'An existential threat': Desperate drive to make the debate stage shakes Dem campaigns

[brooklynite]

Politico

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand sank a ping-pong ball into a cup of water — a spin on the drinking game, beer pong — and turned the moment into a digital ad urging $1 donations to her presidential campaign. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is hawking bumper stickers for $1 donations and used his recent CNN town hall to make a televised plea for more campaign contributions. Former Rep. John Delaney promised to give $2 of his own money to charity for each of the next 100,000 individual donors who gave to his campaign.

The unconventional, often gimmicky fundraising arms race is part of a desperate scramble to make it past a new threshold set by the Democratic National Committee, 65,000 individual donors, to the first primary debates in June and July. The televised debates could be make-or-break showcases for the 2020 presidential candidates, and the requirement has reshaped the strategy of candidates struggling to cross the donor mark, changing spending priorities and altering the path of their campaigns.

Such is the importance of the debates that some presidential campaigns have decided to prioritize Facebook advertising over hiring staffers in early states, several campaign aides said. Others noted that the rules prioritize chasing viral moments early in the campaign over building traditional vote-getting infrastructure in Iowa and New Hampshire. But defenders of the new rules say that they have just forced campaigns to prove they can compete in the 21st century before the election year.

“The days of just financing [a campaign] in Iowa and New Hampshire are gone, especially in a 22-person field,” said former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential campaign was a pioneer in online small-dollar fundraising. “I’d say to those candidates that haven’t passed the threshold, get to work.”

[BlueTsunami2018]

1. Most of these people shouldn't even be in it.

I get that it’s their right to do whatever but in reality there’s maybe six or seven people who have a legitimate shot at getting the nomination. Fully two thirds of the candidates are wasting their time.

[Hortensis]

8. :) None feel they're wasting THEIR time, tho.

Or money. Whether they’re wasting ours or acting as wings or anchors on the process, would depend on their agendas wouldn’t it?

Some seem to be running solely for personal benefit, and so agree they shouldn’t be running. This alone would disqualify them from my consideration if it wasn’t part of a package that already had. Ticks growing fat off the primaries degrade them.

In comparison, wouldn’t Gov Insee’s hugely important message validate his attempt to make this national stage? It could also grow needed support for climate, energy, water advances he’s trying to achieve in his own state, and I suspect that may be a big part of why he’s running.

[NurseJackie]

14. Ticks. Ugh.

Excellent analogy.

[Hortensis]

16. :) Fattening ticks, ugh. Agree.

It's really unfortunate when the confusion they add obscures valuable, viable candidates.

Of course, I didn't mind when a crowd of fake candidates polishing their brands was a problem for the Republicans on their debate stages. The more fat ticks the more good jokes.

[rampartc]

2. just thinking ......

too many candidates in a debate can certainly dilute the message of each. why not hold several smaller debates, 3 or 4 candidates, and encourage everyone to participate.

do it in "brackets" to mix them up and use the fundraising and number of donors to thin them out after they have had a chance to sell their ideas.

of "primary" importance is to showcase ideas, not to run a kentucky derby.

or : debates could be presented by the various networks, allowing the network to invite the participants. maybe a "democracy now" debate moderated by amy goodman and noam chomsky could focus on mid east or latin american policy and invite 3 or 4 of our candidates with public opinions on the subject?

[brooklynite]

3. When you say "everybody".....

There are over 200 registered candidates for President. You're going to have to apply some standard of validity under any strategy. As for multiple events with smaller groups, you'll get an audience for the first and maybe the second, but anyone assigned to the third or fourth will get a much smaller crowd.

[rampartc]

9. i hear you

how could the naked cowboy or vermin supreme not be invited?

[ancianita]

4. Nowhere have I seen a qualifying deadline. Anyone else?

[rpannier]

5. I'm still mulling my bid

[crazytown]

11. You! YOU!!

I knew it. Snake in the grass, Manchurian candidate, playing possum for all these years!

[rpannier]

19. Nyet!

I've never run for anything in Manchuria

[brooklynite]

6. A friend at the DNC says two week out (June 12).

[ancianita]

13. Thanks.

[rpannier]

7. In all seriousness Gov Bullock (MT) is looking at running

and someone else, I can't remember who, was mentioned same day as he

[Celerity]

10. De Blasio (gag). Also, there is still one potential big one out there. Stacey Abrams.

She turned down running against Perdue for Senate (wish she had not), and has said she feels she can get in as late as around Labor Day and still be viable (I disagree somewhat, she needs to get in sooner than that IF she is going to run for POTUS). She (whilst denying it to a point) may be hoping for a VPOTUS slot, or also she may just want to wait and go for a re-match (she was so cheated in 2018) for Governor in GA against that criminal RW scum Kemp.

[bigbrother05]

12. It'd be great if she made a difference in GA in 2020

Her building the voter base could have dramatic results. She nearly did it last year, maybe a singular focus could make the difference.

If she remains effective in her registration campaign, she would be a great add to a new Dem Admin. Voting Rights Tsarina sounds good to me.

[rpannier]

17. She could change her mind

Read several articles which pointed out that isn't an impossibility
Same with Bullock in MT. He said he won't run for the senate, but reports have surfaced he may
Same in Maine

For the record, I like De Blasio

[Celerity]

20. I hope Schumer can change their minds.

As for De Blasio, everyone I know who lives in NYC (including my sis, who is there part-time) doesn't like the job he is doing as mayor. Anecdotal perhaps, but I have seen many on here say the same.


Sure, Bill de Blasio, Why Not?

The latest candidate poised to enter the 2020 Democratic primary is a head-scratcher.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/why-bill-de-blasio-running-president/588778/

Multiple people close to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio gave up trying to talk him out of running for president earlier this year. Now he’s reportedly going to try to win Iowa and New Hampshire without most of his friends—or even people on his payroll—supporting him.

“Ugh,” said one former aide when asked about de Blasio actually going forward with his rumored 2020 campaign. “Lunacy,” said another. Others declined to comment for this story. One person who knows de Blasio well cited too much loyalty to speak anonymously about his prospects. No point in just being mean, the person said. The mayor’s team declined to comment for this story.

De Blasio is expected to announce a presidential run in the coming days with a skeletal campaign team staffed by junior aides on vacation from their jobs at city hall. He’s trying to do what Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, John Lindsay, and every New York mayor since 1868 has failed to do: Get elected to a higher office.

snip

[rpannier]

28. Something I found interesting

I looked up Mayors of New York and Mayors of Chicago and didn't find one that became Governor of their state, much less President.
Curley (Boston) seems to be a rare breed of big city mayors that go on to become governor -- though Curley did it almost entirely by crook it appears

[moonscape]

30. I doubt Abrams will change her mind about the Senate. Before

she announced she wouldn't, when I saw her interviewed I thought - 'she's not going to do it.'

From her viewpoint I can understand it. Even if she won, there remains a high likelihood Dems would still be in the minority and it would be hard to impossible to get anything done. She's such a talented, brilliant powerhouse, that I can see being a Senator could be perhaps the most frustrating job she could hold.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Qualifying polls must be released 14 days before the debate....

I don't see any specific "by date" qualification for the donation threshold. Here's the rules announcement:

https://democrats.org/press/dnc-announces-details-for-the-first-two-presidential-primary-debates/

[uawchild]

15. My Candidate, Cory Booker, is on the bubble

He's lagging in fund raising and hanging in by his finger nails in terms of poll ratings to qualify for the first tier debate.

I hope he makes it, he's the strongest voice for social justice and addressing the challenges that minorities are facing. He speaks for the very heart of our democratic base.

[rpannier]

18. I'd be disappointed if he didn't make it

He's not my first choice, but I think he would bring ideas to the debate for discussion and knowledge
Being on the stage might energize his campaign as well

[Baclava]

21. From last week: 16 Candidates Now Qualify For The First Democratic Primary Debates

QUALIFIES FOR DEBATES VIA …
CANDIDATE POLLS DONORS BOTH
Pete Buttigieg ✓ ✓ ✓
Kamala Harris ✓ ✓ ✓
Beto O’Rourke ✓ ✓ ✓
Bernie Sanders ✓ ✓ ✓
Elizabeth Warren ✓ ✓ ✓
Andrew Yang ✓ ✓ ✓
Joe Biden ✓
Cory Booker ✓
Julian Castro ✓
John Delaney ✓
Kirsten Gillibrand ✓
John Hickenlooper ✓
Jay Inslee ✓
Amy Klobuchar ✓
Tim Ryan ✓
Tulsi Gabbard ✓

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/16-candidates-now-qualify-for-the-first-democratic-primary-debates/

[NYMinute]

22. What is the difference between

three check marks and one check mark?

[Baclava]

24. They met different qualifying criteria set up by the DNC for the first two debates

Its in the link i gave

[PoliticAverse]

27. "author Marianne Williamson has also qualified as a major candidate by FiveThirtyEight's standards".

They may need to revise their "standards".

[bloom]

23. I donated to Inslee because I want to hear him at the debates.

I would rather him than Biden or Sanders.

I also donated to Warren and Harris. But the environment/planet is important enough that I want his message heard. I may even decide to go with him - depending on what I hear about such issues from others.

[brooklynite]

25. I've donated to Hickenlooper, Inslee, Swalwell, Buttigieg and Klobuchar

[rpannier]

29. I'm Warren

Yang (because I find his ideas worth a closer look), Klobucar (my father the technophobe's 1st choice), Sanders and Castro. I'll give to Booker and Gillibrand to see if that helps them.
My problem is, I want to see almost all of them at the debates, but at the same time, I also don't really care because the way debates are run I seldom learn anything because the questions are often inane and crafted in such a way that they have about a minute to discuss important policy issues.
I am more interested in point-counterpoint-etc