Don’t be daft. What would be the fairest parameters....? Not disqualify anyone? How is that fair to the stronger candidates? I mean... I wouldn’t call Yang’s campaign incompetent.
It's a bit of incompetence (but not really) and controversial that the DNC could have avoided if they set the requirements months ahead of time. Since they set the requirements for the upcoming debate after the previous debate, it can be seen that they "tune" the requirements to reduce the number of candidates. If that was their primary goal, they could simply say, we need X # of debate candidates by Y dates. And then they can use some type of transparent polling avg to rank the candidates. Anyhow, there is a period of ~1M between the 6th and 7th debate (1/14). The holidays reduced the polling freq. Well, guess what will happen in Feb. There are 3 debates (2/7, 19, 25). What kind of requirements will they set for those? My guess is they will use the same requirements or very similar for all 3 debates given such a short time span between them.... unless they want to "tune" it and possibly introduce more controversy.
I thought that was pretty obvious sarcasm. Having a reasonably equitable number of polls for each debate. Having transparent and consistent factors deciding what makes a poll qualifying. Those would be two pretty good things.
A very good point. Once again, I don't believe the DNC is actively doing things to keep Yang out. But their process has definitely opened the door for that to be a plausible explanation.
This is why the DNC is their own worst enemy.... Let the people choose who they want and stop trying to narrow down who you want.... T_Man
I think this is an unfair criticism. The DNC is essentially letting the people choose (poll, # of donor are a reflection of the people). The timing of the requirements is what is a bit off here, but if you step back and look at the big picture, the actual requirements are very reasonable and is based on the people choice.
I have a ques for you... If the DNC is going off of polls, were you polled on you like? It looks as if they are going off of polls in certain areas. This is just my opinion, but it truly looks as if the DNC has their mind set on certain candidates and that's not cool. The same way they did last year with Clinton and Sanders. I'm not saying that Yang will or should be the next nominee, but the visual does not look good. T_Man
I thought this was interesting.... https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...s-democratic-candidates-in-q-4-220201691.html T_Man
So you admit you don't what polling parameters are but in your opinion it looks like the DNC has favorites. Yeah you certainly don't look like you are pushing an agenda.
DNC definitely has favorites.... Me agenda.. Naa.. The person i would love to see as President isn't running and he's not a Dem... T_Man
Sure.. John Kasich... I don't like everything he stands for, but i do like 85% of what he stands for.... T_Man
I'll still maintain that Yang is the best chance to beat Trump. He would be able to grab some of the Trump voters. The ones with a brain. A few, but not many. But probably enough to swing the election. Somehow, I'm still hopeful he can gain the nomination, but I doubt it. He needs to win a state or two of the first five.
no I have never ever been polled in my life. That’s possibly because I don’t ever answer unknown call. More likely, with polls polling about a few thousand at most, the chances of you getting polled is pretty slim. I don’t know much about statistics, but there is a crazy method to all of this. DNC does not do poll for these debate - that would be a huge no no if they did. They do say which polls they use - yes, there can be some disagreement over the polls but the one they selected are well known polls for years. There isn’t favorite being played here. That’s 2016. Again, the issue is with timing, not the polls. when the first result of the primaries come back, if Yang surprise (way outside of his polling avg, we can go back to wth happen)
Pretty sure the DNC had no idea a Mayor Pete would even run when they set these parameters long ago and yet he's managed to navigate it just fine. If by "polls in certain areas", you mean national polls OR polls of all the major states that anyone is campaigning in early, then yes, the DNC went with that over a year ago. And none of the campaigns complained about it until they didn't meet the requirements.
Yeah, not looking good.... I respect him and his outsider’s perspective, but I just don’t think people “get it” with him. I realize he’s still raking in campaign contributions, but not qualifying for the next debate coupled with a poor showing in Iowa/New Hampshire and his continued plateau in national polling doesn’t bode well for him. Time might be running out.
On the flip side, these two polls have never had Yang above 1%, so a moonshot wasn't expected. Missing a debate will suck, but it's not a real indicator of how the campaign is doing given the circumstances surrounding it. Money raised, donors, coverage, favorability ratings, and polls are all at all time highs for the campaign. The thing that really sucks is what just went down in Ohio and not getting on the primary ballot there.
