DNC says there'll be some kind of "threshold" for inclusion in Democratic debates

[Mr. Morden]

This is from last week, but I haven't seen any other discussion of it here, so I figured I'd post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/democratic-debate-criteria_n_7772156.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still no indication as to when exactly the first debate will be held, or what the threshold will be.  But the fact that she's talking about this suggests that we might see the debates exclude Chafee (because what threshold could he possibly meet?  unless "former governor and senator" means you're automatically in, regardless of polling, fundraising, staff, etc.).

[Adam Griffin]

The threshold probably will serve to exclude Chafee and the myriad number of no-name candidates we never hear about anyway. There have already been several reports about the DNC doing this from months ago and the outrage was palpable at the mention of them including an unreasonable threshold to benefit Hillary. I imagine the threshold will be something like 3%.

[WVdemocrat]

So help me if they exclude O'Malley...

Seriously though, if the DNC is going to bash Republicans and Fox News for the debate thresholds when they actually have a necessity for a threshold, they should not implement similar standards on their side when clearly there is no need - we all know who the five (maybe six if Biden runs) serious candidates are. Any "threshold" would be an arbitrary restriction. Clearly a threshold is not needed.

[The Other Castro]

Considering Chafee is literally polling at 0.0, I could see them using more of a public office experience/inclusion in major polls threshhold rather than a polling average threshhold.

[Mr. Morden]

Considering Chafee is literally polling at 0.0, I could see them using more of a public office experience/inclusion in major polls threshhold rather than a polling average threshhold.

The thing is, though, the DNC is thought to be dominated by people who support Clinton.  They might be eager to exclude Chafee, since he's the one candidate who's going heavily negative on Clinton (even bringing up stuff like Whitewater and Benghazi).  Do they really want him on the stage?  Probably not.

I guess the question is, how much does the DNC want to try to push this?  For the Republican debates, the RNC let the TV networks take the lead on establishing the criteria for participation.  If the DNC does the same, and leaves it to the networks, the networks will probably include Chafee.

[Thunderbird is the word]

At this point it would probably have the effect of being a Clinton vs Sanders face off.

[Lief 🗽]

Of course there are going to be thresholds. Plenty of jokes candidates run for presidential nominations. They're not going to have Vermin Supreme on stage.

[Famous Mortimer]

Hillary would be stupid to include O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee, since they all split the anti-Clinton vote. Making this a one on one with Sanders makes her more likely to lose.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary would be stupid to include O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee, since they all split the anti-Clinton vote. Making this a one on one with Sanders makes her more likely to lose.

Hillary isn't making the standards. DWS or the TV Networks will.

[Publius]

Hillary would be stupid to include O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee, since they all split the anti-Clinton vote. Making this a one on one with Sanders makes her more likely to lose.

Could you clarify that, please? At first and second read, I feel like the beginning of that didn't match up with the rest. I'm with you on that conclusion, though. My guess is the DNC--and Clinton, as separate or conjoined as we want to make them--would want all of the legitimate candidates on the stage and will locate the threshold accordingly. The fewer candidates there are, the stronger Sanders will look as Clinton's competition, not just with poll numbers but also by mere optics. Moreover, for the rest of the election, the DNC could then play up that they are, indeed, the democratic party.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

RIP O'Malley

[Knives]

Threshold of 40% pls.

[skoods]

People are making too big a deal out of Sanders. The Clinton campaign strategically leaked their "concerns" about him to legitimize him themselves rather than have the media do it. The fact of the matter is that Bernie Sanders isn't presidential, doesn't look presidential, and doesn't have presidential policy positions.

He's too socialist, too old, and too goofy. He might take Iowa. But, it's over after that. He won't come within 20 points of Clinton anywhere else. And there's no chance he'd have any hope in a one-on-one primary with Clinton, as any attack on her will come off looking like Mike Gravel.

[Famous Mortimer]

Hillary would be stupid to include O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee, since they all split the anti-Clinton vote. Making this a one on one with Sanders makes her more likely to lose.

Could you clarify that, please? At first and second read, I feel like the beginning of that didn't match up with the rest. I'm with you on that conclusion, though. My guess is the DNC--and Clinton, as separate or conjoined as we want to make them--would want all of the legitimate candidates on the stage and will locate the threshold accordingly. The fewer candidates there are, the stronger Sanders will look as Clinton's competition, not just with poll numbers but also by mere optics. Moreover, for the rest of the election, the DNC could then play up that they are, indeed, the democratic party.

Oops, meant "exclude" not "include".