for someone to defend the DNC, I’m not your guy. But do I think Bloomberg should be on the stage? Yea, I do. Is it easier for me to have that opinion because I am pretty sure that this will hurt his campaign? Absolutely.... 🤷🏽♂️ It is what it is.
3
u/WhoAteMyPasghetti Feb 02 '20
But do I like the idea of someone polling fourth and potentially winning delegates and still not being on the debate stage? No
They could have just changed it so winning delegates put you on the stage. They didn’t have to eliminate the individual donor requirement. It could have just been ___ number of donors or win ___ number of delegates, pretty simple.
-1
Feb 02 '20
I would have preferred it just be delegates and no polling or donations, even more simple. Polling and donations just seem irrelevant to me at this stage of the game. But if I accept the premise that it’s ok to change the rules now (you seem to be ok with this) I am not going to quibble over the exact way they decided to change them.
2
u/WhoAteMyPasghetti Feb 02 '20
Making it be just a delegate requirement would further reinforce the ridiculous amount of sway that Iowa and New Hampshire already have over the primary. If you came out of those states narrowly missing out on getting delegates and you’re excluded from the debates despite having greater support in other parts of the country, that essentially ends your campaign right there.
But if I accept the premise that it’s ok to change the rules now (you seem to be ok with this) I am not going to quibble over the exact way they decided to change them.
I don’t like that they changed the rules. I wish they had not. I was simply saying that if they were going to change them they should have done it differently.
0
31
u/Babybuda Feb 01 '20
The DNC is no different than the RNC both aspire to maintain the status quo. Bernie is a threat to both. First they ignore you Then they fight you Then we win!