First Democratic Primary Debate Scheduled for October 13th.

[SonderWoman]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/democrat-primary-debate-schedule?utm_content=buffer4b158&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

DNC holds firm at 6 debates despite complaints.

[lovemydog]

1. Interesting. Thank for the info.

I love your signature line!

[winter is coming]

2. It was supposed to have been August/Sepember.

The GOP is having their first debate tonight, but we're supposed to wait two months? That's bullshit. It's absurd that we're giving the GOP two full months to circulate their bullshit during primetime while we sit on our hands. O'Malley and Sanders and anyone else who's interested should go ahead and debate.

[Andy823]

3. I agree

They should start this month, not in October, and I agree that those candidates that want to have more should do so. If some don't want to debate, that's their problem, but if the majority of them show up, so will the media. If the party wants to ban them from their debates, there will be hell to pay.

[kenfrequed]

4. Strategically inept.

I get giving them a week... maybe. A week to let the Daily Show and the Nightly Show tear them to shreds. That would make sense. That would be fine politics. I could even forgive two weeks. It would be kind of dumb, but I can see two weeks.

But almost two frigging months?

Does Wasserman-Schultz really think that the sound of crickets is going to carry the day? She is willing to conceal our party's message and free media just so Hillary doesn't have to debate anyone? The level of stupidity here is revolting.

I think it is time for all the candidates that aren't in the lead to get together and do a real debate. Will the DNC cling to their stupid suicide pact if all the other candidates organize their own debate?

It is either that or let the Republicans frame the goddamned issues for the next month and a half.

[winter is coming]

5. Strategically inept in another way. The last thing Hillary needs going into the

shitshow of the Congressional "investigation", is months of people speculating that the debates have been noticeably delayed because HRC is afraid to debate. Even if she debates now and her competitior's numbers rise some, her campaign can (rightly) point out that given her name recognition, her initial polling numbers were never going to hold so seeing the other candidates' numbers rise is an expected part of the process.

[jwirr]

14. We do not have to call it a debate. They can go to a forum. And Hillary is invited also. Have

someone like Lawrence O'Donnell moderate it. Sick of the DNC and business as usual.

[dsc]

20. ODonnell is a Clinton hater

and absolutely unfit to moderate a debate with a Clinton in it.

[jwirr]

22. I have listened to him for years - I have not heard what you hear. Who would you suggest?

[dsc]

23. If you are wedded to MSNBC

I would suggest Maddow, Hayes, Wagner, or Kornacki. If not, then Anderson Cooper, Michaelangelo Singorele, Stephanie Miller, heck even with his pro Bernie slant I would prefer Schultz. O'Donnell did all of the following on his show. He has one segment where he literally blamed the fact the GOP won't raise taxes on Bill Clinton (on the grounds he ran ads pointing out Bush raises taxes after saying he wouldn't), on the night of Bill Clinton's speech at the convention on behalf of Obama literally had to choke out praise for it and implied that Clinton didn't know anything about policy) and my personal favorite, ran a montage of people who voted for the Iraq War which was entirely Republican except for, you guessed it, Hillary Clinton. No Biden, no Kerry, no Feinstein, no Edwards, nope just Hillary. Oh, and he found time to run Chaffee and Paul speaking against the war.

[jwirr]

30. Wedded? I listened to Rachel, Hayes and specifically Ed Schultz. Since Ed was let go I have turned

to Link for my news. Not specifically satisfied with them because it is almost all either foreign news or one subject for the whole time. So mostly I turn on the tv long enough to see what they are covering and then turn them off if not interested.

Not wedded. One thing I do know is that Ed Schultz was the only one who willingly talked about Bernie.

Seems to me that the stories he ran on the Clintons were kind of true?

[dsc]

42. really you think it is Bill Clinton's fault that the GOP in 2014 is anti tax?

really?

[jwirr]

43. I did not say it was his fault but he did play the trickle down economic games (welfare reform and

repeal of Glass-Steagell) so it is no surprise that they thought he was on the side of big corporations. Plenty of us who got hurt in those two reforms know that he was not on our side.

[dsc]

44. that isn't what O'Donnell said

he literally ran a story blaming the GOP anti tax attitude on Clinton. He really did that, and you really in the post before this one said he was correct in saying that.

[restorefreedom]

17. the only thing dws cares about

is getting Hillary the Nom. She's willing to sell democratic ideals and the general,election right down the river to do it too.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. Why not make it February?

Fucking cowards.

[bunnies]

15. They are. For 2 of them at least.

Nice, eh?

[Nevada Blue]

7. anyone know WHERE in Nevada?

If it's the first one, why no location disclosure?

[winter is coming]

9. Maybe in a casino, since they're gambling this blatant favoritism is going to work.

The potential for backfire looks pretty big to me.

[kenfrequed]

8. Screw it!

All the other candidates that aren't in the lead should just get together to do the debates without the DNC's sanction. Let them punish the candidates for participating. If Hillary doesn't want to show up then fine.

[SonderWoman]

10. That's a good idea. I'm sure cspan would jump at the chance.

And the DNC would look ridiculous if they attempted to reprimand the candidates.

[kenfrequed]

12. Yup.

I cannot imagine that the DNC would act out. Now we just have to get all of other candidates to sign on to this.

[askew]

24. O'Malley's aide - Lis Smith - basically implied something was being done

outside the DNC rules. I think we are going to see some candidates bolt over this.

What I'd love to see is for them to get together with the losers who didn't make tonight's debate and do a debate with them. Let's see Sanders, O'Malley, Perry and Jindhal all up on stage together. That would be an interesting debate. I'd bet a lot of people would watch too.

[winter is coming]

25. Holy cow, I'd even unhide the Fox News channel to watch that. n/t

[askew]

34. I know. I'd love that.

I am surprised that hasn't been floated by these candidates yet.

[kenfrequed]

26. An outlaw debate?

What an interesting idea.

I wouldn't do it unless all five of the Democratic candidates are involved. That would insulate them from any kind of attack by the DNC. The Republicans in this debate would have nothing to lose since they have already been locked out anyhow.

[askew]

36. You mean 4 candidates because Hillary definitely isn't going to do it.

She's getting exactly what she wants. Right now she is on Rev Al's show talking about the general election campaign she is going to run. She thinks she has this in the bag.

[NCTraveler]

11. Five months before the first primary.

With five more following. This is the perfect schedule for momentum building. I want our candidates and electorate to know the exact date, time, and issues being covered in the debates now. Not later.

[bunnies]

13. Less than 4 months actually. nt

[NCTraveler]

16. You are correct. Just under four months.

I think this will really work for O'Malley if he shows his chops in the debate. The debates will have significance and I firmly believe they will remove Sanders from the equation.

[bunnies]

18. Im sure they will be interesting.

I suspect Bernie will do better than you're expecting though. I havent seen anything from him that leads me to believe he wont be able to hold his own.

[Armstead]

19. I disagree that it will remove Sanders, but in any case they all should be heard soon

like real soon.

I don't know if the dates are the preferences of the candidates themselves or not, but in any event in my opinion it makes it less of an actual contest the longer it is held off, because of Clinton's inherent lead and visibility.

I think Sanders, O'Malley, and yes even Chaffee and Webb, deserve the chance to at least introduce themselves to the public early on, and let the publiuc see who they are while all of the perceptions are being formed, and behind the scenes maniupulation is occurring,

[NCTraveler]

21. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I think it would be beneficial if they started in August. I still don't see a need for more than six. What I do think is that the timing itself will lend itself towards the perfect timing for momentum for one of the candidates other than Hillary. Some take everything typed here as absolute. Not saying you have. I truly think DWS should lose her job over this alone. As stated, I also think one in August would be really good. September would be perfect. October is too late. That doesn't discount my thoughts on momentum. The timing, if done to favor Hillary, could truly backfire.

[kenfrequed]

27. Sanders would do fine

He has the energy and the policy and an interesting way of speaking that is markedly different from the usually polished junk.

I do think it might give a few of the other candidates a bit of oxygen for their campaigns.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. I agree about the O'Malley point. n/t.

[kenfrequed]

29. Soo...

Anyone but Sanders?

I'm sorry, I just notice that seems to be the pattern in your posts.

[NCTraveler]

31. Just speaking for myself.

Sanders supporters are banking on these debates. Some of us have seen how uncomfortable Sanders is when he has to actually perform next to someone. To the point he can't even come close to hiding it. Very reactionary, stuttering, defensive..... I guess some might actually find this endearing. I find it frightening that he is seriously uncomfortable debating Bachmann, much less sitting next to Putin or other world leaders.

&feature=player_embedded#t=0

[kenfrequed]

32. Debates have rules

Wolf Blitzer basically just let Michelle Bachmann constantly interrupt.

Blitzer basically ran interference for the Neo-Cons and never asked anyone from the Bush administration a tough question. Or maybe Wolf thought Bachmann would try to chew his face off.

Basically Bernie was waiting for Wolf to cut her off.

[NCTraveler]

35. "Basically Bernie was waiting for Wolf to cut her off. "

True that. I also notice you didn't even come close to touching on how extremely uncomfortable he was, how reactionary and defensive he was, and how he uncomfortable stumbled through answers. It's simply someone else's fault. You did touch on his passiveness when confronted. That is clear.

[kenfrequed]

38. Bachmann talks over everyone

I don't think Bachmann is a good measure of anything other than how infuriatingly rude she is.

It would be like measuring someone based on being lowered feet first into an ant-hill and then trying to discuss how dignified their screams were.

[Armstead]

46. Well, he was trying to be polite....There's also Buzzsaw Bernie

[link:" target="_blank">

|" target="_blank">

]

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Well ...

I'm undecided; but, as it stands today, my order of primary preference is: O'Malley then HRC then Bernie and then, way, way, way down the list come Chaffee and Webb, or Webb and Chaffee.

So yes you noticed a pattern ... I am not thrilled with Bernie. I like some of what he says, I don't like what he until recently hasn't said ... and in general, I don't like his internet supporters.

[kenfrequed]

37. If I picked my preference based on the supporters...

If I picked my preference based on the supporters, I would pick Webb above Clinton. Fortunately I do not so Webb is in dead last place. Actually, if you happened to jump in the race tomorrow, you would be well above Webb as well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Well, I guess I should be glad that is just one of my considerations, Huh?

[kenfrequed]

40. Heh...

Actually you rate higher than Chafee as well. Truth be told.

So you are higher rated than at least 40% of the Democratic field. So where the hell is your exploratory committee already?!

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. I can't stand the "fish bowl" ...

I lived life ... WELL ... in the not so distant past.

[Maedhros]

45. The DNC does not want an informed electorate,

because an informed electorate would not vote for Hillary.

This kind of shit is why I left the Democratic Party - it's corrupt.