I totally disagree with you. Particularly because you cite Yang and Gabbard, two Dems with some of the most interesting, different viewpoints. I’ve written about how the Dems need Bernie, Yang and Gabbard in this article.

I want an actual debate among the candidates. That means a forum where a real diversity of ideas are deliberated, not a sideshow where they all rush to agree with whatever the establishment has deemed is the right answer.

I don’t want the party appartchiks to tell me which candidates get their seal of approval. I don’t want them narrowing my choices for me.

One reason the Democrats lost in 2016 is because of DNC shennanigans against Bernie. Whether you agreed with him or not, Bernie was INTERESTING. He had IDEAS. And he also had PASSION.

Whether or not people agreed with Bernie’s ideas, whether or not they even thought he was totally sane, they were ENTHUSIASTIC about going to the polls to support him.

So no, I don’t want an arbitrary culling of candidates that actually have enthusiastic supporters.

What _I_ would love to see, instead of the current ridiculous debate format, would be a more serious, policy oriented and substantive forum — perhaps a round table where each candidate is allowed to talk about topics that he or she feels is important, not merely to respond to moderators’ carefully chosen questions. After each candidate speaks, the other candidates get a chance to ask a few pointed questions and moderators are only used as referees to prevent fights.

Thoughtfulness and coherency would matter more than showmanship in such a forum.

Obviously this type of format would take longer since each candidate would have a solid block of maybe 20 minutes, 10 minutes to talk and 10 minutes to field questions from and debate with the other candidates. So it might have to be done on two or even three consecutive nights. But the thing is — it would be much more informative.

I think if we used this type of format, some of the front runners (I’m thinking Bernie and Warren) would still shine, because they have serious, substantive ideas (whether you agree with them or not). Others like Beto and Booker and, dare I say, Biden, will fall by the wayside. Their reason d’etre seems to be their non-offensiveness.

I think Yang and Gabbard would also shine in a substantive forum because they have real policy differences from the rest of the field.

I have always been attracted to Gabbard because she is a peace candidate. A military veteran, she is anti-war. She seriously questions the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. She also has a great ability to relate to real people — just watch her work a crowd.

In her take-down of Kamala Harris, she showed the ability to go for the jugular in an effective way. I’d love to see her do that in a debate with Trump.

As far as Yang — the guy’s ideas are compelling. He’s brilliant. He is one of the few candidates who is addressing the loss of jobs to automation.

And the fact that he doesn’t have political experience — HELLO! Who won the last go-round for President? It was another guy with no political experience. Maybe the voters don’t care as much about political experience these days?

Instead of focusing on Yang’s lack of experience, if you actually look at his ideas — only Elizabeth Warren has the breadth and depth of knowledge in so many different areas. The guy would be a superstar if the Presidency was actually a meritocracy instead of a popularity contest.

Additionally, these two don’t just have a diversity of ideas — they are actually diverse in other ways! Yang is Asian American. Gabbard is Samoan American. She is also a Hindu.

So no, I am not for eliminating these candidates. Instead, I’d like to see them get more air time so voters could better vet them.

BTW, the other debate format I’d be all for would be a total free-for-all where the candidates just attack each other. Aside from being entertaining, it would be a good dress rehearsal for when they have to go against Trump.

Maybe we could do it in one-on-one elimination rounds.

Two candidates go into the ring and after 20 minutes, a winner emerges. Rinse and repeat until only one guy (or gal) is left standing. Anyone who can withstand that type of punishment will be tough enough to take on Trump.