Larry Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign, Citing Unfair Debate Rules (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Harvard law professor Larry Lessig is ending his run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lessig blames the demise of his campaign on party rules that have left him "shut out" of the Democratic debates. "The party won't let me be a candidate," Lessig said in his final campaign video. "I can't ask people to support a campaign that I know can't get before the members of the Democratic Party."

Comments

More Details

[quantaman]

HuffPo actually explains how the rules changed:
The DNC's rules for candidate participation in their debates were pretty straightforward--or so we thought. In August, before the Lessig campaign began, DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, announced the standards for being included in the debates. As she described the rule, a candidate had to have 1 percent in three DNC sanctioned national polls, "in the six weeks prior to the debate."
[...]
And indeed, that is precisely the rule that was applied in the first debate. As CNN specified in a late September memo, to qualify a candidate had to poll at 1 percent in the "polls released between August 1, 2015 and October 10, 2015." The first debate was October 12.
[...]
During that call, I was told that the DNC participation standard for the debates was for a candidate to be at one percent in three polls conducted, "six weeks prior to the debate"--not the clarified rule cited earlier by Wasserman-Shultz and the DNC political director that a candidate had to be at one percent in three polls conducted "in the six weeks prior to the debate."

So the DNC had said 1% in the six weeks before the debate and used that standard in the first debate, but in the second debate where Lessig qualified by that standard they switched to 6 weeks before the debate.

It seems odd even if you don't take the wording at face value and wonder about the missing upper bound in the range given by "six weeks before the debate".

I can see why the DNC doesn't want a candidate who is there almost explicitly as a one issue protest candidate but that's a fairly dirty way to go about it.

Re:More Details

[mysidia]

They changed the required 1% on the polls rule from "in the six weeks prior to the debate" To 3 polls "at least six weeks prior to the debate"

Error In Title: it's not simply "unfair rules"

[Qwertie]

Lessig didn't drop out because the debate rules were "unfair". He dropped out because the DNC changed the debate rules midstream in a way that would exclude Lessig from the debates. His campaign worked hard to meet the requirement to participate in the second debate, at which point they changed the rules to exclude again.

Note that he raised more money than Webb and Chafee, who were allowed in the first debate; and if his name hadn't been excluded from polls, it's even conceivable he would have been allowed into the first debate.

Re:Real problem: He's an idiot

[Roodvlees]

He raised the money they required. Then they changed the rules to requiring 1% in the polls. He got the required 1% in the polls. Then they changed the rules to require the 1% 6 weeks before the debate... They just keep making up new rules that will shut out just him. They are afraid to lose the ad revenue they get from corruption in politics.

Re:And there's still a year to go.

[Hognoxious]

It's the same in Oz and the UK, election campaigns run for ~6 weeks and voting is compulsory.

Voting is not compulsory in the UK.

He also garnered more than 1% of the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

In one poll, he needed to garner more than 1% in three, but after winning that margin in one poll, they took his name off the next polls.

Because then they could cite the rules about needing to poll to refuse him a seat.

Meanwhile, how many republican nominees did they let in, even on the same damn channels..?

The system is broken

[erp_consultant]

This is what happens to all candidates that don't have strong poling numbers. They get shut out of the debates. They get hardly any questions at all. I thought this was supposed to be a democracy? I think that all candidates should get equal time in the debates. Give them all x number of minutes to make their case to the American voters. Without moderators jumping in or getting cut off by other candidates. Every time a candidate jumps in take a minute of time away from their talking time.

The current format is a circus. Nothing more than name calling and gotcha questions. Let's find out what they really have to say and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

Re:Real problem: He's an idiot

[mrchaotica]

Because the Clintons have the party establishment tied up, Dems have no viable candidates this year other than her

Never mind that Sanders has been polling above Clinton at least part of the time, he's not "viable" because "reasons."

Of course, the only reason people believe Sanders is "crazy" is because the media keeps claiming so, but that's a total lie -- in reality, Sanders' positions are completely reasonable and moderate.