With Bloomberg polling as well as he is, it would be a mistake NOT to include him in the debates

[highplainsdem]

You can't evaluate his candidacy by donations, use that criteria, when he's opting NOT to take other people's money.

He's a serious candidate, attracting serious attention from voters.

And debates are the best way for other candidates to respond to him when they can't match his spending.

Look, if Michelle Obama decided to run, she'd instantly be polling at double digits in most polls, almost certainly in the top tier.

She wouldn't even have to run any ads. Or ask for campaign donations. She'd get all the free air time and media attention she wanted, every day.

Would you think she should be excluded from debates if she was doing well in the polls but didn't have a particular number of donors?

[mr_lebowski]

1. I might have agreed on an exception ... if the rules had never been made & enforced

on other candidates, but for better or worse, they were made long ago, agreed to, and enforced.

Maybe the rules should've been written differently to account for something like this, but we shouldn't change the rules mid-stream like you're suggesting. Even if it maybe does make sense.

[tritsofme]

5. Bloomberg has substantial, non-trivial support.

Excluding him to be “fair” to former minor candidates whose support was trivial does not make any sense.

[mr_lebowski]

9. I get the point, but it's not just to 'be fair to minor candidates' ...

It's about honoring the rules as they were set up in the beginning.

It is, in a manner of speaking, about integrity.

[tritsofme]

13. The rules didn't come down from a mountain on stone tablets.

Changing them to avoid excluding a candidate with substantial support among voters just makes sense.

[mr_lebowski]

18. I'll admit that if we were to change the rules to accommodate sudden entry of Michelle Obama

(or Al Gore) ... I'd probably be a bit more amenable. Especially for the first debate since they entered the race.

Doing it for a billionaire who's simply bought his way to his 'substantial support', who used to be a Republican, and who has a history of illiberal positions and misogynistic statements ... is a lot tougher sell for me.

[still_one]

29. Harris and Castro support wasn't trivial, but lost that support

as the primaries progressed for one reason or another, and they realized it and dropped out

[relayerbob]

2. To a point

Yes, I never thought much of the number of donors criteria in the first place. AFAIC, it's always been a sleazy way of saying how much money does candidate X have. However, changing the rules mid-stream has horrible "optics", and feeds into the Sanders' campaign narrative. And you are absolutely right about Michelle Obama entering the race, good example for why the donor criteria was a bad idea. However, Bloomberg isn't Obama, she wouldn't need to buy herself in, so the comparison breaks down there.

[redqueen]

4. Exactly.

Is it logical? Yes.

Does it hurt us? ALSO yes.

[LakeArenal]

3. I agree with Mr. L.

Sooooo sick of rules bent for convenience.
A billionaire wants to buy the nomination.
So it’s outta the way you rule obeyers.

It’s not right. He could have entered the race and put in the work more easily than almost all the candidates. But no.

[squirecam]

10. Yep

Just like Steyer had too. Did the rules change for him?

[MH1]

6. "Debates are the best way for other candidates to respond to him"

I agree with feeling a little uncomfortable with the late rules change.

BUT I also agree that Bloomberg has successfully inserted himself in the conversation* and the others need the platform to respond effectively, and I think including him in the debates should help with that.


* Like many here, I do not agree with the way Bloomberg inserted himself. But them's the rules as they are; if we want to change them, first we need to get Democrats elected. A LOT of Democrats. Over years. Because that is a change that will hinge on the courts. So we can't just wish away the current reality - let's get to work on the long road to fixing it.

[still_one]

31. I agree. Otherwise he is effectively getting a free pass. If his polling numbers weren't there and

they allowed him in the debates that would be a different story

[aeromanKC]

7. Doesn't make sense to deny self funding candidates debate access

Especially when that someone puts his money towards advocating for democratic party policies AND is and has been a registered Democrat who is polling at levels which gives him a chance to win the Primary and General.

[squirecam]

11. Steyer didn't get a break

nt

[aeromanKC]

15. Love me some Steyer and his passion and Democratic issues philanthropy

But is Steyer 100% self funding? (i dont know)
Also, where is he polling nationwide and for General?

If he is, then yes, put him in!!

[MH1]

23. Steyer can't be "100%" self-funded because he made # of donors threshold

for last debate.

I'm guessing he's 95% or better self-funded though. He was only asking for $1 donations in order to make the donor count requirement.

Meanwhile, his polling is pretty much nowhere, in most states. He spent a lot in SC and Nevada, and I think his numbers are accordingly higher there. But I think this debate is a higher threshold and more states. He wouldn't make it on that facet, and Bloomberg does.

[MH1]

17. Steyer hasn't been polling at levels like Bloomberg.

I like Steyer a lot. I was supporting him here for a while before switching to Warren. But despite his ads, he wasn't getting real traction.

Probably doesn't hurt Bloomberg's polling that he is about 50x richer than Steyer and already has strong name recognition.

[squirecam]

20. But what if

Steyer didn’t have to focus on fundraising to meet the donor threshold, but simply had more $ for his ads. Would he not have more support?

We will never know. Because Steyer complied with the rules.

[MH1]

25. Excellent point.

I think it is good to have Bloomberg in the conversation at this point. I don't like the way he inserted himself, and I don't like the predictable consequences of late rules changes.

And yes, it is probably unfair to Steyer. But at this point Steyer really has no chance.

And, Steyer was on the debate stage already. He did okay but did not wow. (and I like the guy!) Bloomberg has not had that test / opportunity yet.

[left-of-center2012]

8. If Bloomberg is in the debates ...

Bloomberg will attack Trump.
What will the other candidates do?

[squirecam]

12. I assume

Bloomberg will respond when he is attacked for being a billionaire and not just focus on Trump.

[mr_lebowski]

14. That's the benefit of having fuck-you money I suppose ... you get to say fuck you whenever you want

Oh, and of not already holding political office, or at least having a political legacy one wants to protect.

Now, I'd love to see MB up on the debate stage, to be clear. For that reason, in fact.

But the rules were actually probably made with the SPECIFIC IDEA in mind ... that nobody was going to buy their way onto the debate stage.

We've already seen over the last 3 years what can happen ...

[squirecam]

22. Why have a grassroots donor requirement

At all if they weren’t going to enforce it. Just say you must raise $ by this date.

We WANTED the candidate to show supporters cared enough to donate. Not that he was rich.

[mr_lebowski]

30. S'what I'm getting at ...

If Bloomberg is so freaking popular, he certainly has the resources to inundate his supporters with requests for small donations so he make it to the debate under the rules, does he not?

I guarantee Trump would've made it to the debate under Dems rules in 2016, and the general population thought he was filthy rich too ...

[left-of-center2012]

24. "not already holding political office, or at least having a political legacy one wants to protect"

Who does that refer to?

[mr_lebowski]

27. Really?

Do Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, Mayor Pete, and Former Senator/VP Joe Biden ring a bell?

[left-of-center2012]

33. I didn't understand what you meant? n/t

[Amimnoch]

16. Much as I detest Bernie, and actually like the campaign Bloomberg is running,

I've got to side with BS for this one. Shouldn't be changing the rules at this point.

Still would 100% vote for Bloomberg if he gets the nomination though.. wouldn't even have to hold my nose for it.

[MH1]

19. One of the biggest reasons not to do it

is that changing the rules this late does fuel the "thumb on the scale" claims the BS campaign will certainly be making again when they don't win the nomination.

I wish DNC had foreseen this and set the rules better, earlier. I don't think it's bad for Bloomberg to be on the stage. I do think it's bad to fuel the victimization complex of BS supporters. (or supporters of any candidate that doesn't win in the end)

[SaschaHM]

21. I'm all for it.

No one needs a billionaire taking potshots at the candidates with no chance of them responding. He hasn't yet, but Bloomberg could unload on Sanders and Warren with negative advertising. They should get a chance to confront him on a medium that's watch more than a press gaggle.

He's also polling quite well from Ads alone. He's in the race. Pretending like he wasn't there has only helped him. Either Bloomberg gets to shape the rosy picture of himself or the opposing candidates do.

[alittlelark]

26. In this Kleptocracy I would love to see 'Bloomberg/ good Dem'

cuz he has enough $ to beat Putin..............Gawds - how did we get to this point ??!?

[onecaliberal]

28. Because other candidates were forced to drop out based on those rules

Including my favorite. It’s disappointing to say the least. That said, I would vote for a monkey to get rid of that massive piece of illegitimate garbage occupying the White House.

[tirebiter]

32. Bloomberg won't be on the Nevada ballot

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. I get why people are unhappy with the rule change

in the middle of the process, but it seems that Bloomberg's rise in the polls was not anticipated (I sure didn't expect it). But his ads are very good and evidently they've been quite effective. In light of this, it makes sense to include him in the debates. I don't want him to be able to sail into the nomination solely on the strength of the advertising he could afford to buy; I want him to be put to the same test as the other candidates - that is, whether he can defend his candidacy and answer questions about his past positions and respond to challenges from the other candidates. Let's hear from him, personally, not just his ads.

[padah513]

35. Does he even want to debate?

I got the impression that he was trying to duck all the heat a debate would put on him.

[Baked Potato]

36. What are debates? A media function.

Bloomberg could just buy a debate. He can pay a studio and get airtime and invite anyone who wants to debate. Of course the candidates could turn him down, but maybe they would like the free airtime.