Thread by @JuddLegum

1. The DNC voted against holding a climate debate even though Democratic voters and all the major Democratic candidates wanted one.

It raises serious questions about corporate influence on the party apparatus.

Let's follow the money.

popular.info/p/burning-down…

2. All the major candidates have pledged to reject funds from fossil fuel executives.

The candidates want to make clear that the industry isn't influencing policy

But the DNC is still accepting tens of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel executives

popular.info/p/burning-down…

3. You can also work for a lobbying or "government relations" firm and be a voting member of the DNC

One of the most outspoken opponents of a climate debate was @MariaTCardona

She works for Glover Park Group, which represents fossil fuel companies

popular.info/p/burning-down…

4. Some say Democrats should be immune from criticism because the focus should be on Trump

But the entire political system needs to purge itself of corrupting influences and become more responsive to voters

For more, sign up for my newsletter at popular.info

5. The broader point is that the entire process of limiting debates makes little sense. Debates provide free time for all candidates to convey their message to millions of people. The first two debates drew 50 million viewers

Why would Dems limit this?

popular.info/p/burning-down…

6. The primary argument against a climate debate is that it would mean Democrats would also have to hold debates about issues like criminal justice reform and health care

The horror!

popular.info/p/burning-down…

7. Limiting debates helps the front-runner (Biden) in the short term. But it doesn't necessarily produce the best candidate. The last contested Democratic primary that produced a Democratic president was 2008 when there were 26 primary debates.

popular.info/p/burning-down…