Thursday, June 13, 2019

DNC Announces the 20 Candidates Who Will be on Stage for the First Debates:

They are:
  • Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado
  • Former Vice President Joe Biden
  • Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey
  • South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  • Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro
  • New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
  • Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland
  • Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
  • Sen. Kamala Harris of California
  • Former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado
  • Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington
  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
  • Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas
  • Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell of California
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
  • Author Marianne Williamson
  • Entrepreneur Andrew Yang

The DNC set two ways for candidates to qualify — fundraising and polling. To make the stage, candidates needed to have either at least 1 percent support in three qualifying polls, or provide evidence of at least 65,000 unique donors, with a minimum of 200 different donors in at least 20 states.

Those who did not meet the threshold for the first debate include: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock; former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel; Miramar, Florida Mayor Wayne Messam; and Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts.

The two-nights of debate (10 candidates and 10 candidates) will be hosted by NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo and will take place on June 26 and 27 at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in downtown Miami. The event will air live across all three networks from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m ET both nights.
The candidate lineup for each night has not been announced.

Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and José Diaz-Balart will moderate the debates.



  1. Here's to Tulsi hammering anti-war early and often.

    1. Gabbard does come across as sincere about US foreign intervention but, she is not. She may want to limit US military direct engagement but she does endorse intervention.

      From, “We must defeat ISIS militarily. To defeat ISIS, we must work with and support trusted partners on the ground, such as the Kurds, Syrian Arabs, and non-ISIS Sunni Iraqi tribes. Sending large numbers of US troops into Syria or Iraq would be a very bad idea as it would play directly into ISIS rhetoric characterizing their genocidal mission as a war between the west and Islam, and fuel ISIS’ recruitment activities.”

      “By working with local partners on the ground, providing advice and air support, along with Special Forces teams who can launch quick strike missions, we can overwhelm ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations and have in place local elements securing and governing the territory retaken.”

      She may not want to send “large numbers of US troops” but does see the need for “air support” and “special forces”.

      She also says, “…we must be willing to ally with Russia… whom we share a common enemy…” Comparing this to “such distasteful alliances during WWII.” This is striking ignorance of the mess such alliances have led to.

      Her voting record is not the best on the war front. While she voted against the NDAA she voted for HR 6157 the monstrosity that funds the war machine, among other things, including GitMo.

      She may be the cleanest shirt in the very dirty laundry of the presidential candidates but the only thing that she is at all good on she is still very week and the rest of her policies are pretty much more central control horribleness.

    2. 10% good, 90 horrible is still twice as good as any other D/R candidate for president that the orthodox media is going to anoint as "qualified". I'll take 10% good in a heartbeat. Her position on war is at the foundation level an economic one and the other D candidates already get an F even if they get a C or a D on other traditional economic positions.

  2. Hopefully someone gets Yang and Gabbard out and then sets fire to the building.

    1. Hopefully the other 19 will hear something Gabbard says and be inspired to adopt a rational position as their own (or their staff).

  3. Nothing of substance can be gleaned in the 5 minutes or so of speaking that each candidate will be apportioned. It's going to be shallow and empty platitudes and rhetoric---the equivalent of an introductory statement at a campaign rally---for 2 hours.

    1. But that's what voters want, and only statism can be reduced to one-liners.

    2. I disagree. If five minutes is all you get then the diamonds will shine while the uninspired will fade. I wonder how many red suits will be on the stage. My guess is that Gabbard will and others will either be male or have no pattern of wearing such a color that they won't want to risk color collision.