Sanders to skip debate unless Clinton agrees to future showdowns
Source: Washington Times
The campaign of Bernard Sanders said Tuesday that the Vermont senator will not participate in Thursday’s planned debate unless Hillary Clinton agrees to further debates.
Tad Devine, a Sanders campaign official, told The Hill on Tuesday that the sticking point is a debate in New York, the state which elected Mrs. Clinton to two U.S. Senate terms. The Sanders team wants a debate there, and Mrs. Clinton doesn’t, he said.
“We are continuing to negotiate with them not just about the debate Thursday night, but about the other debates that we have said need to be agreed to in order to put the whole package of debates together,” Mr. Devine said. “They have not agreed to at least one aspect of it, which is we’ve asked for a debate in New York.”
Thursday’s New Hampshire debate is scheduled for 9 p.m. on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd as moderators.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/bernie-sanders-skip-msnbc-debate-unless-hillary-cl/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Sanders is proposing (his partial proposal)
Tweet:
@HillaryforNH -->*berns the house down Leaving Iowa-First woman to win Caucus 
#Hillary2016 #p2
she's trying to fool people, and it's working if they don't listen closely (because she swallows the word "coverage."
more debates. Must be a Steely Dan fan.
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #79)
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #80)
Response to trillion (Reply #110)
bye bernie supporters that it is mind-boggling. But let any source be the least bit critical of Sanders and it is a big deal.
Response to murielm99 (Reply #29)
From the Article:
-----------
The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.”
It is indeed “obviously not the case.” There are literally millions of women who support Sanders over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday shows Sanders with a 15-point lead over Clinton among women under 45, while one-third of Iowa women over 45 support him. A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.” One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this “Bernie Bro” smear.
.
Response to murielm99 (Reply #105)
Are u missing a 'sarcasm' smilie ???
He's just told Hillary "You're not the boss of me".
Good on you Sanders! 
What a dirty fucking communist he is.
He's going to so totally kick her ass in NH.
Rachel documents how the debate was set (with video of Sanders saying "count me in" in the following video:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560
the video shows a statement from the DNC dated January 26 in which they said they had no plans to sanction debates before Iowa and NH.
"Rachel added this debate."
Rachel cannot just ADD a debate!
And you did argue he agreed to a debate on February 1st and later edited your post when others said it was the date of the Iowa caucus.
They already threw in a last minute town hall the week before in Iowa.
So should we just do this every week on some whim or should we agree to more debates and a schedule for them, that is what the Sanders campaign has been advocating. Sanders does still have a day job.
Where was Clinton in the summer when O'Malley and Sanders were asking their supporters to contact the DNC for more debates? Clinton was nowhere to be found on the issue.
as the politicos
have already forecated
Because I'm tired and my eyes are blurry and I read that as saying:
"as the politicos have already fornicated!"
The Sanders campaign would only agree to a debate sanctioned by the DNC ...
the video shows a statement from the DNC dated January 26 in which they said they had no plans to sanction debates before Iowa and NH.
"Rachel added this debate."
Rachel cannot just ADD a debate!
And you did argue he agreed to a debate on February 1st and later edited your post when others said it was the date of the Iowa caucus.
They already threw in a last minute town hall the week before in Iowa.
So should we just do this every week on some whim or should we agree to more debates and a schedule for them, that is what the Sanders campaign has been advocating. Sanders does still have a day job.
Where was Clinton in the summer when O'Malley and Sanders were asking their supporters to contact the DNC for more debates? Clinton was nowhere to be found on the issue.
None of us have any clue as to what is being proposed or negotiated behind the scenes.
Again the DNC, in your video link, stated they were not sanctioning any debates before Iowa and NH.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560
Stop pretending you know what is going on when you do not.
The subtext of all this does have a lot to do with negotiating skills, or negotiating techniques. What can we deduce from this?
Of course there's no way for me (or anyone) to know for certain what's actually being said behind the scenes... but if the outcome is that Bernie ends up not participating, it would be very logical for observers to conclude that he'd given a "my-way-or-the-highway" ultimatum, and was unwilling to negotiate.
I can definitely understand how such an approach would thrill many of his supporters ... but analytical observers may conclude (and point out) that being immovable and unwilling to negotiate on anything ends up with nothing being accomplished. Hillary's team would not hesitate point that out, and it would end up hurting Bernie's campaign.
Ultimately, I believe he's bluffing and that cooler heads will prevail. I think there will be a debate. But... if not, then... oh well.
Go, Hillary! 
... in a way, I'm kind of hoping that he DOES end up skipping the debate.
Regardless of which option he chooses, Hillary wins!
If he participates, Hillary will win the debate, but at least he tried. If he chooses to boycott the debate, Hillary wins by default, and he looks bad for not participating. People may wonder if he was afraid of Hillary, or may think that he's having a tantrum. (Or maybe they'll think he's getting bad advice from his campaign team.)
Go, Hillary!
