The @DNC will host its third debate on Sept. 12, with a second potential night on Sept. 13.
To qualify, candidates must:
– receive (1) at least 130,000 unique donors (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states
– meet 2% in four recent national or early-state polls pic.twitter.com/fOzEI8U5rZ— Ruby Cramer (@rubycramer) May 29, 2019
Relief is (almost certainly) in sight!
Under rules for third #DemDebate, only eight candidates would currently meet polling requirement of 4 polls at 2% or more. https://t.co/y9XPOkgbbV
— Geoffrey Skelley (@geoffreyvs) May 29, 2019
… Although the polling threshold increase is modest, it could represent a significant barrier for many candidates who have struggled to hit that mark in early polling.
According to a POLITICO analysis, just eight candidates have received more than 2 percent of support in four early polls: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas.
Only polls published between June 28 (the day after the first round of Democratic debates) and Aug. 28 will count toward qualifying for the third debate in September…
Most campaigns have released little information about the number of individual donors they have, besides announcing when they cross the 65,000-donor mark. Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris and Warren have all publicly said they’ve surpassed 130,000 donors.
Other candidates who may have already exceeded that threshold include O’Rourke (who said he had 112,000 unique donors in his first day) and Biden (who had 96,000 donors in his first day)…
Eric Swalwell and Seth Moulton, or whomever, will have their chance to break out during the June debates. By September, odds are that most of the vanity less-well-known candidates will have run out of money, gotten bored with the grip’n’grins, or otherwise self-selected out of this particular cycle. I, for one, do not expect to miss them…
Several sources have told me they view the 3rd debate as a make-or-break winnowing moment for the crowded Dem 2020 field.
There will still be a maximum of 20 spots on stage, but those can go unfilled if enough candidates don't meet new higher threshold. https://t.co/RUCNSmvX4J
— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) May 29, 2019
This is rigged against people no one cares about. https://t.co/52y0efgdLl
— Molotov Frappuccino Thrower (@agraybee) May 29, 2019
Re new DNC debate rules, I'll merely say that raising $$$ has not been that well correlated with primary success.
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 29, 2019
Been pointed out to me that LVRJ is owned by Sheldon Adelson so — duh — that must be why.
— Geoffrey Skelley (@geoffreyvs) May 29, 2019
Mike in NC
Just screw Wilmer, OK? He is hell bent on keeping Fat Bastard in office.
Ohio Mom
I knew he never had a chance but I would have liked Inslee to have made the cut. Somebody has to put and keep climate change in the conversation.
BlueDWarrior
@Ohio Mom:
Which is a shame, but Democrats have to do better at being issue-movers outside the scope of a Presidential campaign.
Villago Delenda Est
“This is rigged against people no one cares about.”
I find this to be delightfully refreshing.
randy khan
This seems fair. And it will avoid some of the craziness of the Republican debates in 2016.
James E Powell
I’m really ready for some thinning of the herd.
Anne Laurie
@Ohio Mom:
He’ll get his chance during the June debate, hopefully.
Once we’re down to a reasonable number of candidates for voters to juggle in their heads, I’m quite sure Democrats will start asking them about climate change!
Steve in the ATL
@Villago Delenda Est:
Prom king election was the same way—totally unfair!
chopper
@Ohio Mom:
it’s a shanda, inslee is one of the best candidates on stage.
Steve in the ATL
@Ohio Mom:
Cons: death, destruction, unstable food sources
Pro: reduced water hazards to ruin my golf game
waratah
@Ohio Mom: Beto announced a climate plan two weeks ago. If you go to his official site the plan is there. He also announced an immigrant plan today. I am not expert but they both sound good to me. He is smarter than people think and has a very good memory. I think we need the plans to go with E. Warrens.
Duane
@Steve in the ATL: Wouldn’t do to get those fancy golf pants wet.
David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch
South Carolina Poll – Tel Opinion Research – 5/24 (link)
Handsome Joe.. 37%
Wilmer…….….…… 10%
Warren…………….. 8%
Kamala…..…..…… 7%
Pete……..…..…….. 3%
Booker…………….. 2%
Wilmer got 26% of the vote in South Carolina in 2016. Now he’s collapsed to 10%.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Steve in the ATL: Sounds like the pro’s outweigh the cons.
David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
@waratah: That’s the thing I don’t like about Inslee’s “single-issue” schtick on addressing the climate emergency. It’s my top issue, and I know that the 2020 US Presidential Election will be extremely consequential for our climate future. That’s why my “single issue” is making sure a Democrat wins in 2020.
The most electable* Democrat is the best for our climate future, not the one with the most aggressive proposals to address the crisis.
*My take is that’s Harris, but let’s see what a test runs show us…
waratah
@Formerly disgruntled in Oregon: Beto will surprise a lot of people. I like Harris but I don’t think she will be able to bring unhappy Republicans and independents, Beto was able to do this in the senate race. We need to get as many votes as we can because the the republicans will do all they can stop us.
Kent
@waratah:
Were you under the impression that Warren doesn’t have a Climate Change Plan? And that she needs Beto’s help to formulate one?
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/443789-warren-releases-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-threats-to-military
Redshift
I sort of half-watched the Hickenlooper interview on Maddow. He started off okay, but at some point decided to contrast his pragmatic, “public-private partnerships, etc., etc.” approach with “socialism.” When Rachel basically asked him if that was about Wilmer, he said no, he meant all his rivals who have plans for big government programs.
Well, there’s another one inviting me to cross him off the list without further ado. (At least if I understood right; as I said, I was only half watching.)
Then she pointed out how none of his plans will go anywhere if McConnell is still in charge of the Senate, so wouldn’t he be more likely to accomplish them if he ran for Senate? He answered with a Biden-esque “I have experience bringing people together so if I’m elected people will see the light” (paraphrasing.) Feh.
(And in retrospect, he didn’t actually start off especially well, Rachel made him look good by doing an introductory segment on the very successful birth-control program he instituted.)
Mandalay
Looking on the bright side, this means Gillibrand is dead meat.
Redshift
@Formerly disgruntled in Oregon: Yeah, it’s one of my top issues, too, but I don’t kid myself that most people are going to vote based on that alone. I just keep thinking of the surveys that show people are very concerned about climate change, but if you ask them how much they’d be willing to pay as their share of dealing with it, most won’t even go as high as $100 a year.
Roger Moore
@Ohio Mom:
He still has a chance to make a good impression at the first debate. If people are impressed, his poll numbers can go up to the point he can make the second.
Dan B
@Anne Laurie: Inslee is my governor. He’s mostly been great. His staff sticks with him for years. I’ve met the big teddy bear and he’s very likeable. I don’t think his strong suit is on stage or in a debate. We’ll see.
FlipYrWhig
@David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch: I am entertained by the rapid comeuppance of the theory that the white working class is hungry for democratic socialism if you just offer it to them. It isn’t connecting AT ALL. It never did.
FlipYrWhig
@Roger Moore: @Dan B: I really like Inslee but he strikes me as a VP.
waratah
@Kent: I did not know she had one until someone said
His went further than hers.
Aleta
@Steve in the ATL:
dust storms ( – )
learning about new mosquito species ( +)
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Aleta: Yes, but Steve’s golf game; priorities people.
Roger Moore
@FlipYrWhig:
I don’t think the goal of most of these candidates is to win the presidency; it’s to raise either their own profile or the profile of their pet issue. If it goes well for them, they’ll either have an easier time running for another office, or they’ll get a cabinet post of a Democratic winner.
Mandalay
@Redshift:
People may claim that they are “very concerned about climate change”, but that in itself doesn’t mean much:
I suspect most voters care about climate change in the same way they care about Russian interference in our elections: it’s a worry, but it’s not going to be a significant factor in determining who they will vote for.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Roger Moore: And can we stop cannibalizing the Senate and Democratic Governors for cabinet positions.
Aleta
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
dust blinding you every time your club hits the ground before the ball
Kent
@waratah:
Of course none of these plans really mean anything. What will actually mean something is the the type of people they appoint to the top executive branch agencies in charge of implementing climate policy (EPA, NOAA, Energy, DOT, etc.) and how much priority and mandate they are given. The rest of it is up to Congress and more specifically the Senate.
Villago Delenda Est
@Steve in the ATL: These days, whenever I see “unfair” I also see a 73 year old whiny ass titty baby wailing about how if he doesn’t get his way, it’s “unfair.”
mrmoshpotato
@randy khan: If you think one of the dingbats won’t start talking about his dick, just you wait.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Aleta: The only thing I’ve ever used a golf course for is for parking and tailgating.
tobie
@Ohio Mom: There was a petition circulating ensuring climate change was part of this year’s debates but I don’t know what came of it. Thus far only Beto and Inslee have produced comprehensive climate plans. Here’s a succinct side-by-side review of the two. I’ll be curious to see if others follow suit.
NotMax
The jockeying amongst on-air talent to be moderator for June must be beyond intense. Please, please, pretty please, FSM, with Bolognese on top, not Chuck Todd, Brian Williams or Andrea Mitchell.
Kent
@?BillinGlendaleCA: And no fucking GOP daddies appointed to the Cabinet either. That always seems to be a Dem affection:
Chuck Hegel
Robert Gates
James Comey
William Cohen
Louis Freeh
William Sessions
etc.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Villago Delenda Est: Now that’s unfair, Emperor Tang won’t be 73 for 2 1/2 weeks.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Kent: Bill Cohen wasn’t a bad pick; the others, fuckem.
mrmoshpotato
@NotMax: Dammit NotMax. You triggered my reflex.
Fuck Chuck Todd and his bothsiderist bullshit!
tobie
@Kent: Warren’s climate plan is at this point limited to military expenditures. It’s not about transitioning the entire economy away from fossil fuels. This is not to say her plan doesn’t have interesting features. One of them is using the purchasing power of the military to establish green standards for infrastructure. This is a central pillar of Beto’s climate plan, which he released a month earlier, and which tries to balance executive actions, which can be taken on day one of a new administration (or soon thereafter) with legislative actions, that take more time to put in place. I was happy to see that combination in the really detailed immigration overhaul he proposed today.
Doug R
@tobie: Warren mentions the Green New Deal in her climate change plan. I think she’s assuming that’s a given and she’s trying to chip away at the military affiliated vote.
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
@tobie: That’s excellent – we definitely need an approach that makes effective use of executive orders and other actions that can’t be filibustered in the Senate. (… and we really should do away with the filibuster.)
Kent
@?BillinGlendaleCA: I was thinking that Cohen authored “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but after looking it up I realized it came from his predecessor William Perry. Although that was probably as much the White House as DOD given that it was the mid 1990s.
jl
Thanks for info. Reminded me to make another contribution to Warren.
Anne Laurie
@Doug R:
It’s very much a local issue here in Massachusetts — because our state tests for such things, we’ve established a pattern of cancer-clusters / health issues around all the military bases, due to specific chemicals in the groundwater. This is also a problem at many if not all military bases across the other 49 states, but most of them can’t or won’t do the proper testing, so ‘thoughts & prayers’, troops!
Warren is (as she does) setting up specific plans to initiate improvements at areas which the federal government has control over, for the (immediate) benefit of a mediagenic demographic (Our Blessed Military, and their adorable families). It’s been demonstrated around here that when Green-New-Deal-style improvements are made at a base, it boosts the economy of the town & suburbs around the base, too. And, of course, once that happens, the towns feeding off the military base in the next county over demand their improvements, too… too tired to track down cites, but I do know that over the last 10-15 years there have been more than a couple town councils here & in other New England states that went from ‘nope, can’t afford to upgrade our septic standards or clean up that abandoned chemical dump’ to ‘well, if you feel *that* strongly about it, guess we’ll just have to raise those taxes after all, even if it hurts our frugal fee-fees sorely.’
Starting from small, concrete improvements is very much Warren’s wheelhouse. It’s not as exciting as demanding GREEN THE EARTH NAOW!!!, but she’s good at turning skeptics into believers, working from the base up rather than the top down.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Kent: The Joint Chiefs(Colin Powell) and several Senators were against open service in 1993. It was DOA as soon as Clinton proposed it, DADT was about as good a deal as he was going to get at the time.
tobie
@Doug R: Even if one accepts the Green New Deal as a given, that still says little about what you will do to eliminate/offset all greenhouse gases (methane, hydrofluorocarbons, CO2), since the green new deal lists benchmarks for carbon emissions but offers no roadmap on how to get there. Inslee’s and Beto’s plans do provide roadmaps which are specific and yet do not account for everything. The problem is that fossil fuels are involved in every aspect of life from how we feed, clothe, and house ourselves to how all goods are manufactured and transported. It’s urgent that we begin decarbonizing and yet the scale of the task is overwhelming.
jl
Contributed to Inslee. I agree with commenter above that his single issue approach can be considered gimmicky. but it’s a very important issue, and he would be good to see at the early debates.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@jl: I assume you’re keeping up your contributions to the Baud!2020! campaign.
jl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Word in the DNC is that there will be a double or nothing bonus round for the candidate whose supporters send in the most bottle caps, bubble gum comix and lotto tix. I got a cigar box full of those for Baud 2020!
hervevillechaizelounge
Oh, I think the economically anxious would love democratic socialism—they just love denying it to libs and black folks even more:)
Fair Economist
This makes the relatively wide-open first debate pair not a problem – arguably good since candidates get one chance to be noticed before winnowing.
NotMax
@Fair Economist
Two chances. Another double header in July.
Martin
@tobie: California’s experience says that’s a good approach. Set the target and then work out the mix of solutions. Solar here, wind there, geothermal elsewhere, biogas, EVs, etc. There’s enough diversity just inside of CA that this approach is needed.
What really underpins all of it is a set of regulatory policies that opens up money when targets are hit. So, take the $40B in annual disbursements to states for transportation and hand it out based on hitting targets. Let the states decide what works best for them. To that add carbon output as part of bids for federal contracts, and award them more aggressively to the states that are hitting targets. It should be prorated in some way – CA has a 40 year head start and would sweep the table otherwise. DOE and NSF grants should be more heavily skewed toward practical climate solutions.
Some things would be universal. CA’s LCFS applies to aviation fuels, so airlines have to pay a tax for carbon output. Programs like that should be national.
Ken
The real winnowing will be the fourth debate, when candidates must beat the poll’s margin of error.
Chris Johnson
@Redshift:
‘cos it’s clearly the individual consumer’s fault and would need to be solved according to market principles.
Uh nope. Big business and entire industries are dedicated to burning up all the fossil fuels ever, as a matter of policy, driven by market forces (our country must compete with other countries by subsidizing cheap fossil energy so we can do stuff faster and cheaper than the other guys!). Getting soccer moms to walk to the store instead of drive their Hummer has got next to nothing to do with it. In the grand scheme of things our problems are a lot bigger than that.
It’s much like our political situation. You don’t go ‘Our entire system is collapsing in a wave of propaganda, Russian interference, chaos, and straight-up looting by our Executive Branch that was installed by a hostile foreign power. Soccer moms must fix this! The individual voter must bear all the responsibility’. Likewise, you don’t glare at the middle and lower classes and go ‘Climate change. YOUR fault!’
Darrin Ziliak (formerly glocksman)
@NotMax:
Ali Velshi would be my top choice for moderator.
Uncle Cosmo
@Mike in NC: With Lenny Bruce in mind (“Why would you wish something that’s about the most pleasant thing two people can do on your worst enemy?”) I say unscrew Senator BS. Unscrew that bolt in his navel until his flaccid arse falls off.
tobie
@Martin:
This thread is probably dead but I did want to respond. You outline an important strategy. It’s one of the many things included in Beto O’Rourke’s climate proposal. The federal government’s purchasing power is huge and one of the things he proposed using it for is to establish new standards for building materials which are fossil-fuel intensive to produce. Cement is the worst and it’s used everywhere.
I don’t think we should leave things up to the states because far too many red states would avoid doing anything at all.
J R in WV
@Mandalay:
Don’t know if that a bright side. We got our first fund raising call from Gillibrand’s campaign on Wednesday. She was working through the mandatory script when I interrupted her to tell her that we, white folks in WV, were already committed to helping Senator Harris, and had donated to her.
She stopped, said thank you, we parted on friendly terms. I imagine that was pretty disappointing to Senator Gillibrand, though.
J R in WV
@waratah:
But waratah did not, evidently, run to read Senator’s Warren’s plan to verify that Beto’s went further than Warren’s.
Left unanswered is the question of whether waratah actually read Beto’s climate plan at all. I’m betting not any of them, as waratah doesn’t not strike me as a reader, even of web pages.
Would apparently rather take rumors on faith if the rumor agrees with waratah’s preconceived notions about Senator Warren and Beto. We contributed to Beto’s senate campaign. We contribute to Senator Harris’s presidential campaign.
tobie
@J R in WV: Well, I’ve read Inslee’s and O’Rourke’s climate plans and think both are thorough and thoughtful proposals. Inslee’s big emphasis is on turning the electric grid to 100% renewables by 2030 with a goal of complete decarbonization by 2045. Beto’s plan focuses on green infrastructure, federal regulations, incentivizing carbon capture, and addressing climate impact on poor communities with a goal of halving carbon emissions by 2030 and complete decarbonization of 2050. Both are ambitious plans that meet the urgency of the climate crisis IMO. Warren hasn’t released a comprehensive climate plan yet.