Ok, first off there's no perfect way to decide who's in the debate. And even if there was a plan I felt was "perfect," you would disagree.
But what they did is working well.
First off, the combination of criteria was if anything a little too easy, but we ended up with exactly 20 qualifiers. And the criteria were spot on. How you are in the polls to measure can you generate interest. And can you get grassroots support measured by fundraising. That pairing worked.
Some are upset that some Senators had to struggle to meet his. Why? If a U.S. Senator can't meet those criteria, then they're not a strong candidate outside of their state. Same for Governors.
And yes we got Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson included. Both showed on the debate stage that they are way out of their league. But who are the powers that be to say only politicians who meet a required level of experience should be let in? We're the Democratic party. And so we're open.
And then we had the debate. And this gave us a chance to measure by another standard, each candidate. First, which of them can take on Donald Trump because it's going to be a brutal fight. And second, can you see in what they say and how they present themselves, a president?
And we're already down to 9 candidates at this point (the rest are dead, they just haven't admitted it yet). By the fall we'll likely be down to 4 or 5. That's a very manageable number and that's when most people start to pay attention.
So well done DNC (that's something you rarely hear).
