I know I shouldn't engage. But, ridiculous arguments deserve dismantling. (1) The DNC didn't arbitrarily leave people out. They said weeks/months before the first debate that once 20 candidates was reached, the polling criteria would matter more than the fundraising criteria. Most of Gravel's donations were a joke. He is an almost 90-year old man. He wouldn't have become the nominee under any circumstances. (2) Let's revisit 2016, since this is the source of your DNC conspiracy theory about debates. The DNC held fewer debates, yes. But, the burden is on you to prove that more debates would have helped Bernie. HRC was a more than capable debater (arguably the first debate was one of the best moments of her campaign.) Thus, I don't see how Bernie could have made up a fraction of the votes by being given other debates. Actually, I think it would have hurt (since his tv coverage was the most favorable of any candidate running and hers was the most negative. A debate would have evened the playing field and HRC won most of them.) 3. The polls that were selected for these debates were selected based on accuracy. No Drudge report or youtube comments. 4. As has been mentioned, 10 other candidates have complained about the debate criteria. 2% in a few polls really shouldn't be an impossible standard.

E Pluribus Unum, I hate to play devil's advocate here, but they do make good points. You can support Progressives all you want but you don't have to believe literally everything is rigged against Progressive candidates, though it sure seems like it.

I know I shouldn't engage. But, ridiculous arguments deserve dismantling. (1) The DNC didn't arbitrarily leave people out. They said weeks/months before the first debate that once 20 candidates was reached, the polling criteria would matter more than the fundraising criteria. Most of Gravel's donations were a joke. He is an almost 90-year old man. He wouldn't have become the nominee under any circumstances. Neither's Delaney, but he got invited despite only meeting the polling criteria. But Gravel hadn't even been included as an option in many polls, the ones that bothered to include him he did well (2) Let's revisit 2016, since this is the source of your DNC conspiracy theory about debates. The DNC held fewer debates, yes. But, the burden is on you to prove that more debates would have helped Bernie. HRC was a more than capable debater (arguably the first debate was one of the best moments of her campaign.) Thus, I don't see how Bernie could have made up a fraction of the votes by being given other debates. Actually, I think it would have hurt (since his tv coverage was the most favorable of any candidate running and hers was the most negative. A debate would have evened the playing field and HRC won most of them.) Completely separate issue that has nothing to do with this convo at all, to the point where it looks like you did it just to Bernie Bash. I'm referring to what happened to Lawrence Lessig's campaign when the DNC refused to put him in polls and didn't let him in the first debate. 3. The polls that were selected for these debates were selected based on accuracy. No Drudge report or youtube comments. Many polls the DNC did not include were more scientifically accurate than polls they DID include. 4. As has been mentioned, 10 other candidates have complained about the debate criteria. 2% in a few polls really shouldn't be an impossible standard. Which is why Tulsi met the criteria 6.5 Times, just so happens the DNC said that only 2 count...

E Pluribus Unum, I hate to play devil's advocate here, but they do make good points. You can support Progressives all you want but you don't have to believe literally everything is rigged against Progressive candidates, though it sure seems like it. Their good points being? All they do is shit on the "Far-Left" and think they are Ben Shapiroing me when I know I'm right...

I will engage one more time and then I'm out. 1. Delaney was included because he met the polling criteria. This superceded the donor requirement months due to rules put in before Gravel was a candidate. 2. You asserted that I was trying to Bernie bash. You are someone who routinely brings up conspiracy theories regarding the 2016 primaries, including doing so about debates. I was simply addressing a broader straw man which you often push. Me assessing your broken record is being off topic? Also, you did not respond to my argument substantively. 3. "Many polls the DNC did not include were more scientifically accurate than polls they DID include." Examples? What about the fact that the DNC included polls are highly reputable and established? What about their criteria was unscientific? 4. Tulsi did not meet the DNC criteria because those polls were not DNC sanctioned. The DNC established polling firms months in advance. She had ample opportunities to get to 2% in those polls. She did not. Lastly, your assertion that we "Ben Shaprio" you when you "know [you're] right" is laughable. By "knowing" you are right and ignoring all facts to the contrary, you are not being "Ben Shapiro"ed. You are simply being fact checked, but simply uncompromising in your dogmatic thinking. That is more like Ben Shapiro than anything we have said.

FiveThirtyEight just did some analysis on the debate requirements. - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-the-third-debate-were-based-on-different-polls/

It does seem rather silly to be seeing Klobuchar on that list. How far back are they having to go to find four polls where she's registering something higher than 1%?

Despite the fact on average she's polling less than Tulsi and Castro, her polls magically qualified while Tulsi's didn't...

Clearly the DNC, who communicated the rules way in advance, has been coordinating with specific polling firms, who I guess have something to gain from this conspiracy too, to keep Tulsi off the stage because reasons. Don't Ben Shapiro me bro! (who tf is Ben Shapiro, I don't have Twitter because I have a job and a life)

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1171848261717635078

Oh God, I already didn't want to watch.

I'm guessing live visual aids for his opposition to circumcision.

His campaign and supporters are really competing hard with Sanders' campaign and supporters for the most annoying people on the internet.

SO Yang's surprise is that he's selecting 10 families randomly and give them $1,000 a month each for the next year as a pilot for his UBI plan. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/andrew-yang-120000-giveaway-for-ubi-pilot-program-1493622

Who do you all think won the debate

I don't think anyone bombed or came off like a big loser, but I don't think anyone was an obvious standout. Biden did have that one rambling moment near the end, but I think he came off well overall. Bernie was the same and Warren came off likable, although I wish she could have gone a little more in-depth on some of her proposals. I thought Beto came off better tonight compared to his previous performances, and the lower polling candidates like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Booker did well imo, although they didn't do anything to move their poll numbers. I personally thought Castro came off as petty in his attacks, but he generally had good answers. Overall, this debate won't move the needle anymore than the previous two and I am waiting for the field to narrow down before taking the debates too seriously.

I feel Bernie and Warren were the winners due to their overall focus on policy. Yang, Castro, and Booker did good cause they did focus on some policy and when they didn't it was still otherwise standout moments. Kamala, Pete, and Robert didn't stand out but did fine. Biden and Klobuchar overall lost due to them having really no substance and more specifically Biden stumbling a lot and Amy not really bringing anything to the table in regards to policy.

I feel Bernie and Warren were the winners due to their overall focus on policy. Yang, Castro, and Booker did good cause they did focus on some policy and when they didn't it was still otherwise standout moments. Kamala, Pete, and Robert didn't stand out but did fine. Biden and Klobuchar overall lost due to them having really no substance and more specifically Biden stumbling a lot and Amy not really bringing anything to the table in regards to policy. Your "winners" are all the people you like and your "losers" are those you dislike. This comment proves this debate changed nothing.

Kyle, we have to stop, we’ll never learn.

Your "winners" are all the people you like and your "losers" are those you dislike. This comment proves this debate changed nothing. They're that way cause that's how well I they did. The first debate had Warren win night 1 by default while Bernie and Kamala won night 2. I don't even like Warren that much, I feel she's a but too friendly to the establishment. Who do you think won the debate then?

The debate was good, but it won't make any significant difference in who is nominated. There were some interesting moments in the debate, where I define "interesting" as things I remember the day after: - Warren saying that the military has been tasked to do something without a military solution in Afghanistan. - Beto being praised by multiple candidates and saying that everyone with assault weapons should be forced to sell them back to the government. His aptly described "f*** it" campaign since the El Paso shooting is refreshing since he is free to say what he wants, but he's still going to lose. - Castro trying too hard to knock Biden down and failing. Like Beto, he has nothing to lose, so he swung for the fences. - Maybe it was just me, but I thought Harris' attempts at jokes were lame and off-key. - Booker was funny and inspirational but I don't remember anything he said with regard to policy.

WINNER Warren. From my perspective she is coming across as the ideas candidate and is a decent debater. Not making critical mistakes and getting in some good one-liners. WINNER The NRA. Finally have what they wanted - a soundbyte from a Democrat talking about taking away law-abiding citizens guns. As an NRA member I hadn’t quite bought into the rhetoric that “Democrats are going to take your guns away.” But now Beto did the org a favor with his hell yeah bombastic delivery. LOSER Biden was okay I guess. But he hasn’t put up a good end-to-end debate performance yet. Going into these debates I thought he would be the one that was going to be to effectively take on Trump in a debate. But he keeps saying something stupid that overshadows his performance.