8 ms·
You qualify for the debate by getting the right number of donors? Wow ...
by KuiN 8y ago
You qualify for the debate by getting the right number of donors? Wow ...
- normal_man 8y agoUnique donors across (I believe?) all 50 states. It's to allow presumably grassroots candidates to achieve access. You can also qualify the normal way of scoring above some small percentage in national polls.
- rexaliquid 8y agoThe DNC doesn't require donors from all 50 states, but it does require a healthy diversity of states. I think it is 200 unique donors from 20 different states.
- koolba 8y agoIf it’s only $65K and 200 people that’s a low bar. That’s well within range of a determined troll to get a podium on live TV.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago200 from each of 20 states.
- jessaustin 8y agoWhy should anything about this be designed to exclude "trolls"? Last time repubs got a troll, and he won the whole thing.
- koolba 8y agoHa! For the record I’m all for it. I find the entire election procrsss highly entertaining. The funniest thing I heard on the subject was the suggestion to nominate Trump as a Democrat so he qualifies for their primary debates and can take on all of them at once.
- rexaliquid 8y agoNot dollars, 65k unique donors. And 200 from each of 20 states.
- MichaelApproved 8y agoHow would you propose a network select candidates for a debate?
- Steltek 8y agoI thought traditionally it was polling numbers. But maybe that was just the RNC clown car from 2016...
- rexaliquid 8y agoThe DNC is using two criteria for qualifying for the debates. One is the traditional polling above 1% in three separate recognized polls. The other is a minimum number of donors (65k), with a minimum of 200 in each of 20 different states. Meeting either criteria qualifies a candidate for the debate, and should the field of qualifying candidates grow to more than twenty (gods forbid) priority is given to candidates that meet both and then by polling average.
- everdev 8y ago65k donors doesn't seem like a lot especially since there's no minimum contribution. So raising $65,000 can put you on the DNC debate stage regardless of how you poll? A GoFundMe could raise more than that.
- longhuei 8y agoIt's to make sure "supporters" are actual supporters who put their money where their mouth is.
- cphoover 8y agoThat supposes "supporters" have disposable income, and don't support a candidate in other ways like donating time, or canvassing.
- lkbm 8y agoThe disposable income can be as little as $1 (though you also need a credit card and access to a computer with Internet), so it's not too exclusionary. You can also qualify by getting 1%+ support in 3+ "approved" polls.
- barberousse 8y ago>though you also need a credit card and access to a computer with Internet), so it's not too exclusionary You'd be surprised
- jmull 8y agoIt seems reasonable to me, for an early debate, assuming the minimum qualifying donation is small (like $1 or $5). For an early debate, I think one of the main goals would be to give exposure to "deserving" candidates who don't necessarily already have it. Polling isn't good for that since it will exclude anyone people haven't already heard of. But the question becomes what is "deserving" and how do you measure it? It's not like counting donors is perfect, but what is? And it has some things going for it: 1. Talk is just talk. If you can get a decent number of people who don't personally know you to support you with at least a few bucks, you've got some kind of appeal. 2. There are already a lot of laws, reporting rules, etc. around campaign donations that you can piggyback off of. That is, the campaigns are already tracking this stuff very carefully and, if they cheat the numbers, are risking something a lot worse than being left out of a debate.
- thanatropism 8y agoQuadratic voting. You can give as many "pushes" to a candidate as you like, but the first costs $1, the second $2, the third $9, the fourth $16... At the end of the game everyone shares in the spoils equally so people get some of their money back.