So what? If Oprah ran she’d have a relatively large base of support without help from the DNC because she has fans. Riding the wave of a cult of personality doesn’t make you qualified for the job.

CNN should hire Jim Ross for debate coverage if they do that.

There hasn’t been a contested convention since 1952. Its WAY to early to think a contested convention is remotely likely. But even if it was, so what?  You have to pick a candidate somehow, and the DNC went a long way towards better democratizing the process.

And allowing someone who blames the current state of the country on “dark psychic forces” is?

A 5 year old could get done what Trump has gotten done for the GOP.  That doesn’t make him anywhere near qualified to hold office.

Me: The bar should be raised for candidates to get on the debate stage to keep hacks with no qualifications to hold office from giving the GOP straw-men so they can avoid defending their positions.

If you want to beat Trump...vote for the democratic nominee even if its not the person you voted for in the primary.

And super delegates would still be barred from voting on the first ballot.

Again, how does not gathering enough support to move on to the next round disenfranchise anyone?  That’s like saying everyone who voted for Clinton was disenfranchised because Trump was elected.

Says the guy that just created 5 new threads? If your eyes are bleeding that badly maybe you should take a break from defending a candidate with who has basically the same qualifications as Trump to be POTUS.

Because she built a base of support that was higher than the others. Those changes by the DNC Unity and Reform Commission were good.

The problem is when you lower the bar you dilute the debates so far they are almost meaningless outside of candidates looking to turn a stiff jab into a week of fundraising. Plus when you let someone like Williamson on the stage with serious candidates her stupidity permeates into everything. Hell, Brooks had an NYT…

I think if we are going to stick with the wrastling metaphor she’s ahead of the jobbers (Bennett, Bullock, Steyer, Hickenlooper, De Blasio). She’s more like an heel manager...she’s full of shit, but talk is about all she has.

Obviously, but the DNC should have set the bar higher.

Because cable news is the pro wrestling of journalism.  I’m more concerned that the DNC bothered with her by allowing her on the debate stage.

It would be so great if she did not also have some, shall we say, questionable views about science and medicine.

If U.S. companies didn’t have to spend $1.2 trillion annually on healthcare, even if that entire amount is deductible, they wouldn’t. Otherwise companies like Walmart wouldn’t have threatened to reduce hours when the ACA was being passed in order to get out of paying for healthcare for employees working 30 hours a…

U.S. companies spend north of 1 trillion per year on healthcare, and if the tax benefits were so great they wouldn’t be steering employees towards low premium/high deductible plans that pass more of the cost onto the employee.

I deleted the tweets because I realize I did not adequately make my point.

I find it hard to believe that most businesses, big and small, wouldn’t love to be able to completely cut out the administrative cost of having to deal with employer sponsored health care.