The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.
Don’t be such a snob.
Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?
Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.
It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.
Because we’re not the Republicans. Our entire message is that Trump is and was unqualified to be President. So why would we elevate candidates that have just as little experience or qualifications as him?
So you're saying the
only reason Democrats think Trump is unqualified to be President is because he never held public office before?