MSNBC Rigged Debate: Marianne Williamson Corroborates Yang

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Neither of them should have been on that stage in the first place.

They aren't legitimate contenders and we have too many candidates to sift through.  They take up space and time that could otherwise go to people who actually have a chance to get the nomination.

Then neither is Swalwell or DeBlasio.  Why isn't Yang "legitimate"?

[Karpatsky]

Neither of them should have been on that stage in the first place.

They aren't legitimate contenders and we have too many candidates to sift through.  They take up space and time that could otherwise go to people who actually have a chance to get the nomination.

Then neither is Swalwell or DeBlasio.  Why isn't Yang "legitimate"?

Most importantly because he has had a lifetime total of 0 votes, but this is also true.

[Inmate Trump]

Neither of them should have been on that stage in the first place.

They aren't legitimate contenders and we have too many candidates to sift through.  They take up space and time that could otherwise go to people who actually have a chance to get the nomination.

Then neither is Swalwell or DeBlasio.  Why isn't Yang "legitimate"?

I agree with you about Swalwell and DeBlasio and a few others.

And Karpatsky answered your question re: Yang.  That coupled with the fact they're polling at like 1%.  And we have too many candidates.  The debates shouldn't be spread out over two nights; we should dwindle down these 20 or so people into no more than 10 for a one night debate each time we have a debate.  Either that, or keep with two debates and have the second debate be for the lower tier candidates similar to what the GOP did in 2015-2016.

There is no reason, for instance, that Warren--polling as well as she is--should not be on the same stage as Biden or Bernie or Harris.  (Warren isn't even my first choice, but I'm just saying...the way these debates have been set up doesn't make much sense.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Neither of them should have been on that stage in the first place.

They aren't legitimate contenders and we have too many candidates to sift through.  They take up space and time that could otherwise go to people who actually have a chance to get the nomination.

What makes one a "legitimate" contender? Holding or previously holding an office?

[Inmate Trump]

Neither of them should have been on that stage in the first place.

They aren't legitimate contenders and we have too many candidates to sift through.  They take up space and time that could otherwise go to people who actually have a chance to get the nomination.

What makes one a "legitimate" contender? Holding or previously holding an office?

It certainly helps.  But if you’re polling 1% or so then yea, you aren’t really a contender.

I’d be fine if the debates were structured differently so that the “legitimate contenders” were on one stage and all the bottom tier candidates are on another.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

"Marianne Williamson Corroborates Yang" is fancypants speak for they've been hitting up the same ketamine guy.

[Alben Barkley]

I’m sorry, I’m confused: You think the word of Marianne Williamson makes me MORE likely to believe something is true?

[Wells]

I think this is a good thing if true. These candidates are polling at 1% at the most - they should be getting less time than the frontrunners. If they are someone worth listening to, then that should be clear even with a short speaking time. Williamson got five minutes (as opposed to the double digits numbers Biden and Harris got) and still made a huge impression on most people who watched.

[Progressive Pessimist]

That's one hell of a meaningful source! I trust Williamson more than anybody else!