DNC Debate Sked Isn’t ‘Democratic,’ Limits Debate: O’Malley Aide

[Purveyor]

Aug 6, 2015 11:20 AM EDT

Democratic presidential contender Martin O’Malley’s senior strategist says DNC plan for 6 primary debates “seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process.”

Strategist Bill Hyers says in statement that DNC should take itself “out of the process,” and let independent news, community and political organizations hold their own debates

“There is a long, proud tradition of voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire getting to hear early and often from candidates for president — the DNC schedule kills that tradition, and we shouldn’t stand for it”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-06/dnc-debate-sked-isn-t-democratic-limits-debate-o-malley-aide

[artislife]

1. We aren't supposed to notice how rigged it is

[99th_Monkey]

2. No shit Sherlock! Thank you MM for outing the DNC/Hillary/DWS "FIX" that's in on the debates.

I want MM and Bernie to go on national TV together and embarrass the
DNC into getting 8-10 debates scheduled NOW, and stop this charade
of the party pretending to be "fair" while obviously fixing the game to
heavily favor Hillary, and hurting Sanders & MM.

[winter is coming]

10. I'd much rather see the exclusivity clause lifted.

Because nothing says "corrupt" like having a stranglehold on the process. Instead of aping the RNC, the DNC should be mocking them.

[99th_Monkey]

13. How is the DNC aping the RNC again?

The Republicans have how many debates scheduled to occur how soon?

The Democrats: 0 so far.

THIS ^ is what pisses me off and O'Malley's none to happy about it either.

How would lifting exclusivity fix this?

[winter is coming]

16. The exclusivity clause is something the RNC also has.

Lifting that clause would mean that CSPAN or the Des Moines Register or anyone else could host a debate any time they wanted, as many as they wanted, with whatever format they wanted. I wouldn't mind seeing the DNC host more debates, but the real poison pill is that all debates must be with them (or you don't get to play). It gives them total control over the timing, format, moderators, etc. Given how the schedule's been cooked to favor the frontrunner, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that other aspects of the debate will be similarly slanted.

[restorefreedom]

54. exactly.

senator sanders, please tell us in detail how you will stop the devastating effects of climate change.

governor omalley, please tell us in detail how you will address the issues of minority mistreatment at the hands of law enforcement.

secretary clinton, what's your fave thing about being a grandma?

you mean like that?

[winter is coming]

55. Yup. Not quite that blatant, but pretty damned close. n/t

[jeff47]

19. Lifting exclusivity means other people can hold debates whenever they want

instead of waiting for DNC debates.

The vast majority of the 26 debates in the 2008 primary were not held by the DNC.

[99th_Monkey]

23. Thanks .. that's helpful.

and it really pisses me off,

26 debates in 2007/8, and 6 in 2015/6?

And there's no way for, say, other Congressional Democrats to
challenge this at all? to hold DNC to account?

Well, other than elect a new Chair I guess

[jwirr]

21. That is why the Rs held a forum (not a debate) this week. To protest exclusivity clauses. This is

the first time ever that our party has had this kind of clause.

[99th_Monkey]

22. First time ever, and obviously for ONE reason, and ONE reason alone..

to aid and abed the Inevitable One.

[jwirr]

26. Exactly. The DNC is no longer interested in electing a candidate. They think THEY are supposed to

select our candidate for us. Just like they did when they decided that we need super-delegates at the conventions. We the people is not a DNC philosophy.

[virtualobserver]

27. the DNC is Ready for Hillary......or has it been renamed to the HNC n/t

[artislife]

51. Why does that feel so Ominous

[JDPriestly]

29. I'm with you. Debates shift the focus of the elections to the issues and away from the

superficiality of hair and nails and husbands and wives and gossip.

Especially this year in this primary, we need lots of debates so that all of our candidates can let us know what they think and where they stand on the issues that really matter to America.

Debbie Wasserman-Schulz should have resigned after the debacle of 2014.

She apparently wins the popularity contest in the White house and maybe even in Congress, but she is not capable of leading our Democratic Party. She just doesn't do a good job of it. The proof is in the results of the 2014 election -- lousy.

I suspect that she is good at raising funds from the 1%ers. So, give her the role of raising money from them and let someone dynamic who has vision lead the Democratic Party. She is not good at it. She should let someone do it who would do a better job.

[jeff47]

3. And two of the scheduled debates are after 16 states have voted.

Assuming the DNC keeps up with their trend of using the 'late' end of their announced debates. At a minimum, those two debates are after IA and probably NH.

[HereSince1628]

48. Yes, tho iirc in 2008 there were 2 debates scheduled in April

And IIRC the many calls to not bother with them weren't well received in all quarters.

[jeff47]

49. 2 of 26 is quite different from 2 of 6. (nt)

[HereSince1628]

53. Yes, though my point was many people didn't want to lose 2 of 26

The reduction in debates seems silly unless the media wants a lot more money to stage them

[azurnoir]

4. So very unsurprising

[stevenleser]

5. No matter the office, the folks behind always want more debates, the folks ahead less.

If you are O'Malley, you probably want three debates a week between now and February.

[Zorra]

6. I suspect that Martin has some integrity, and a belief in fairness.

Unlike those who are quashing the democratic process in service to wealthy private interests.

[stevenleser]

7. Six debates starting in October is pretty reasonable. It should be the format going forward. nt

[winter is coming]

8. Oddly enough, it wasn't considered "reasonable" eight years ago.

And the folks who don't think it's reasonable now don't have the option of participating in a debate outside the DNC sanctioned ones, unless they want to give up their slot at the "approved" ones. That's not reasonable. That's tilting the playing field in one candidate's favor.

[stevenleser]

11. That's because several candidates declared many months earlier. If we were using the same calendar

the first debate would have occurred this year before we had any declared candidates.

So if you are going to try to use 2008 as your reference, it won't work.

[winter is coming]

14. We have five candidates who have already declared. Why do we need to wait

another two months, while the GOP gets to air their bullshit in prime time, and get press about it afterwards? All we're doing is giving them an uncontested platform.

[kenfrequed]

20. Lovely

And that is a great reason to cede the free media cycles to the Republican party for almost two months.

Terrible strategy for the general elections. It allows the Republicans to frame the issues and will make the media spend time asking democrats to answer to that.

If this isn't being done to benefit the front runner or any of the candidates nervous about their debating skills, then this is the stupidest thing I have seen this election cycle so far.

Honestly, all of the candidates that are not the front runner should get together to hold debates with whoever will host them. The hell with the DNC's rules on this one. If they really want to punish all of the other Democratic candidates then so be it.

[pnwmom]

33. And eight years ago the candidates discovered that grueling calendar was over-kill. n/t

[winter is coming]

36. So they reduced the number of debates by 75%? Big overreaction.

And the exclusivity clause stinks on ice.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Says you

It's obvious what drives your opinion, and it's not fairness or democratic ideals.

[Android3.14]

44. Ding-ding!

[jeff47]

15. Yes, we should always schedule 2 debates for after 16 states have voted. (nt)

[winter is coming]

18. I wouldn't mind that, if we had a lot of other debates beforehand.

Four is not "a lot".

[JDPriestly]

30. We who live in states like California that the candidates just visit to pick up checks and then

ignore ordinary voters want the debates.

If you live in an early primary state or a swing state, you get to see lots of the candidates. We out here in California rely on the debates to get to know the candidates.

Plus, the debates give busy people the time to think about the issues and decide for themselves who they want to vote for.

We need more debates, and we need them earlier.

Besides,Hillary, during this primary, is avoiding stating her position on the tough issues like the XL Pipeline and the TPP. She is avoiding statements about her opinions and policies on a lot of issues. Bernie and O'Malley are hiding nothing. Hillary is hiding a lot -- like very unpopular positions on issues that would lose her a lot of primary votes if she were more honest and forthright about them with voters.

It is only fair that voters get to know where the candidates stand BEFORE the voting begins.

Shame on the DNC and Hillary for this shabby debate schedule. Holding so few debates and scheduling them so late is kind of a way of cheating Democratic voters.

Another reason to refuse to vote for Hillary. Just another very good reason. Again, democracy is being obstructed, not facilitated.

[canoeist52]

12. This is what conservative cowardice looks like.

Gotta ask, who's afraid of liberalism?

[jwirr]

17. This is especially true when the MSM ignores the candidacy of most of the candidates. When this

idea was first announced we all wondered why the DNC wanted a exclusive ruling. Now we know. Because the want to limit access to some of the candidates.

Thank goodness for the internet. I think we should use the internet to have our own debate. Invite all the candidates to answer questions.

[Zorra]

24. Oligarchs own the MSM, and the DNC as well.

This debate debacle is another perfect illustration of oligarchs controlling information for their own purposes.

[Buzz cook]

25. Well at least

They aren't removing two states from the primary process that tended to support one candidate over another.

Obama followers were real happy with the DNC then.

There are only two candidates in the democratic field and the primaries are usually over by super Tuesday.
Unless We get more candidates or some news item worth debating pops up I'm pretty sure Sanders and Clinton can clearly show their differences in six debates.

[JDPriestly]

31. Actually, we have more than two candidates.

I'd like to see all of them given chances to debate -- early and often.

[askew]

35. Obama had nothing to do with that.

FL/MI were told before they set their schedule that they would be excluded. They chose to ignore those rules. Hillary and all the other candidates agreed to follow the rules. All of the candidates except Hillary pushed to get their names taken off the ballot. Then, when Hillary lost the nomination she tried to cheat her way into the nod by pushing to get FL/MI included.

[Buzz cook]

47. Your memory of history is different from mine.

Exclusion was only one of several sanctions the DNC could have imposed. And oddly enough the people on the committee that made that choice were mostly Obama supporters.

[fbc]

28. He's right!

[pnwmom]

32. With so few candidates, each will get plenty of screen time in the 6 debates.

They'll have plenty of time to present their cases. It might be different if they had 15 candidates like the Rethugs.

[raindaddy]

34. Might be a good idea for O'Malley and Sanders to bring this up durring the first debate...

The public needs to be aware of any desire on the part of the DNC to limit an open robust debate....

[blackspade]

37. The corruption of the DNC under Wasserman-Schultz is horrid.

Limiting national access to potential candidates only benefits those with name recognition, in this case Clinton.
Is Wasserman-Schultz collaborating with our corporate overlords? It sure looks like it.

[rocktivity]

38. And don't forget that Debbie was one of Hillary's PREVIOUS presidental campaign chairpeople.

Is this actually a stealth mulligan?


rocktivity

[blackspade]

40. Oh, I haven't forgotten that...

Or DWS's support of GOP candidates in FL over Democratic candidates.
Not so stealthy actually. Obvious shill is obvious...

[winter is coming]

52. We need casual Dem voters to turn out next year.

Rigging the game in one candidate's favor is likely to be a turn-off.

[bobclark86]

39. So... you guys want...

10,000 debates with gaffes and mudslinging that can be used as GOP attack ads in 6 months?

BTW, the GOP is a clown car. Why would you want to be more like them?

[rocktivity]

42. One a month would be plenty -- going from 26 to only 6

suggests a conflict of interest at best and a hidden agenda at worst on Wasserman-Schultz's part, especially since she helped run Hillary's previous presidential campaign. And while the GOP is "attacking" us (which they'll do no matter what we do), what's to stop the Dems from COUNTER-attacking -- aside from Wasserman-Schultz?


rocktivity

[bobclark86]

45. If you can't make your case in 12 hours...

what do you honestly think you can do in 50 that's so much different?

[winter is coming]

46. There are 5 candidates, and a lot of policy that *could* be addressed.

Although given the way the DNC is gaming the debate schedule, I don't hold out much hope that the debates will be of substance. All the more reason to let someone other than the DNC have some. The League of Women Voters used to do a pretty good job of it.

[Motown_Johnny]

41. If you refuse to take positions on multiple issues

that are important to voters within the party, you don't want debates.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. And he's correct, of course.

[winter is coming]

50. +1. The DNC looks incompetent at best, corrupt at worst.

Not the sort of Party image likely to inspire voters.