Disagree. When you've got 22 candidates with 5 months before any Democrats vote, and you cut 12 of the candidates from the debate stage with 9 debates to go, I think you're doing fine. To then say we need to cut "four or five" more, after just effectively cutting 12, is overkill.
1/ There are now more debates than ever, and each of them is longer than ever, and the moderators give extra time to polling leaders more than they ever have before, so no one in America can say they didn't hear enough from Biden, Sanders, or Warren just because Booker was there.
2/ Besides that, some seem to forget that this was a 29-person field that 7 have already left, that two other (big) names decided not to join (Bloomberg and Schultz) after many thought they would, and as I mentioned, that has sidelined 12 others from its sprawling 3-hour debates.
3/ The reason no one ever complains if you write an article saying the Democratic field should contract is we're at a time in U.S. politics when not only does everyone have a candidate, but everyone basically wants *all the other candidates to disappear*. It's petulant and silly.
You can follow @SethAbramson.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Since you’re here...
... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.