Debate rules upend the way Democrats run for office

[brooklynite]

Politico

It began as nothing more than a device to govern an unruly primary field.

But the bar set for Democrats to qualify for this year’s presidential debates has become a force in its own right, more consequential than any of the early debates it administered — and with unintended effects that continue to ripple through the party.

In the seven months since they were first announced, the standards — a combination of increasingly higher polling and fundraising thresholds — have upended various campaigns’ tactics and become the proximate cause of multiple withdrawals from the race.

And the rules are now metastasizing in unexpected ways. In Iowa, some prominent Democrats are privately urging struggling campaigns to stay in the contest even if they cannot qualify for the debates, incredulous that metrics imposed by national Democratic Party officials could stamp out lesser contenders — a perceived infringement on what is traditionally the first caucus state’s job.

Meanwhile, Democrats raising money for down-ticket candidates are complaining that the presidential candidates’ imperative to raise money to meet debate thresholds is drawing attention away from congressional and state house contests — and perverting the Democratic Party’s messaging overall.

[Ninga]

1. Balderdash I say. Up until 1965 or so, our nominee and Vp came from smoke filled

back rooms where not one regular citizen had a say.

It is helpful to know the history. The Democratic Party is a private entity whose purpose is
to support and promote Democrats running for office.

While not perfect, i choose to support their mission and by-laws.

[msongs]

2. 2% means you can't talk people into supporting you. vanity candidates at this point nt