2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Some Democrats Are Calling New Presidential Debate Schedule 'Ridiculous'
Aug 6, 2015, 11:37 AM ET
By RYAN STRUYK
While the Republican presidential candidates are just hours from taking the stage at their first debate, Democrats have just rolled out a schedule for their own six debates -- but not everybody is happy about it.
Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley's campaign called the schedule "ridiculous," asserting that Democrats are hosting a small number of debates in order to help Hillary Clinton maintain her frontrunner status.
"The DNC just released their debate schedule, and it is one of the slimmest that I have ever seen," says strategist Bill Hyers, whose candidate is polling in the low single digits, more than 50 points behind frontrunner Hillary Clinton. "What they’re proposing does not give you, the voters, ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President."
--clip
Vermont's independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is polling in the high teens nationally, has also asked for more debates, even rolling out an online petition requesting debates earlier in the race for the nomination. In a statement today, Sanders said he was "disappointed, but not surprised" by the debate schedule.
"At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it's imperative that we have as many debates as possible -- certainly more than six. I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule," he continued.
more...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presidential-debate-times-watch-democrats-duke/story?id=32920797
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)are aware of their relationship.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)limited any candidate from debating in a debate. We are becoming very undemocratic. Wonder if "we the people" can sue them?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I endorse this. No good reason for the exclusivity rule.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)talking about our ideas, or anything like that, baka.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
ruffburr
(1,190 posts)I will not donate money to the DNC nor DCC , As of now I will only donate directly to my chosen candidates , This debate schedule is ludicrous. 
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I completely agree with you -- but, for ample reasons, I had long since resolved not to donate to Democratic Party organs (DNC, DCCC, DSCC). I'm thus left without a way to show my displeasure.
If anyone figures out a way to go below zero contributions, please PM me.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)What they need from you is polling support over the phone and your support at The Polls.
They are sure they've got you caged inside with the lesser of two evils meme, so the latter isn't very useful.
The option that remains is taking away your support when they call to poll you.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I even told Patty Murray (WA) to stop because of her vote on TPP
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If someone wants to host a debate, and the candidates want to attend that debate, then the DNC should get the fuck out of the way.
Instead, we get the exclusivity clause, and can only have 6. And 16 states get to vote before the last two.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The exclusivity rule is one borrowed from the Republicans. There is almost nothing I would borrow from them.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)seemed to be fine.
I don't recall a peep about there being too many debates and the need to drastically slash the number of them.
Even if for whatever reason one thinks we had way to many last open seat 12-15 would be a dramatic reduction.
It think 6 is a minimal number before the first primary and another minimum of 6 during since the thing goes on for 5 or 6 months. Some of us don't vote until May and June.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)while there are many good reasons for limiting the number of debates, as best I can see it and as an O'Malley supporter, there is only one reason for having more ... to allow the trailing, lesser financed, candidates the opportunity to close the gap through free air time.
It's amazing how tied to tradition and precedent we are ... until it disadvantages us.
Honestly, would you be so open ... if your preferred candidate were the front-runner?
I happen to think O'Malley can shine through in the 6; but, it is more important to me that a Democrat win the White House in 2016, and frankly, I don't see that being Bernie.
There is a reason why NFL teams sit the majority of there starters for the last game or two of the pre-season and for the last game or two before the play-offs (if they are not on the bubble).
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Further, there are no season or career ending injuries at risk here that we have invested a significant percentage of our cap space to here unless you count shooting yourself in the foot.
and
Yes I would, at what point ever have I been calling for any less debates? Was I wringing my hands about having too many in 2008? Nope.
You don't have to like or agree with what I say to acknowledge it is pretty consistent.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I don't recall you being around then, but I have no reason to doubt you.
Agreed ... and you have an (arbitrarily) set number of camps ... just like the debates ... and every challenger for every position wants more camps and more reps ... just as we are discussing here.
But,
If having a Democrat winning the White House is the goal (i.e., the huge investment), I have to disagree with that statement. Every competitive televised appearance is an opportunity for any candidate to end their run, especially, in this "take 4 words out of an hour long event and 'GOTCHA'!" environment we find ourselves in.
Furthermore, I agree with those that argue it is best to settle on a nominee as early in the process as possible ... as it allows for a longer intra-party healing; but more, a longer period to distinguish from the gop.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You state:
"I agree with those that argue it is best to settle on a nominee as early in the process as possible"
Finding the best candidate is what debates are all about. Waiting to have debates later and later goes against your stated ".... best to settle on a nominee as early in the process as possible..."
All true Democrats should be displeased the DNC is limiting democracy by limiting debates.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"I agree with those that argue it is best to settle on a nominee as early in the process as possible"
Finding the best candidate is what debates are all about. Waiting to have debates later and later goes against your stated ".... best to settle on a nominee as early in the process as possible..."
No ... those are only competing ideas, when one's preferred candidate is trailing. The DNC could have 364 debates, with the first one held November 9th, 2016, and guess what ... it wouldn't be enough for supporters of the trailing candidate(s).
"No True Scotsman ..." Placing a limit on debates is not "limiting democracy" ... however, refusing to abide by the decisions of democratic organizations, just because you disagree with those decisions, while you refuse to be a part of the process (except, perhaps intermittently) ... because you find yourself on the short end of the majority's decisions, is self-limiting with respect to democracy.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So you admit that the establishment has already decided who will be the candidate.
No true Democrat would be happy with such a thing. My gawd, that's why we have votes: Let the People decide.
Yeah, I fucking refuse to abide by the higher ups top-down decisions. That's what makes me a true Democrat. You should try it sometime.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)
I will admit that the majority of the DNC executive committee decided to limit the debates to 6 debates.
THEN, FUCKING, GET INVOLVED IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS! You should try THAT, sometime.
But, I understand ... that takes more than typing stuff on the internet ... Mr. True democrat!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I'm a gonna be like you.... just let the higher ups decide what's best for me.
Your position is about as weak a position as one can take. MLK would not approve of you, you internet typer, you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Then quit whining ... See, I AM involved in my local Democratic Party; but more, I live in a real world, where sometimes my argument/desire wins the day, other times it doesn't ... but I remain involved beyond whining on the internet.
Please don't address me again.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You talk like you know me outside of DU. Well, you don't, so don't talk like you do, okay?
I do know that MLK and I would be on the same side of many issues, like this one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Please respect that.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)DE-baiting is what I am doing.
Your sig line......... please......
Now, where were we? Oh yeah, above you seemed to claim that we should just bow down to the executive decisions trickled down on us. Is that or is that not where you stand?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)1. Foreign Policy
2. Trade Policy
3. Energy Policy
4. Economic policy
5. Social/Justice/Civil Rights policies
6. Military/NSA/CIA management
3 debates each subject (This ain't the playoffs, we don't need "one and done"
.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)This schedule is pure manipulation. It's exactly what would be expected from folks who can't and refuse to trust their f'ing retarded voting base.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I knew it! I fucking called it! Everybody said, "You're crazy." I. knew. it.
That stupid (I can't say the word here) is shilling for Hillary and she doesn't care who knows it. And forget about any other candidate winning in Floriduh because little DWS will swing the whole Florida Democratic Party machine for Hil like the good little Party Tool she is.
Some of the locals were saying the Bernie campaign is "moving too fast." Bullshit! This is WHY we have to move fast -- because the fucking game is rigged.
And people can't figure out why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Fuck them for doing this. Just fuck them!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I'm expecting a platform with sound bites and no opportunity for candidates to challenge each other's answers. Also, moderators well-armed with softballs.
O'Malley's right to want to set up something outside the "sanctioned" debates. I hope the League of Women Voters gets in on it.
