NBC Announces Democratic Debate Lineups

[kaelleria]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...ebate-n1017676

June 26:
Cory Booker
Elizabeth Warren
Beto O’Rourke
Amy Klobuchar
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Julian Castro
Tim Ryan
Bill de Blasio
Jay Inslee.

June 27:
Kamala Harris
Joe Biden
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders
Kirsten Gillibrand
Michael Bennet
Marianne Williamson
Eric Swalwell
Andrew Yang
John Hickenlooper

Randomized drawings seem to have screwed Warren and to a lesser extent Beto. Most people will not tune in to both and the June 27th debate seems much more interesting.

They need to winnow this field down ASAP.

[Adam Jensen]

They need to winnow this field down ASAP.

Put them in a gladiatorial cage match.

Whoever comes out alive, gets the candidacy.

[PACOX]

That June 27 lineup has some heat on it.

[Has lost its way]

That June 27 lineup has some heat on it.

Its the battle of fridges vs coolers.

[Seiklis]

Yea I'm not thrilled with a completely randomized drawing. Should of taken the averages of the top 6 and made sure it was 3 and 3 for each.

As it is, it's 2- 4

Though Warren is going to get a ton of time with hers

Not a great draw for Biden either

[Elegiac]

That June 27 lineup has some heat on it.

Which may backfire for the participants; as was pointed out, Warren and Beto are likely to dominate the first debate while the the second is likely to be much more divided - meaning more individual attention for Warren and Beto.

Sanders and Biden in the same lineup will be interesting.

[ati87]

I think they are increasing the threshold for every debate so that you don't end up with two groups for the next one. Also this is way better than what the Republicans did when they didn't give certain candidates a chance at all.

Having said that....if you excluded the generic old white guys from the debates (excluding Biden) who everybody knows that they have no chance to win the primary than you could fit the actual serious candidates on a single stage.

- - - Updated - - -

Which may backfire for the participants; as was pointed out, Warren and Beto are likely to dominate the first debate while the the second is likely to be much more divided - meaning more individual attention for Warren and Beto.

Sanders and Biden in the same lineup will be interesting.

Warren yes
O’Rourke is probably a joke, his debate against Cruz was terrible and not like if Cruz is likeable.

[Independent voter]

They stuck Elizabeth Warren in the "b team" group. She's running second, right after Biden, in the polls. Warren is ahead of Bernie.

[Grapemask]

Splitting up Warren and Biden is too bad. They have a decades-long history of verbal sparring that really needs to see a modern reboot.

On the other hand, that also makes me question how random it really was.

Biden has avoided sharing a stage with other democrats so far because he knows they will bring up his record and he'll have to directly defend it - which he can't do without flip flopping. Warren of all people would be the one to do it, and the past has shown he tends to lose face to face with Warren.

[kaid]

It honestly seems a pretty fair mix given there is going to be no great way to split this many candidates up without the whole "kids table" BS the republicans did.

[kaelleria]

Twitter is currently filled with people who think this is good for Warren and Beto... They're horribly mistaken.

Night 1 will have less eyes on it. That's one less of a chance for them to make their case. People care about the head to head match up. Having 2 hours of Warren waxing poetic will not attract people to her platform.

This is the point where twitter decides to mention that soundbites are what matter.
This is also misguided. There will be 0 soundbites of Warren attacking Biden or Beto vs Buttigieg.

[Doctor Amadeus]

June 26:
Cory Booker#9
Elizabeth Warren #1
Beto O’Rourke
Amy Klobuchar#4
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Julian Castro
Tim Ryan
Bill de Blasio
Jay Inslee.#5

June 27:
Kamala Harris#6
Joe Biden #2
Pete Buttigieg#7
Bernie Sanders #10
Kirsten Gillibrand#3
Michael Bennet
Marianne Williamson
Eric Swalwell
Andrew Yang #8
John Hickenlooper

My Picks in order/ Any combination

Elizabeth Warren #1 I question her choices in the past, but over all she seems to be pretty rock solid in her accomplishments and her aims.
Joe Biden #2 Used to be my Number 1 pick but recent flip flopping on abortion has given me some pause
Kirsten Gillibrand #3 Rock Solid pick all around, but her name recognition could work against her, especially being from NYC in rural America she would be a perfect VP
Amy Klobuchar #4 She is a solid middle of the ground moderate, she is tough, but fair works with liberals and conservatives and from Minnesota, Represent.
Jay Inslee #5 A doer and has a proven track record on Climate Change, and taking action, he would be a great VP also
Kamala Harris #6 Tough strong and a bright future, but her lack of experience gives me pause, but that is it.
Pete Buttigieg #7 Don't know enough about this guy, look forward to finding out more
Andrew Yang #8 A bit extreme, but I like to hear him articulate himself a bit more, I agree with him on UBI
Cory Booker#9 Too much of a fucking schmoozer, I like what he says, but he needs to DO MORE
Bernie Sanders #10 Don't like, don't trust, but he is a contender, so if he can put the goods together, I have to listen.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Doesn’t matter who gets it. They will lose, unfortunately.

[Moralgy]

Democrats tend to be boring due to sticking to facts and not going into left field with crazy conspiracies, but this one should be interesting. Itll prob be a "who can say the most mean things about trump and fox news" so could be lit.

[Beazy]

5 to 7 hour Lincoln Douglas style debate with no breaks, no edits, no commercials, no sponsors. . . . OR FUCK OFF.

I wouldnt watch this retard bullshit even if NBC paid me. You will learn ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING about any of the candidates or their policies with this format.

[Deletedaccount1]

Better than the 2016 Republican primaries where they just put all the low polling people in one debate that nobody watched. The main debates with Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush going at it were legendary though.

The first debate has a pretty shit line-up but the problem with both of these is that the field is filled with people who have no intention of winning and just want to put their name out there. In the past, I thought it was a good idea to lower the polling threshold for debates to increase exposure but so many of these candidates are just jokers polling at 0-2% which makes me think they should only have let the serious candidates into the debate (e.g. Biden, Warren, Bernie, Harris, Buttigieg, Beto, etc) to clear the field out.

[Kreuger]

The second debate will be fun, hoping for Yang to jump on the opportunity and really make himself know to the masses

[Deletedaccount1]

5 to 7 hour Lincoln Douglas style debate with no breaks, no edits, no commercials, no sponsors. . . . OR FUCK OFF.

I wouldnt watch this retard bullshit even if NBC paid me. You will learn ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING about any of the candidates or their policies with this format.

LD debate tournaments in high school were intense dude. That's where boys became men.

[Machismo]

Of all those candidates, I'm genuinely interested in what one... possibly two has to say.

[Elegiac]

Twitter is currently filled with people who think this is good for Warren and Beto... They're horribly mistaken.

Night 1 will have less eyes on it. That's one less of a chance for them to make their case. People care about the head to head match up. Having 2 hours of Warren waxing poetic will not attract people to her platform.

This is the point where twitter decides to mention that soundbites are what matter.
This is also misguided. There will be 0 soundbites of Warren attacking Biden or Beto vs Buttigieg.

Streaming has made "eyes on X" a flawed metric since it discounts the people who will watch it after the fact - especially since polling indicates people are interested in policy as much as spectacle.