Democrats Will Hold First Debate in October

[DonViejo]

Source: Time Magazine

Zeke J Miller @ZekeJMiller 11:00 AM ET Updated: 11:08 AM ET

The first Democratic presidential debate will be held in October, the Democratic National Committee announced Thursday hours before Republicans are set to face off in their inaugural contest in Cleveland.

According to DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will face off against her Democratic rivals for the first time on Oct. 13 in Nevada, with debates continuing monthly through the primary and caucus process. Each of the four early voting states will host a debate.

“We are thrilled to announce the schedule and locations for our Democratic primary debates,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “These six debates will not only give caucus goers and primary voters ample opportunity to hear from our candidates about their vision for our country’s future, they will highlight the clear contrast between the values of the Democratic Party which is focused on strengthening the middle class versus Republicans who want to pursue out of touch and out of date policies.”

In a blog post on Medium, Wasserman Schultz wrote that all five announced Democratic candidates were briefed on the calendar and the Democratic debate process. Earlier this year the DNC followed the Republican National Committee’s lead and took over its presidential debate process, restricting candidates to six sanctioned debates.

-snip-

Read more: http://time.com/3987332/democratic-debates-schedule/

---

– October 13 – CNN – Nevada
– November 14 – CBS/KCCI/Des Moines Register – Des Moines, IA
– December 19 – ABC/WMUR – Manchester, NH
– January 17 – NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute – Charleston, SC
– February or March – Univision/Washington Post – Miami, FL
– February or March – PBS – Wisconsin

[Renew Deal]

1. Ridiculous

The first debate should have already happened.

[jberryhill]

5. no one is voting until February

[Renew Deal]

9. Yes, and voters need to be informed

And also the republicans are sucking up all the oxygen.

[jberryhill]

10. "And also the republicans are sucking up all the oxygen"

That's fine at this point.

Let them.

The way the US farts around with elections a year and a half in advance is ridiculous.

If people are bored with the GOP clown show a year from now, I'm certainly down with that.

[Sunlei]

33. Republicans sucking all the oxygen costs them a LOT of money and is a great local economic boost.

Spend, baby spend all that republican donation money.

[jeff47]

40. The problem is they won't just be bored with the GOP

So they also won't pay attention when we finally get around to the Democratic debates.

It's quite an effective plan to toss the election to one candidate.

[daybranch]

87. Now, now do not fight the most inevitable

candidate of the oligarchy.

[Sunlei]

90. who would that candidate be? and will you vote or not vote D, if 'that person' wins?

[jeff47]

91. Quick! Administer the loyalty oath!! (nt)

[Sunlei]

92. I'll vote for the D, who wins primary,or Bernie if he wins and runs as an I.,he'd be a good Pres.

not sure why you're asking for a loyalty test?

[jeff47]

93. I'm not asking for one. You are. (nt)

[Sunlei]

94. Then I have to take a best guess, if Mrs. Clinton wins primary you'll vote for 'The Donald'

[jeff47]

95. I'm not daybranch.

I'm someone objecting to you dragging a loyalty oath into a conversation. Again.

[Sunlei]

96. whats daybranch? Republicans could do worse damage with other then Trump, so no worries.

Almost everyone is welcomed on this message board.

[jeff47]

97. Look at the names of the people you are replying to. (nt)

[candelista]

99. Give it a rest, Sunlei.

We have the secret ballot in the US. People do not have to tell anyone who they are voting for. That's a good thing.

[Sunlei]

100. I agree a, secret ballot, 'one vote for each citizen' is a good thing.

I don't need any rest, thanks. It's Saturday, a beautiful morning and still not even close to the afternoon heat.

[Lunabell]

102. Bernie has already said he won't run as an independent.

I hold him to his word.

[candelista]

98. Don't you hate it when they do that?

People acting like little commissars, making sure that everyone is sticking to the party line? I smell a whiff of totalitarianism every time this happens.

[still_one]

27. The republicans are being given the rope to hang themselves

[jeff47]

44. They are being given the rope, and we are only supplying wishful thinking to push them.

What we should have done is schedule our first debate next week. And keep scheduling debates a week or so after the GOP.

Insanity -> Sanity -> Insanity -> Sanity. Builds a fantastic contrast between the parties and their candidates.

Instead, we've scheduled Insanity -> Well, I guess this is normal -> I'm getting bored of this reality show -> Wait, there's another party? Eh, let's see what else is on.

[George II]

19. Why?

[LanternWaste]

66. Of course you're right. The first debates should have taken place in 1031 AD.

Of course you're right. The first debates should have taken place in 1031 AD-- anything else is simply kowtowing to (insert most vilified special interest group here).

[BlueMTexpat]

101. What is ridiculous is that we have to have

more than a year of campaigning for an election to be held in November 2016.

[RiverNoord]

104. What's ridiculous is Time's characterization of the debate in the second paragraph

'According to DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will face off against her Democratic rivals for the first time...'

So... is that the author Zeke Miller's re-characterization of what Wasserman-Schultz said or is actually what she said?

It's a grossly inappropriate way to describe a debate among a number of candidates vying to be a party's candidate for the office of the President. 'Hillary Clinton will face off against her ... rivals?'

Ugh.

[daleanime]

2. Glad they are not rushing....

[Mass]

3. Why so fast? May 2016 would be a good date. Sunny and all@\nt

[cascadiance]

4. And no debate on the west coast either... Or is Nevada considered "the west coast"?

The west coast is one of the parts of the U.S.A where most Democrats are! Why aren't any of them here?

It seems like we should at least get 9 debates if not more. What is Debbie Weasel Sh*t thinking?

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Oregon's primary is May 17. California's is June 7. Washington hasn't even scheduled a date.

[brooklynite]

24. First four debates are in first four primary states

[cascadiance]

25. That is a consequence of making the number of debates too damn low!!!

Look at the debate schedule in 2007!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

If we had what we had then, we'd have already had seven debates by now, and this weekend Bernie would be in L.A. for a debate there instead of blazin' at the Moda Center here in Portland after being in Seattle the previous night to be heard. And there would be another debate in Hollywood in January following that timeline.

Thank Hillary's surrogate DWS for serving her master Hillary well to help her to avoid talking about the issues that aren't on her script this time around.

[brooklynite]

29. Funny-I was told Bernies Sanders didn't need all this old school stuff

His speeches and word of mouth and social media were getting the message out. Why worry about some debates that only political junkies watch?

[Qutzupalotl]

61. More than just political junkies watch debates. But you knew that, didn't you?

There are people without computers, who don't go to political rallies, who just want to know where people stand and how they perform under pressure.

Maybe you aren't afraid to see your candidate on an equal footing with the others — and good for you — but DWS sure is.

[WhysMan]

105. Let's do something helpful.

The US government is broken by corruption and greed. The banks are too powerful, nearly unregulated, as you will acknowledge when the next crash comes in less than a year - derivatives. Campaign finance is obviously a huge injustice, taking power from ordinary people and giving it to the extremely wealthy. It's a loop, and it must be reformed. Hillary won't reform it.

[brooklynite]

106. And Bernie won't reform it if he loses to the Republican...

[Blue_Adept]

6. Works for me

I'd rather see the candidates spending their time out with the public than spouting the usual inanities that we get with debates. The simple truth is that the majority of the debates are dull as dishwater, particularly for Democrats, and they mostly just serve to let the candidates hit their policy points rather than actually debate. They haven't been real "debates" for a long, long time.

As some are fond of saying, they're political kabuki. But folks soak it up and get upset when their kabuki isn't served to them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Allowing the candidates to hit their policy points in front of a televised audience,

at the same time is the best chance candidates with less money have to get their message out and get donations pouring in, so that they can reach more voters.

Delaying the debates is the best way possible to make sure that those with the most money have the greatest advantage possible, and to restrict the candidates without money from getting it, or getting known to a lot more voters.

[Blue_Adept]

16. Because the televised audience is the end all be all for it?

We're going to be inundated with political policy points being made in so many forms of media over the months that what amounts to six hours of debates is largely meaningless. Especially since what takes focus afterwards is not the policy itself for most but rather who made gaffes and who had the biggest scoring joke/line of the night.

Mostly it's just a whole lot of cheerleading for fans of particular candidates.

[arcane1]

31. What a shitty thing for a so-called democrat to say. Making fun of broke people?

Really?

Sure, your candidate's donors have unlimited funds at their disposal, but that's no reason to mock those from whom those funds were hoarded.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[restorefreedom]

39. agreed

i would love to see the income disparity between hillary and bernie supporters.

it was a shitty thing to say. ironically it represents perfectly the precise reason why hrc and her entitled mega donors need to lose.

[arcane1]

43. I remember when "punching down" was what republicans do. Those lines are getting blurry now

[restorefreedom]

45. very sad, indeed. nt

[jeff47]

46. Thank you for showing us the compassion we expect from Clinton and her fans. (nt)

[jeff47]

18. Yeah, 16 states don't need those last two debates before they go to the polls. (nt)

[Gothmog]

12. These debates are fine

[asiliveandbreathe]

13. IF the DNC was on their game they would

have scheduled a debate for tonight....

[still_one]

30. I disagree. Let the republicans go first, and see how many demographics they can insult

[George II]

85. They got a HUGE head start on insulting women and hispanics last night.

[DCBob]

14. Glad they are waiting a bit.

Many aren't paying attention yet.

[FSogol]

15. Thank you Gov O'Malley

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. For what? His opposition to this debate schedule?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251496675

[FSogol]

34. Pushing the issue until DWS made the announcement. Think if O'Malley hadn't piped up, that we

would have a schedule now?

[misterhighwasted]

70. Oh Please.. You really believe the DNC just put this all together in the last couple weeks?

Do you even realize what goes into organizing a debate schedule like this?
O'Malley rallied his troops but hardly moved the DNC to quickly make this happen, or else.

No one ( not even Hillary) has that kinda of magic power.

Whoo Boy!

[FSogol]

71. The announcement was pushed up, not the planning.

[misterhighwasted]

74. It didn 't happen because Sanders or O'Malley got mad.

Its been in the works & unless any of us know what details had to be changed at the last minute to accommodate all event holders & coordinators from the candidate schedules down to the sound tech people for all the 6 current debates, this is all a bunch of rage for no one (Hillary controls it ALL!) reason.
Ridiculousness

[cascadiance]

73. Hmm... if it was so tough for DWS to put together this schedule....

... and Howard Dean helped put this schedule together in 2007/2008 when he was the DNC chair, it begs the question why did the PTB replace Howard Dean with DWS if it is so hard for her to schedule a fraction of what he did in his day...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

5 Debates
5.1 April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University
5.2 June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.3 June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University
5.4 July 12, 2007–Detroit, Michigan
5.5 July 23, 2007 - CNN - Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel military college
5.6 August 4, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.7 August 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.8 August 9, 2007 – Los Angeles, California
5.9 August 19, 2007 – Des Moines, Iowa
5.10 September 9, 2007 – Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami
5.11 September 12, 2007
5.12 September 20, 2007 – Davenport, Iowa
5.13 September 26, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire, Dartmouth College
5.14 October 30, 2007 - NBC 9:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Drexel University
5.15 November 15, 2007 - CNN - Las Vegas, Nevada
5.16 December 4, 2007 - NPR (radio only) - Des Moines, Iowa
5.17 December 13, 2007 – Johnston, Iowa
5.18 January 5, 2008 - ABC 8:45pm EST - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.19 January 15, 2008 - MSNBC 6:00pm PST - Las Vegas, Nevada, College of Southern Nevada
5.20 January 21, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EST - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
5.21 January 31, 2008 - CNN 5:00pm PDT - Hollywood, California
5.22 February 2, 2008 - MTV 6:00pm EST - MTV Myspace Debate
5.23 February 21, 2008 - CNN 7:00pm CST - Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin
5.24 February 26, 2008 - MSNBC 9:00pm EST - Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland State University
5.25 April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania, Messiah College
5.26 April 16, 2008 - ABC 8:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I guess they don't want to see the same poll drop that happened when these debates were happening then...

[Flying Squirrel]

79. After re-examining that graph and debate schedule

I am starting to lean towards fewer and later debates myself, and I've been critical of DWS and this debate situation in the past.

17 debates before the end of 2007 did nothing to change the standings between Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Gore. It looks as though there were few people paying much attention at all. The only thing that changed anything was when Gore stopped being included in the polls and Edwards dropped out, and it was finally election year so people paid more attention.

So not counting the pre-2016 debates, we'll have 4 instead of 9. I still think a few extra in 2016 would be good but I don't mind the fewer debates in 2015, and I'm not so sure that will really prevent other candidates from gaining traction against Hillary even if that's the intent.

Edwards was my choice, and he had plenty of debates which did nothing for him. More significant was the media's treatment of him, treating the race as a binary one and acting as if he did not exist.

[cascadiance]

82. I would disagree... Momentum shifts take time...

... and information from debates takes time to digest and time to talk about with neighbors, etc. to form an opinion. The graph shows the trends that pushed heavily upward after the primaries started started around September if you look at the graphs. Yes, Hillary had a commanding lead then, but people at the point the debates were happening realized that Gore wasn't going to run, and Obama started his trajectory upward then. It wasn't clear yet that Edwards was out of the race then. It was Edwards' withdrawal that had the heavy upward movement for Obama later.

Also, consider that unlike in 2008, Democrats had had a healthy debate cycle of candidates in the 2004 election that allowed us to hear a lot of them talk about ideas then too. We've not really had a set of healthy national debates on our side of the fence since the 2008 election, when we had none in 2012 when Obama was the incumbent. The party really needs even more now to get diverging voices speaking out earlier for our voters this time around. If we have hardly any debates until the primaries start, then there really won't be much time for the party's consituency to talk out all of these various issues and the candidates' stances on them before shaping their opinions on who to vote for intelligently. I think the large attendances for Bernie Sanders' events is a testament to how many voters want to hear more from the candidates directly speaking to all of us, whether it is speeches with a chance to ask questions or in public debates.

[jeff47]

17. So...two debates after Super Tuesday.

What en excellent plan! IA, NH, SC, NV, AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, NC, OK, TN, TX, VT and VA don't need any pesky debates before they vote.

Yes, DWS has the "hedge" of February, but so far she's been on the "late" side of all the dates she has given. All of those states above vote March 1 or earlier.

At a minimum, those last two debates are after IA (Feb 1), and probably NH (Feb 9).

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. What? They don't have TVs in those states? That IS how most everyone will witness the debates.

[jeff47]

35. You think they have time-travel in their TVs?

How are they supposed to watch debates that happen after they vote?

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Since we've almost established those viewers DO have tvs ...

Will their TVs be out of commission from October through February?

[jeff47]

49. Are you unfamiliar with the colloquialism "We don't need no _____ around these parts"?

Or do the last two debates just not count?

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Yes, I've heard that expression ...

I'm just not sure how it's relevant in this situation.

[jeff47]

54. Well, I used it, and your deliberate misunderstanding of it is the basis of your replies....

So it might just be a wee bit relevant.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Okay. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I love this schedule ...

Or, rather, the locations of the forums:

– October 13 – CNN – Nevada: Significant Hispanic and African-American population

– November 14 – CBS/KCCI/Des Moines Register – Des Moines, IA: Early primary (caucus) state

– December 19 – ABC/WMUR – Manchester, NH: Early primary state

– January 17 – NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute – Charleston, SC: Significant African-American population

– February or March – Univision/Washington Post – Miami, FL: Significant Hispanic; Back drop of JEB's failures as govenor

– February or March – PBS – Wisconsin: Significant Immigrant Population (depending on where held); back drop of Walker's fail leadership.

This schedule gives a nod to the traditional Democratic base, and frames the debate in terms of irrelevant issues.

Good job DNC

[KeepItReal]

56. Los Angeles would be far more representative than Vegas or wherever in Nevada

Also why exclude Chicago or New York or Dallas or New Orleans?

If the location matters at all, why are major cities overlooked in site selection?

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. I agree ... I don't know ... I don't know.

Perhaps, because gambling (and prostitution) is legal in Las Vegas.

[KeepItReal]

63. Yeah Fun Factor would certainly put Vegas on the list

Other than that I don't see the usefulness of that place over Los Angeles.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Other than it being ...

Sheldon's stomping ground.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

23. I want to tell her to fuck off

Is it OK to tell her to fuck off?

[misterhighwasted]

38. Why? Didn't you want debates a few days ago?

Appears she handed you the debates.
What. You don't like the locations? dates? What is it Now?

DWS doesn't give a shit about what you want. This is about coordinating candidates & dates & places & everything else that goes into setting up a schedule and making it all happen with as little bravada & Fk Yous from perpetual angry mobsters with posting privileges on an online blog.

You wanted dates, here are your dates.

I don't agree with all DWS has done either, but F. U.??

[restorefreedom]

41. it is about coordinating allright

coordinating the coronation of dws and establishment preferred candidate

fine. dws can stall the freefall but she can't stop it

[misterhighwasted]

48. Thanks DWS for scheduling the Dem Debates AFTER the idiots of the GOP reveal themselves to be

the clowns that they really are.
I'm glad the DNC waited, and glad its schedule comes right before the Primarys begin.
It is the DEMS that will be fresh in people's minds. The Clown Car has said their piece. Their RW jabs taken at the DEM Candidates will be long given up on because this group of DEMS will be front & center and the Newest News of the moment.
Timing was perfect for the debates.

Your hate for Hillary Clinton is showing up in everything regardless of her involvement. Give it a rest. Hillary does NOT control the DNC.

I am certain you are wrong.
BYE

[restorefreedom]

50. "hillary does not control the dnc"

have a nice day..

[misterhighwasted]

51. Thanks I will now!!

[Lunabell]

103. LOL

The Clintons...

[murielm99]

86. Many people do not pay attention to the election

until after Labor Day. They may not even know who is running.

Having the debates later, after the repubbies hang themselves is fine with me.

[jeff47]

57. Yes, fuck you DWS for scheduling 33% of the debates for after 16 states vote.

And fuck you DWS for adding an exclusivity clause that allows DWS to fuck over the voters in those states.

[misterhighwasted]

60. Gee sorry about your candidate but it's a little early for sore loserisms.

The DNC debate schedule is smart. They are playing against the GOP Clowns in the end.
Can't help you out if you refuse to see that.

Lovely chatting anyway.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

65. I guess no point debating a corporatist.

[LanternWaste]

68. You actually believe the following are debate points?

You actually believe the following are debate points?

"And I don't give a flying fuck.."
"She's a Dino with a capital D..."
"a third way troglodyte that is destroying this country..."



(insert distinction without a difference below to maintain pretense of what a debate actually is...)

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

77. They would be in the GOP debates.

[misterhighwasted]

69. I'm not. Snark won't solve your dilemma. Sorry you feel so defeated.

Best to just IGNORE Elmer S.E. Dump now. There's nothing more to say here. Bye

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

76. Defeated? Keep puffing out that chest. You'll be the defeated on in the end.

[LanternWaste]

67. No doubt she'll allow your sentiment all the credibility it in fact, warrants.

No doubt she'll allow your sentiment all the credibility it in fact, warrants.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

75. Another pet peeve. Repeating the title line in the body of the message.

And I likewise give you no credibility, so there! Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!!!

[Sunlei]

28. excellent and no republican fox 'reporters' allowed.

no press credentials issued to fox or box their live reporters outside across the street.

[NorthCarolina]

88. The ultimate debate goal is to

protect the establishment candidate. They would not include a network or entity where they would have no measure of control over the questions or tone of the debate.

[Sunlei]

89. just republicanfox should be caged far away from view, they deserve it for pretenting to be news''

[lark]

32. Glad they finally picked times/dates and really like the diversity.

Pissed at Wasserman Schultz for limiting the debates to help her BFF Clinton.

[arcane1]

36. It's even framed in the article as "Clinton vs her rivals"

Not very impartial

[lark]

37. She's not even trying to have an appearance of impartiality.

I really dislike DWS. She's what's wrong with so many so-called Dems. Just hope she doesn't screw up the election for us.

[restorefreedom]

42. interesting use of language

it's as if she is entitled to it and the others, the rivals, are just getting in her way. I actually saw on the different websites discussion someone say that last time how Obama snatched the nomination away from Hillary, is if it was her right and someone took it away from her. Unbelievable.

[BeyondGeography]

53. Iowa goes from four debates to one

Wonder who'll they'll blame.

[madville]

62. Maybe the four trailing candidates should team up

and have their own debates together and invite Hillary who wouldn't show up. Then dare the DNC to exclude everyone except Hillary from their sanctioned debate stage, that would be a PR nightmare, the DNC only allowing Hillary airtime at their debates, not going to happen.

[cascadiance]

72. Maybe get the League of Women Voters to help them do this...

... and give it more of an official sanction through there help administering it, etc., since they used to do this a lot more in earlier years when they handled the debates earlier.

And by having the League of Women Voters do it too, the DNC and Hillary's campaign couldn't twist this as being some sort of move motivated by gender bias against Clinton.

[winter is coming]

80. I like this idea, especially since the LWV wouldn't sign on unless the debate

had some substance.

[Lil Missy]

78. That's soon enough, and 6 debates is MORE than plenty. n/t

[FloridaBlues]

81. Smart calendar

Several on Saturday too. People don't pay to much attention until right before primary vote. Like the idea of doing it in early primary states.
Some people are never satisfied no matter how the DNC does.

[valerief]

83. Will they let Bernie in on the debates? Or will he be Jindaled? nt

[brooklynite]

107. Considering that the DNC has welcomed him to the race, and that he's in second place...

...why and more importantly HOW would they leave him out.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[valerief]

108. Nothing surprises me anymore. They could have Roger Ailes picking the debaters. nt

[LynneSin]

84. Just in time for Joe Biden

WOOHOO!!!

[Sunlei]

109. Still a month or two early IMO, but they have to start sometime. The clown show is stale now that

Trump had his first and last visit on the republican-fox free-TV, debate show