.... and not the voters.

"The Democratic National Committee has set stricter criteria for the third set of debates,..."

You've had two looks at 20 candidates, per the DNC's own criteria. So has everyone else who's interested.

This whole thing is being run like Trump TV shows, apprentice, etc etc etc
It must thrill the Repubs to no end to see this charade on parade in front of national TV Democratic watchers.
It is beyond pathetic...........

I love the way they do the heavy lifting for the Repubs by letting them tear each other down. This provides the Repub with serious talking points against whomever wins the nomination. Being from Colorado, the fact that Hickenlooper or Bennet are even included in this travesty is a complete joke.......this applies to at least about 8-10 others up there on the stage.

I honestly think that the Repubs are going to get every last diversion out of Trump's daily antics, continuing to shove everything they hope to accomplish through while everyone's attention is focused daily on Trump. At the last minute the Repubs will impeach Trump, get Pence in there and run a pathetic VP with him. Then they can tell their wavering supporters: Look we saw the problem, came right in and took care of the problem and we are back to the Good Ol' GOP with great True Republicans that you can feel good about voting for.........

When they spring this plan on Trump, they hopefully will have already moved the "football" out of Trump's reach and notified the military commanders not to obey any orders by Trump. They will also have to have the Secret Service clued to this so they can get ready to deal with Master Trump when he totally flips out.........

Narcistic Tyrants have a tendency to pay everyone back who is against them with some grandiose horrific actions...........Especially the Republicans who would have engineered the whole thing and spring it on him without warning with out any drawn out delays.....

They will also need to remove him from the public so he doesn't spill information on the large mass of Republican Politicians that have also been aiding the Russians, voting for anything that Putin wants and taking tons of money from the Russians, funneled thru the NRA.

He reminds me of this guy

?width=250&height=250&crop=1:1,smart

I hope Castro makes the cut, and maybe Klobuchar. To everyone else, thanks for playing our game, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

I really like Castro and I think he has a lot to contribute to the debates.

Castro and Klobuchar would be a good addition to that list.

The climate crisis won’t be a priority without him there to keep it up front.

It’s my priority bar none. Should be EVERYBODY’S priority. Nothing much. Just survival of this planet. That’s all.

Inslee will make sure that climate change is addressed, and we need to be debating this number on issue for the world, not just the USA.

Our Climate Catastrophe ought to be center stage. All other issues must be viewed through its focused lens. MSM is a joke. The candidate manipulation is obvious and obscene.

After seeing this info on Vox elsewhere. I never get called upon to participate in polls so it's the only way to make my voice heard. Donated to Biden, Castro, Mayor Pete, Andy Yang, and Klobuchar so far.

Smells like a fix to me

Says so here...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455207-yang-qualifies-for-third-and-fourth-democratic-debates

good news as far as I'm concerned!

Was she wrong or is the list just older? It seemed like she had just met the mark.

I'm retired and on a fixed income now, so I have to be careful. But I really want to see Amy make the next cut, and she deserves to be considered a serious candidate.

I am pretty sure it's not how much she gets but how many unique donations.

I hope so. I love her spirit and courage to speak truth to power.

There's a whole bunch of people on this board that don't and are bashing her.

I think if Tulsi can make the September debate (polling above 2%) she could have a chance.

I guess in your eyes speaking truth to power includes attacks on president obama and refusing to answer when asked if Assad is a war criminal. The unintentional comedy and irony factor in your comment is high.

Does it take more guts as a politician to vocalize valid criticisms, in their opinion, against their own party policies? (While also criticizing even more the opposition). That this person would dare to suggest there could be improvements?

Does it take more guts politically to be willing to talk to the branded "enemy", get first person experience, especially as a former soldier that wants to avoid new war commitments, than just sit back and copy and paste the MSM's profile of the situation? Even if that might lead to yet another invasion where we don't know what is true and what is not?

I'm not asking if you think they SHOULD, in your opinion. Maybe that kind of courage is very dumb in the political arena. The MSM requires very clear lines to compose their narratives. And so do many Democratic voters.

This Gabbard dog pile, and Sanders as well, reminds me of Bill Maher getting fired from ABC for daring to suggest that the terrorists that flew those planes had guts to do that.

Some things are true, but many would rather live in a bubble of unicorns and rainbows, than hear it.

She comes across as part Trump, part Bernie. I’m not a fan.

That's a good number... a healty cut in bottom-tier candidates. They have had their moment on the pageant stage. We know they exist. The party's eventual nominee knows they exist, and perhaps they'll be among those considered for the VP slot (and likely will be asked to serve in our new president's cabinet.)

They need to bring the numbers down for each candidate to be able to finish their thoughts. There should not be more than five.

only to be interrupted by one of the moderators saying "Your time is up".

So instead I watched an episode of Suits, and Full Frontal with my heroine, Samantha Bee. (She did a totally entertaining interview with Amy McGrath, who hopes to replace Putin's Mitch.)

There are frontrunners who have not yet shared a stage and that needs to change. So, I'm really hoping no more than 10 qualify for the September debate.

decisions, decisions....

nothing else matters. The narrowed field is a good crop of presidential material. One or two others might be ok too.

Win the election. You favorite position doesn't matter. Listen to the candidates and judge how they will play to voters in late October to Election Day 2020. That is all that matters.

Win the election!

I watch him. I listen to him. Then I hear pundits knock his performance and I completely disagree with them.

I'd be disappointed to lose Marianne Williamson the most and hope she still gets a role in a Dem administration as national spiritual adviser or something.

I hope Castro makes it. He's already served in Obama's administration.

Yang would be great in some Dem administration role on labor or technology or something.

and have no shame about it

Klobuchar met polling qual, but not donors.

Yang and Castro meet donor numbers but not polling.

The candidates will still be on the ballots.

The longer there are 375 candidates (or however ridiculous a number there are), the more likely people will get fully invested in their candidate who doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination, and will simply refuse to vote come November 2020.

With all due respect to everyone's opinions here, 20 or more candidates and debates spread over two nights is completely absurd.

Candidates offer different strengths. Through the primary, I learned more about Jay Inslee and am aware of some actions in Washington that can be advocated for in Wisconsin.

The biggest risk to the GE comes when the interests of some Democratic voters are dismissed out of hand. No matter who the nominee is, they should respect the differences in Outlook within the party and find ways to build stronger connections. One of the best ways to do this is to verbally support and strengthen organizational ties with the local party organizations. This step was not taken seriously enough in the last few cycles, since the Howard Dean days, IMO.

Guess it was too much trouble to just answer your question.

I don't have a subscription, but have no problem accessing articles.

My bad.

Sorry sE.

I thought you were being snarky. I can access the articles, but only get a few free peeks, so I rarely click on the link.

<< Candidates will need to have 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. They have until Aug. 28 to reach those benchmarks.

These criteria could easily halve the field: The first two sets of debates included 20 of the 24 candidates, but a New York Times analysis of polls and donor numbers shows that only 10 to 12 candidates are likely to make the third round....

Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donors.

Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1)...>>

For some reason, I don't seem to have an issue despite not being a subscriber.

I think it probably has to do with using NoScript/Ad Blockers (I think).

I pay for the Guardian, Esquire (Charles Pierce), the New Yorker, SF Chronicle (local paper) and a few others... but not the NYT after "Clinton Cash," "FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia," "Email, Email, Email"... and so much since!

That's a fantastic list right there. I'm so hopeful that our nominee will only come out of this stronger.

Jay Inslee heads up the Interior Dept
Kamala Harris our next AG
Warren goes to Sec. Treasury

Biden is the President and the VP goes to........

Mayor Pete. A better version of Dan Quayle.

So what do you think?

it to the final debate. The more woman left is the greater the chance that we will have a female president or vice president. We a woman to be one of those.

For those that weigh the gender factor heavily, fewer women in the later debates may concentrate their polling and make them stronger.

Not only a lower profile for the climate issue, but less awareness of a legislative record of high accomplishment.