By: Elena Caputo
What people find most unfair about the new rules is that they only hurt the “borderline” candidates. Presidential hopefuls like Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennett are popular in the world of politics, especially among more moderate Democrats, but they don’t quite meet the standards the DNC is requiring and will, therefore, be barred from the third round of debates. Conversely, the big-name candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are largely unaffected by the requirements. In enforcing these rules, the DNC is cutting the candidates (who frankly, need a forum for their ideas the most) off from their audience, forcing them to give up their chance to make a case to the American people about why they would be the best choice for president. Rep. Gabbard is, perhaps, the most disadvantaged by this decision. For instance, Gabbard’s latest poll standing (as of Aug. 20) in New Hampshire places her at 3.3% support. This figure should merit her inclusion in the debate, especially when one considers that this poll means that she’s ahead of several candidates who have already gained entry to the debates, including Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the DNC has decreed that the polls constituting Gabbard’s average are not sufficiently “qualifying.” What makes a poll qualified or not is unclear as of yet considering that one of the “unqualified” polls that placed Gabbard at 3% was sponsored by the Boston Globe, the most circulated newspaper in New Hampshire. Also, per the new approved list, an officially qualifying poll has not been run in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month. The DNC’s actions, as absurd as they may seem, do have a reason behind them. Many will remember the circus that was the 2016 Republican debates: 14 candidates standing on a stage that they could barely fit on. The large number of serious and non-serious candidates was disadvantageous for the party. It crams the debate stage, elicits shallow questions, and reduces the nationally televised answers to the tiniest sound-bites or hand-raises. This is exactly what the DNC is trying to avoid. But is it the right time to do this? America is divided more now than ever before in recent memory. Is now really the right time to force voices to stay silent? Many of the candidates who were excluded thanks to the new criteria bring a unique position that America should hear. Rep. Gabbard with her peace plan, Sen. Gillibrand with from her moderate standpoint on Democratic issues, Tom Steyer with his crusade against corporate influence in politics, Wayne Messam with his fight to end student debt. Without these voices, who will speak for these issues?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Elena Caputo
Hi! My name is Elena, and I'm a senior at Wilson and one of the Editors of the Editorial section. If you have any questions or ideas or if you want to write, email me at [email protected]! Olivia MonosHello! My name is Olivia and I'm a junior this year, and one of the editors of the Editorial section! I'm really excited to write for the Paw Print again this year!
Archives
December 2019
Categories |