Jaicee said:
Correct. As it should be. I very much want some of the more obscure candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand to have a real chance to gain the visibility and traction their campaigns badly need and the debates form the far and away best opportunity for that to happen, so I don't want the criteria getting stricter too terribly quickly. This pacing offers just enough time for a more obscure candidate to be seen and heard in a couple debates viewed by tens of millions of Americans and improve in the polls as a result if they're going to. |
Yeah. I think this time the DNC does the right thing with comparatively loose criteria to qualify for debates. I see some critics of that in classical media. That comes from th thinking of politics as some sort of sports: my team has to win against the other team. But in reality politics is about bettering the life of the people. So this process is not only to decide of the next candidate. These debates can pitch policy ideas to a general public. In the debates millions will hear for the first time about UBI and the upcoming problems of automation from Andrew Yang, about the real impact of the endless wars from Tulsi Gabbard, about the destructive results of climate change from Jay Inslee, about the political aristocracy from Marianne Williamson.I don't see any of these candidates have a real shot at the nomination, but pitching their policy ideas, putting focus on current problems will still impact politics. And this is important. Because it is never about who wins in the end. It is about which problems are addressed and how.
Last edited by Mnementh - on 12 June 2019
