Current Events > New Democratic debate rules will distort priorities, some campaigns say

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/politics/democratic-debate-rules.html

The Democratic Partys new directive that candidates must have at least 130,000 donors to qualify for the third primary debate in September arrived virtually without warning on Wednesday morning, and immediately sent shock waves through presidential campaigns worried that it would distort their priorities and affect the way they operate.

Two-thirds of the sprawling field of 23 candidates are probably at risk of falling short of that threshold, and news of the more stringent rules set off a flurry of frustrated early-morning text messages, emails, calls and meetings as campaigns reassessed the path forward, according to multiple 2020 campaign officials.

While the Democratic National Committee had long intimated it would raise the bar to qualify for later debates, many 2020 strategists were stunned by the 130,000-donor threshold, which doubles the requirement for the first two debates in June and July and which few are close to hitting. Some candidates questioned whether the partys new donor threshold would winnow the field too severely, before most voters even tune in to the race.

Most declined to discuss their frustration with the D.N.C.s rules on the record or to indicate how exactly they would shift tactics, saying their campaign plans were confidential. But campaign after campaign said the partys donor requirements are skewing the way they allocate resources, forcing them to choose between investing in staff or pouring more money into ads on sites like Facebook, where prices are soaring to dizzying new heights. Two campaigns said digital vendors are currently quoting them prices of $40 and up to acquire a new $1 donor.

Democratic digital strategists said the unprecedented chase for small donors was encouraging poor habits aimed at simply stirring up internet interest or spamming existing email lists unsustainably, while also driving up the price of finding donors for down-ballot Democrats.

Ryan Alexander, a Democratic digital strategist, mocked the new rules on Twitter. Let the irresponsible email acquisition and direct-to-donate spending continue! he wrote. Build national email lists while drowning out U.S. Senate and House campaigns!

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, a lower-profile contender and one of the Democrats to enter the race most recently, called the new threshold completely arbitrary.

When you have people competing for donations by creating viral moments that have nothing to do with governing our country or ideas that will move us forward, I think thats challenging for our democracy, Mr. Bennet said Wednesday in New Hampshire. He added: I certainly dont think the D.N.C. should be favoring national fund-raising and cable TV over decisions by voters in early states. [Antifar's note: what decisions? They won't vote til next February.]

Only four candidates have said publicly that they already have 130,000 donors: Senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. Two others presumably have either hit that figure or are on track to do so based on previously disclosed donor numbers: Beto ORourke and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
...
For second- or third-tier candidates, they have to choose: They can either spend their money achieving these metrics, or invest in programs on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, said Betsy Hoover, a Democratic digital strategist who served as director of digital organizing for the Obama campaign in 2012. Very few are going to be able to do both.

Ms. Hoover said campaigns currently pay digital firms rates starting at $25 to acquire a new donor, who is asked to give as little as $1. The price per new donor, she said, could soar as high as $75.

Youre caught in this hamster wheel that I wouldnt say is ideal for democracy, she said.

---

All this does is decrease the number of far-left loons at the first couple of debates, who would just hijack issues from the electable candidates.

This is probably a good thing for the Democrats.
---

Oh boohoo joke candidates like Gravel and Yang will only get 10 minutes of fame rather than 15.
---

Really a bad move. Why should the general public give a shit how many donors a politician has?
---

The Admiral posted...

All this does is decrease the number of far-left loons at the first couple of debates, who would just hijack issues from the electable candidates.

Which far left loons will it exclude, in your view? The candidates quoted in the article as being opposed or having difficulty with the threshold are Michael Bennett, John Delaney, and Kirsten Gillibrand. John Hickenlooper is also cited as not having yet met the 65k threshold for the opening debates.
---

So basically, to run as a Democratic Candidate, you'll need to be rich
---

Perascamin posted...

So basically, to run as a Democratic Candidate, you'll need to be rich

Well, yes, but I don't see what requiring a certain number of donors does to ensure that.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Really a bad move. Why should the general public give a shit how many donors a politician has?

Yeah this, or unless there's something I'm not getting on why having high donor numbers is important.
---

Prestoff posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Really a bad move. Why should the general public give a shit how many donors a politician has?

Yeah this, or unless there's something I'm not getting on why having high donor numbers is important.

It's a sign that there are a lot of people who are willing to support your campaign.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

Oh boohoo joke candidates like Gravel and Yang will only get 10 minutes of fame rather than 15.

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
---

Intro2Logic posted...

It's a sign that there are a lot of people who are willing to support your campaign.

This. Having high donation numbers doesn't necessarily mean you have a lot of support, but having low donation numbers (especially by number of donors rather than $ raised) typically means you don't have much support.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

Prestoff posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Really a bad move. Why should the general public give a shit how many donors a politician has?

Yeah this, or unless there's something I'm not getting on why having high donor numbers is important.

It's a sign that there are a lot of people who are willing to support your campaign.

True but, as said, a lot of voters havent even tuned into the race really yet.
---

Shablagoo posted...

True but, as said, a lot of voters havent even tuned into the race really yet.

And those candidates with less support will have three months and two debates to turn those people in.

It's also not like this is Survivor or anything. Those candidates can qualify for the next debate if they meet those requirements.

The DNC doesn't (and shouldn't) want to continue to have two nights of debates with 10+ candidates on stage. No one wants to watch Bernie debate Seth Moulton.
---

@Anteaterking Fair enough, youve convinced me.
---

seems bad imo

The Admiral posted...

All this does is decrease the number of far-left loons at the first couple of debates, who would just hijack issues from the electable candidates.

This is probably a good thing for the Democrats.

But I heard Bernie and Warren were the loons.
---

Btw there are some stats gathered here that may be of interest to people: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/silver-bulletpoints-whos-in-danger-of-missing-the-third-debate/
---

all those far left loons like............?
---

Anteaterking posted...

Btw there are some stats gathered here that may be of interest to people: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/silver-bulletpoints-whos-in-danger-of-missing-the-third-debate/

Seems good to me. And this can change depending on how people perform on the June debate. I mean I know Bernie supporters were counting on a fractured field to take it but this seems more than fair

King Gravel needs to be in the debates

Antifar posted...

must have at least 130,000 donors

Oh joy who likes robocalls because this how you get robocalls.
---