The Democratic Party (and media) are going after Bernie

[PyramidHead]

Are we going to talk about this?

DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February.

Bloomberg is basically running against Bernie Sanders, not Donald Trump, and the DNC throwing their weight behind him as a last-ditch effort to stop the momentum that's building is just glorious. I can't wait for someone to ask Bloomberg how long he and Trump have been close friends, and what he meant when he said Trump really changed NYC for the better, and whether his friendship with Jeff Bezos and Bob Iger would have any ramifications on addressing wealth disparity and corporate power in America.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is funny how they would not reverse this for Booker but suddenly will for Bloomberg. I wasn't a huge Booker supporter, but I call sheannanigans here.

 

[Derec]

Are we going to talk about this?

DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February.

This is a welcome change. It is simply untenable to exclude a candidate who gets double digit support in some national polls while singe digits candidates make it in.

Bloomberg is basically running against Bernie Sanders, not Donald Trump, and the DNC throwing their weight behind him as a last-ditch effort to stop the momentum that's building is just glorious. I can't wait for someone to ask Bloomberg how long he and Trump have been close friends, and what he meant when he said Trump really changed NYC for the better, and whether his friendship with Jeff Bezos and Bob Iger would have any ramifications on addressing wealth disparity and corporate power in America.

Bloomberg's candidacy was intended as an insurance policy against Biden stumbling or fading. If Biden is still doing ok ahead of Super Tuesday, Bloomberg would HELP Bernie, not hurt him, by splitting moderate old guy vote with Biden. So I imagine that one of the two might drop out before Super Tuesday.

 

[Derec]

It is funny how they would not reverse this for Booker but suddenly will for Bloomberg. I wasn't a huge Booker supporter, but I call sheannanigans here.

There is no shenanigans. Perez said from the beginning that the criteria would be reviewed after the primaries start. Also, Booker and ¡Julian! wanted the poll criteria to be significantly lowered since they hovered around 1-2% in most polls. DNC actually increased the poll requirements substantially while removing the no longer useful donor criterion. So overall, the qualification is more difficult, not less. I do not think the donor criteria were that useful. For one, they were too easy to game - Tom Steyer spent a lot of his money soliciting very small donations just to drove up the unique donor count.

 

[Derec]

Iowa is a joke,

Actually, the winner of Iowa was the winner of the Democratic nomination in every race going back to 1992, where Iowa wasn't contested because their governor was running.

when it comes to the primaries. It's one of the least diverse states in the country

Actually, that argument does not hold water.
Yes, Iowa is something like 85% non-hispanic white. But the Democratic electorate is more similar to general election electorate nationwide than a more diverse state like South Carolina or Nevada. In South Carolina, over half of Democratic primary voters are black. That is VERY unrepresentative of the country as a whole, which is about 14% black or so.
After all, the whole point of primaries and caucuses is to find a champion to contest the general election, so general election demographics should matter.

Of course, by that metric, while Democrats should keep Iowa and New Hampshire, Republicans definitely should not.

and voting by caucus is crazy.

Actually, I wish we had the caucuses in Georgia! It seems a much more interesting, interactive experience than the anticlimactic pressing of a button on a touch screen! The nominating season is there to hash out who should represent the party in the election - and I do not think just voting like in a regular election is the best way to do that.

People who work late shifts can't even be included.

There are satellite caucuses to remedy that.

It's time to ignore Iowa, regardless of who is popular there. Iowa needs to vote like the rest of us.

It would be best if all states had primaries on the same day or at least within a few weeks of each other. My sister lives in NJ. NJ doesn't have its primary until late May. So, unless the race is extremely close, the voters in the NJ primaries are pretty much left out.

True, the late states get the shaft unless it's close for the duration, and then they are the unexpected kingmakers.
The rationale behind having a few smaller states go first is that more candidates can retail politic there without having to spend huge amounts of money on expensive media markets like in California and New York or Chicago. I agree with that. But the rest of the calendar can be compressed, especially since California was allowed to be part of Super Tuesday.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is simply untenable to exclude a candidate who gets double digit support in some national polls while singe digits candidates make it in.

This is a good point.

 

[southernhybrid]

Actually, the winner of Iowa was the winner of the Democratic nomination in every race going back to 1992, where Iowa wasn't contested because their governor was running.

.



I know that, but what's your point? Not every nominee won in Iowa. Plus, just because something usually happens, doesn't mean it should or won't change.

I obviously strongly disagree with you regarding the caucus. For example, people who work late or second shift like many medical personnel, for example, are unable to attend a caucus. In fact, due to the long commutes that so many people in the greater Atlanta area have to deal with, means that many people don't even get home to after 7PM or later.

People who are disabled and mostly homebound can't attend a caucus. The idea of a caucus leaves out way too many voters. It's not democratic in the least and should be done away with, as most other states have done. Voting should always be easily available to all qualified voters. I love that we have three full weeks of early voting in Georgia and it's fairly easy to vote absentee if you can't get out to the polls.

I don't like the evidence that there has been some voter suppression in our state, but that's a totally different topic, on which I'm pretty sure you and I disagree. Since it's been discussed ad nauseam in the past, I have no more to say on that topic. Plus, I'm not trying to derail this thread as so often happens here.

 

[Derec]

I know that, but what's your point? Not every nominee won in Iowa. Plus, just because something usually happens, doesn't mean it should or won't change.

My point is that Iowa is a good predictor of the eventual nominee. Again, the last Democratic nominee who failed to win Iowa was Bill Clinton, and in 1992 Iowa wasn't contested because Harkin ran.

I obviously strongly disagree with you regarding the caucus. For example, people who work late or second shift like many medical personnel, for example, are unable to attend a caucus. In fact, due to the long commutes that so many people in the greater Atlanta area have to deal with, means that many people don't even get home to after 7PM or later.

That is the drawback of a caucus, I agree. But I think the fact that it takes effort is a good thing. A feature, not a bug. Nominating process is not the same as the election, even if the adoption of primary elections muddled that distinction. I think it's good that you can realign,and that there are people making a case for their candidate. It's basically participatory democracy, rather than just button pushing, and that made as effortless as possible.
Because of low effort, primary elections, at least in presidential races, favor the candidates with high name recognition and/or DNC support. I do not think Obama would have prevailed in 2008 but for Iowa and Nevada caucuses, because Hillary was supported by DNC and far better known.

People who are disabled and mostly homebound can't attend a caucus.

I think we should definitely think about using technology to enable such people to participate. Some form of telepresence should definitely be an option in future caucuses, as long as it doesn't become the norm.

The idea of a caucus leaves out way too many voters.

The caucus system is definitely maximizing depth of participation at the expense of breadth. Primaries are broader, but as shallow as a puddle. You just press a button.

It's not democratic in the least and should be done away with, as most other states have done.

I disagree. To say that caucuses are not democratic is reducing democracy just to pressing a button for a candidate. I think the nominating process benefits from a more involved support from the people. More depth, even at the expense of the breadth.

Voting should always be easily available to all qualified voters. I love that we have three full weeks of early voting in Georgia and it's fairly easy to vote absentee if you can't get out to the polls.

I agree that voting in the actual election should be available to all those eligible to vote. But this is about nominating a candidate for the election. No democratic principle is violated by nominating process not mimicking the general election process. Most democratic countries do not even have primaries in the American sense of the word. That doesn't make them less democratic.

Plus, I'm not trying to derail this thread as so often happens here.

No kidding, especially since I started a dedicated Iowa thread. Maybe we can continue there.

 

[Derec]

It is simply untenable to exclude a candidate who gets double digit support in some national polls while singe digits candidates make it in.

This is a good point.

Thank you. Let me also add that the qualifying criteria weren't reversed, as Jolly suggested. Donors are still part of the criteria for the upcoming debate in New Hampshire. However, for the debate in Las Vegas, DNC decided not to use the donor criterion for that debate. Since the qualifying criteria for that debate hadn't been set previously, nothing was reversed. Nor did DNC promise to use the donor criteria for the duration of the primary process.

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually, the winner of Iowa was the winner of the Democratic nomination in every race going back to 1992, where Iowa wasn't contested because their governor was running.

.



I know that, but what's your point? Not every nominee won in Iowa. Plus, just because something usually happens, doesn't mean it should or won't change.

I obviously strongly disagree with you regarding the caucus. For example, people who work late or second shift like many medical personnel, for example, are unable to attend a caucus. In fact, due to the long commutes that so many people in the greater Atlanta area have to deal with, means that many people don't even get home to after 7PM or later.

People who are disabled and mostly homebound can't attend a caucus. The idea of a caucus leaves out way too many voters. It's not democratic in the least and should be done away with, as most other states have done. Voting should always be easily available to all qualified voters. I love that we have three full weeks of early voting in Georgia and it's fairly easy to vote absentee if you can't get out to the polls.

I don't like the evidence that there has been some voter suppression in our state, but that's a totally different topic, on which I'm pretty sure you and I disagree. Since it's been discussed ad nauseam in the past, I have no more to say on that topic. Plus, I'm not trying to derail this thread as so often happens here.

Not to mention it's not a private vote.

 

[southernhybrid]

Actually, the winner of Iowa was the winner of the Democratic nomination in every race going back to 1992, where Iowa wasn't contested because their governor was running.

.



I know that, but what's your point? Not every nominee won in Iowa. Plus, just because something usually happens, doesn't mean it should or won't change.

I obviously strongly disagree with you regarding the caucus. For example, people who work late or second shift like many medical personnel, for example, are unable to attend a caucus. In fact, due to the long commutes that so many people in the greater Atlanta area have to deal with, means that many people don't even get home to after 7PM or later.

People who are disabled and mostly homebound can't attend a caucus. The idea of a caucus leaves out way too many voters. It's not democratic in the least and should be done away with, as most other states have done. Voting should always be easily available to all qualified voters. I love that we have three full weeks of early voting in Georgia and it's fairly easy to vote absentee if you can't get out to the polls.

I don't like the evidence that there has been some voter suppression in our state, but that's a totally different topic, on which I'm pretty sure you and I disagree. Since it's been discussed ad nauseam in the past, I have no more to say on that topic. Plus, I'm not trying to derail this thread as so often happens here.

Not to mention it's not a private vote.

Yes. Thanks. I forgot to mention that. I've read several editorials that refer to the caucus as Byzantine. That's about right.

I think if Iowans love to caucus so much, they should just do a caucus to get people together to discuss who they think would be the best candidate. They can discuss the pros and cons of each candidate, but the vote wouldn't count. It would just give people a chance to learn from each other. It might be fun. It just isn't a good way to have an election.

Derec, I read you points. I chose not to comment because I don't think we are going to convince each other, and that's fine.