DNC likely to raise polling threshold for November debate, sources say

Beto and Booker are both just too odd. They need to go back to their day jobs. (or get one.)

It looks like show biz entertainment.

r1 Booker has such youthful presence to him, though.

Tulsi was getting too much attention. Can’t have that, now.

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris. There you go. That's the only group of candidates that anyone is really looking at.

These fucking Democratic debates are clown cars. Just a joke.

r5 Harris has crashed in the polls recently, so your definition of who people are "really looking at" seems to be on shaky grounds.

They need to cull the field now cuz the Democratic Party has a bizarre nominating process. No one needs a brokered convention.... I'm sticking with Kloubochar. She will breakthrough.

It is all his testosterone r3.

why are people and the news media being so dramatic about this? I agree there are too many candidates now but look at the repubs in 2015. Didn't they have about 16 to start with? and I know they had many debates with more than 8 people. It seems like people are making a bigger deal of the Democrats now than they did to repubs in 2015/2016

Do people expect the Democrats to just let everyone stay in forever? I respect Inslee. Beto, Hickenlooper, and Bullock need to follow his classy example, exit the race they are never, ever going to win, and start running for Senate in their respective states.

yes r10. The republicans even had those humiliating pre-debates where the few really low polling candidates had their own little debate.

Tulsi = TRASH

I still hold hope for wildcard- Marianne Williamson.

As long as it includes Pete, I'm good.

[quote]Booker has such youthful presence to him, though.

But he's a closet case.

[quote]I respect Inslee. Beto, Hickenlooper, and Bullock need to follow his classy example, exit the race they are never, ever going to win, and start running for Senate in their respective states.

R11, I guess you missed the news.

Hickenlooper withdrew from the race days ago, and announced today he is running for Senate:

Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Harris are the top 5. Beto, Booker and Klobaucher should be in it as wellNo one below that.

The ones below the top 5 are a waste of time. Like, what does Klombuchar bring to the discussion?

Why the Dem party has refused a candidates debate just on climate is depressing - and telling. There's no hope for the country until the Pete/AOC generation takes over. Say, in 20 years.

Klobuchar brings Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin into the discussion. Crucial states if y'all wanna win the presidency

Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker, Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Julián Castro and anyone else not named Joe, Kamala, Elizabeth, or Pete needs to drop out.

R22 Pete can do that easily. Much more charismatic, and smarter. You need star power to win.

sadly Bullock won't run for Senate in Montana. He said he's an executive and not someone who has to debate and fight in legislature clearly he's got a big ego

Bullock would be the perfect candidate because he's a Democrat from a red state, but so damn boring.

The lower polling candidates should start debating amongst each other. It doesn’t have to be hosted by a major news network but it would be great to see some of these people talking about issues in greater detail and talking about big new ideas for the future, and if one or two of em find new fans and money (or have a moment that goes viral) maybe someone could break out. I would watch Amy Klobuchar and Beto talking about prison reform for a half hour

Amy Klobochar is gonna be Senate Majority leader one day. But what if she's the most prepared out of everyone? I dunno. She may LBJ from the get go

If the lower tier candidates want to stick around, they have to do their own debate and it will involve a swimsuit-clad, mud-covered death match round. As much as I hate Tulsi Gabbard's bullshit background on gay rights, I must say, I wouldn't mind watching her in that fight. Anyone else think she could kick Beto's ass?

[quote]Klobuchar brings Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin into the discussion. Crucial states if y'all wanna win the presidency

Yes, those are important states. But where's the evidence that Klobuchar is the one who can win them against Trump? She can hardly get any support from Democrats right now.

One of the top tier Democrats will have to win those states for us.

If Pete's and AOC's generation doesn't take over for 20 years there might not be any hope for the country left, or indeed the rest of the world. 20 more years of ignoring climate science is not going to end well.

The big problem the Dems have in culling their field is that the top 3 are all well past normal retirement age. I guess if that's what the people want, but let's hope there are young VPs in the wings.

The DNC needs to cull the weaklings now as they will drag down the strong ones.

And bitchcunt Susan Sarandon needs to shut up or re-direct her bitching towards Trump.

These articles are ridiculous and they're going to get worse as the months go on.

Falsely claiming the entire DNC is constantly "under fire" and using vague "involved people" as sources, just to stir up the old BernieBro trope of the DNC rigging the election.

All I can do is hope people aren't as stupid and gullible as they were in 2016.

People are getting worse. The race to the bottom continues. People are even more binary and tribal in their thinking. They seem to have less and less information literacy. Trump has manufactured a lot of this by undercutting respect and faith in everything.

[Quote] If Pete's and AOC's generation doesn't take over for 20 years there might not be any hope for the country left,

Yes r30 it doesn't look very hopeful. Is not just the leading dem candidates. Look at Nancy and Chuck too.

Uh, as usual, what about us?

What have you Xers done lately, I mean, ever?

We're busy innovating, r36...

#yanggang

You keep doing that r37. Just remember your innovations are founded on government pure research so make sure you pay your fair share of taxes. No handouts, corporate or otherwise! No cheating!

"The Democratic Party is proving to be wholly inadequate to facing the crisis America is mired in. That much was demonstrated Thursday, when the Democratic National Committee voted down a resolution, brought forward by longtime DNC member Christine Pelosi, calling for a presidential debate focused solely on climate change. This caused a group of young climate activists to start singing "Which Side Are You On?"

"This isn't just a moral failure to refuse to center the most important problem facing not just the country but the planet. It's also a symptom of a larger disease afflicting the Democratic Party, which is giving into a politics of timidity and risk-aversion that, ironically, is only increasing the chances of another loss to Donald Trump and the Republicans in 2020."

All that would happen if they had a debate solely on climate change is that every single other cause would start whining about not getting their own debate. It's a ridiculous idea that would just open a huge can of whiny worms. And, there wouldn't even be a debate. The Democratic candidates would all just stand on stage agreeing with each other for an hour or two.

It would be great, though, if one of the debates between the two candidates for the Presidency itself could be exclusively on climate change. An hour or so of properly researched questions, to reveal in detail how very little Trump knows about the topic. In fact, a whole debate on any topic at all would expose him in the same way.