The DNC continues to undermine its standing with the electorate through exclusionary political debates.
For Immediate Release: September 12, 2019
Houston, TX – Half the field of candidates for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination are being arbitrarily excluded from tonight’s debate.
Nearly five months ahead of the first primary contests in Iowa on February 3, 2020, the Democratic National Committee’s zeal for winnowing the field is undermining their hope for a unifying primary election and once again raising questions about the party’s democratic values.
As Michael Tracey wrote in a must-read RealClearPolitics piece on Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s unfair exclusion, “The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls — but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.”
The Gabbard campaign released a press release “calling on the DNC to hold true to their promise and make adjustments to the process now to ensure transparency and fairness. Crucial decisions on debate qualifications that impact the right of the American people to have the opportunity to participate fully in the Democratic process should not be made in secret by party bosses. For the sake of democracy, those decisions must be made openly with clear and consistent standards and a sufficient window of opportunity for candidates to demonstrate genuine grassroots momentum and enthusiasm.”
There are echoes of 2016’s complaints from Bernie Sanders’ supporters who claimed the DNC was unfairly manipulating the process to favor Hillary Clinton. It didn’t help the DNC’s credibility that their attorney argued in court that, as a private corporation, they had the right to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.”
The DNC’s interventions have already impacted the race. Along with three candidates who did get a shot in early debates, two candidates have now dropped out who never made it onto a debate stage. Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel dropped out and endorsed Bernie Sanders, while also voicing support for Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, and even Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins. U.S. Congressman and Marine Corps veteran Seth Moulton secured more individual donations than many of the candidates who did make it into the debates, yet ended his campaign last month.
While some are celebrating the easier packaging of a single debate night with ten candidates, the reality is that there are still ten more candidates in the race, and voters won’t have their say until early 2020. The worst part is that the DNC’s basis for excluding candidates is entirely arbitrary, biased, error-prone, secretive, and anti-democratic.
“This nation must seriously look at an election system that puts some candidates at a financial advantage over others, and a media industry that selectively features candidates on TV while denying others the same opportunity. The American people deserve to have access to as many qualified candidates as possible, not only the ones who can afford to buy name recognition or who already have it,” wrote Wayne Messam in an op-ed in Fortune Magazine. Messam is the mayor of Miramar, FL, with a population of 140,000, compared to South Bend’s population of just 102,000.
Senator Michael Bennet’s campaign called the DNC process “opaque and arbitrary.” Bennet advisor Craig Hughes said, “It is not the DNC’s job to winnow the field. It is the job of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. The Des Moines Register recently stated that ‘Iowa caucusgoers… would be well-served to give Bennet more attention.’ Why does Tom Perez believe he should have a greater say than Iowans? If he wants to narrow the field, he can move to Iowa.”
Author Marianne Williamson took to Fox & Friends this week to say she has “learned the system is even more corrupt than I knew, and people are even more wonderful than I hoped.” Williamson said, “I have seen that on the left, as on the right, there are too many people who do not recognize how important honorable debate is in a democracy. You can disagree with somebody’s opinion but that doesn’t mean you should be shutting them down or lying about them or misrepresenting their views.”
“The voters are still thinking this through. Let’s not narrow these choices before we need to,” she said.
Philanthropist Tom Steyer, meanwhile, has apparently qualified for the October debate, but he’ll have to wait until then to make his first appearance. He has come under fire from several excluded candidates for buying his way in, but there’s simply no good reason to exclude his voice at this stage of the process.
“Voters deserve to learn about all of their choices on the ballot,” said Open the Debates founder Eli Beckerman. “They should have the opportunity to hear from all serious candidates for this important office, without interference from the DNC. If the party wants to rely on polls, they could ask who voters would like to see included. The wisdom of democracy is letting voters decide.”
###