Notes from a DNC call with Tom Perez

[brooklynite]

DNC has established a War Room developing local stories on broken promises by Trump and GOP

What happened in Iowa was unacceptable; preference is for more Primaries; however, DNC can’t mandate that you have a Primary; requires State Law; Republican Govs would refuse.

Iowa assured DNC that they had tested app. DNC has Sent tech team to NV to make sure problems don’t come up.

ON debate thresholds; DNC indicated in November that different debate thresholds would be use when they can use voting as a measure; need 10% in polls or 1 delegate (at least 15%); Nobody under 10% has ever won or been competitive

Al Sharpton is a strong supporter of the new debate threshold. "If there’s a candidate who can self-fund, that’s good for me, because we compete with ideas on the debate stage. I would have welcomed Bloomberg."

Democratic Party platform will call for dealing with Citizens United and dark money – not supportive of “buying election"s, but in the meantime, make sure the most viable candidates should be on stage.

DNC working to prevent GOP interference in phone lines – possibly illegal

(on my suggestion to make debate requirements tighter to focus on competitive candidates) Don’t want to draw conclusions too early. Possible unintended consequences of announcing future debate threshold in advance.

[TwilightZone]

1. There's really no reason for Bloomberg not to be on the debate stage.

One, if he should somehow end up the nominee, it would be helpful to understand how he'll perform on the stage vs. Trump.

Two, holding someone who is self-funding to donation limits would be silly and counterproductive. He shouldn't be penalized for not taking money from donors or the party. That leaves more for other candidates, Congressional races, etc.

Three, it would give his opponents an opportunity to address concerns that many Democrats have about his past and his candidacy.

[democrattotheend]

9. I agree with you

I do not support Bloomberg AT ALL, but I want to see him face the same scrutiny as everyone else has by participating in the debates and answering questions. I also agree that excluding candidates solely because they are self-funded is dumb. Like you said, more money for other candidates, plus it prevents a situation where rich or well-funded candidates can just bypass questions altogether and rely on paid media for exposure. And like you said, I want the chance to size up how he would do in a debate against Trump.

[LonePirate]

2. I believe Perez is right about needing a state law. But the DNC can withhold delegates.

Perez needs to look out for the best interests of the national party and not the best interests of the state of Iowa. If Iowa (or Nevada) won’t switch to a primary, then the DNC should take appropriate action.

[brooklynite]

3. So you would deny Democrats in IA representation?

The Republicans would like that.

[LonePirate]

6. Iowa will be voting red this year and likely in the years to come so it doesn't matter.

Iowa will not be won by the Dems this year or any time soon so the state is irrelevant in my eyes.

[pnwmom]

4. When will this new debate standard come into effect? I thought that Bloomberg

had qualified based on his standing in some polls.

[brooklynite]

5. No, he has one of four qualifying polls; others expected this week

[pnwmom]

7. Okay, but if he doesn't get any delegates does that mean he's out of the next debate?

[brooklynite]

8. No, it's either/or