2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDNC shields Hillary Clinton from debate stage
<snip>You know who else shrunk the number of debates? Democrats. Wasserman Schultz seems to be telling us why: Hillary Clinton can’t handle the exposure.
<snip>Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have complained loudly about this crackdown. “We need serious debate about serious issues," Sanders told CBS News. "There are so many major problems facing our country. I think more debates is better. And I think having different organizations sponsor debates outside of the DNC makes a lot of sense to me." As the candidate drawing crowds in the tens of thousands, it would seem he should have some standing in influencing the debate schedule.
But party insiders are making sure their preferred candidate — Hillary Clinton — is protected from debate. “It's all about trying to preordain the outcome, circle the wagons and close off debate,” O'Malley told The Hill. “If (the Democratic Party leaders) could actually accelerate the date of the Iowa caucuses and hold them tomorrow — they'd like to do that. Then there'd be no campaign at all. That's what they'd really like.”
O'Malley asserted that the Clinton's were flexing their muscles as “the most colossal, prolific fund raising couple in the history of representative democracies” to keep primary debates to a minimum. The former Maryland governor explained he had shared his concerns with Wasserman Schultz “that I think that’s a grave mistake and I think it's undemocratic.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/18/dnc-shields-clinton-debate-column/31863521/
Looks like Hillary is a chicken. Is she afraid she will screw up? So she can handle foreign relations but can't take a chance on debating enough to help people make the right decision. Hey maybe she is just leaving it up to the DNC. Wow. No control there huh or just using the DNC to stay isolated from more debates. Apparently it doesn't matter if the people can't hear and see enough debates to make an informed decision. I guess it's just too bad for the people who won't or can't read up about the candidates on the internet. Is the DNC afraid of Bernie? Yes they are and so is Hillary! Chicken on debates and chicken hawk on war ...wow. If she is on the up and up and serious about who will be the best POTUS then she would not have a problem with a lot of national debates ...but ...IMO she is a chicken.
ps: no offence meant to all the wonderful chickens out there just waiting to become food.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)This is utter bullshit. No debates? Just coronate her? You have to be a fool to support her at this point. She could never win a general election like this. She's toast. Too many people hate her now and many who are liberal. She's ruining the Democratic Party.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am a bernista. i was rec the thread because I agree with the OP that protecting her is a bullshit tactic and it's only avoiding what's going to happen later anyway. sorry if that didn't quite come across the way I intended. I pretty much agree with everything you just said
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)tired today, slow on the uptake
zzzzzz
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)They've got the polling numbers and they know that Hillary is in trouble.
I live in Iowa, and she's barely making an effort here. Bernie is all over the state. His crowds are huge. The optics alone are embarrassing for her.
She won't win Iowa, I can tell you that. She came in third the last time in the caucuses and she's less popular in the state than she was in 2008. Placing third, behind Obama and Edwards was a borderline rejection of her. Bernie is polling ahead of her in NH. He'll win the first two states out of the gate. I think her campaign knows that.
The activist base of our party does NOT want her. These are the people who were out in the streets canvassing for Obama and making phone calls. Most of that volunteerism (as well as donations) is being funneled to Bernie.
They see the writing on the wall. The questions is…what exactly are they going to do about it?
We've heard rumblings about Gore or Biden running. Those are rumors. However, I wouldn't put it past the Clinton campaign and the DNC to throw in a Dem that is appealing to Progressives, in order to splinter the Progressive base and water down Bernie's momentum.
It's unlikely that the corporate-circus tricks will work. "We The People" are hell bent on real change. Life is lived out online now. We don't pay attention to the corporate media and their "Bernie can't win, Hillary is inevitable" memes. They're irrelevant and so is their marketing.
We're connecting, galvanizing and exchanging information within our own virtual town square--while the archaic corporate-media machine chugs along, largely being ignored. The corporate media was, and is, central to Hillary's win. It's no longer an effective tool. That leaves her campaign incredibly vulnerable.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)because that hurts the party
because when people do that, they're just doing it to say what they think, rather than helping the party win
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)People over party.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...in which case all bets are off.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Who in their right mind would put their party before
the future of America!
That is exactly what the repugs have done and look
at the shape we are in. How is it possible that you
can not see this? Has it not affected you?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Maybe you forgot the emoticon when you say FU to the Democratic Party?
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... "My party, right or wrong, my party" is what Ronzo Reagan demanded of the party faithful. And I always thought this was "Democratic Underground," not "Democratic PARTY Underground." There is a difference. The DNC under Wasserman Schultz has been a failure by every metric. It reeks of Third Way dogma, and a party that cannot critique itself is doomed to wind up on the dung pile.
Just look at the slow-motion train wreck that the denizens of the Dark Side are experiencing even though they're too dirt stupid to realize what's happening, just as you commented on my latest cartoon the other day.
Have a good one, buddy!
murielm99
(30,741 posts)If it needs any further explanation, you are indeed in the wrong place.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... I'm a Liberal down to my DNA, but when fellow Democrats screw up, I'm going to call them on it, and I don't care whose feelings get hurt. Flawed reasoning can never be corrected if the PC Police have a hissy fit every time someone points out a mistake. Get over it.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)It is the Democratic Underground with a capital "D."
We all criticize our elected Democrats. But saying this is not a board for Democratic Party members is incorrect. I am not backing off on that.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)How many members here are registered Democrats? I doubt that a majority of people are. JMHO
murielm99
(30,741 posts)The one overrun by people who like to mass alert and tear down anyone but Bernie? The people who are driving our AA members away?
Or do you mean the placed I joined twelve years ago as a haven for Democrats? The place I come to discuss and learn about candidates and issues? The place where the jury system used to work? The place where I pay for a membership star because it is worth it?
I hope that DU returns after the primaries.
And yes, most of us are self-professed Democrats. We have been since the site was founded. We work to get Democrats elected at all levels.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Dream on!
I've seen and myself been blocked, reported on and everything else you can do to shut someone up here by Hillary supporters and people in AA. Both camps act like fundamentalist religionists ..... the cult of personality, the cult of Hillary. Much more mud slinging going on in both those groups than anywhere else. Sanders' folks are not perfect and I'm sure there are some dreadful ones. But when things get posted in the GD, it's clear Sanders has wide support here and they just can't seem to stand that.
Real liberals.... Dems or not.... are not afraid of self-reflection and self-criticism.
The MOST EGREGIOUS bit of awfulness on this entire site is the "She deserves it"/ "It's her turn" attitude. 100% anti-democratic.
okasha
(11,573 posts)in four protected groups that I know of--AA, Hillary, Interfaith and Prayer Circle, which means that you work at being offensive. Stop whining. You're not a victim.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I wonder how many of the same people host/are in those 4 groups? They all seem real pro-Hillary.
Some groups hate to be asked logical questions... they're so cult-y. They certainly have zero sense of humor.
And you're absolutely right.... I am NOT any kind of victim. Being blocked from certain groups is almost a badge of honor.
You want victims?... go to those groups!
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... that I'm not sure it's worth the time to try to explain it to you. And it doesn't look like you won too many hearts and minds in this thread. Might want to tone down the belligerent rhetoric just a wee bit...
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)are not behaving as Democrats in the traditional sense, then they need to be called on that. Is this the party of FDR? If so, then we need to hold the third way Democrat's feet to the fire.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)This is a board for Democrats.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)corporate "democrats" who rather would speak to "white people", takes millions from Wall Street and supports TPP....
murielm99
(30,741 posts)so-called Bohemian.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
I am sure she will be the best standard bearer for progressive principles.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)always has been I believe
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Qutzupalotl
(14,313 posts)I voted to keep it, and my comments were the only ones given:
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Fuck your party. Basically saying fuck the Democrats. This is still Democratic Underground, isn't it?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 19, 2015, 02:23 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Country before party is a valid sentiment, even here at DU. In this cycle, we might nominate an Independent, so strict party loyalty is not something to police. OTOH, if they said "Fuck Clinton" or "Fuck Sanders" ... that's a different story.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Response to HFRN (Reply #2)
Post removed
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Not sure what that means.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Criticism of Hillary Clinton looks the same, whether from Democrats or Republicans. ..
Hillary supporters typically make this claim to chill speech that criticizes Hillary, as a cudgel to bash Bernie supporters ..
That being said, some criticism is over the top ... I agree with that sentiment...
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It hardly matters. Of course the other side would pounce on any glaring negatives we point out but they are so obvious that we aren't breaking any news. So that alone should torpedo her...all the Right and half the Left hates her. That's horrible for a politician whose job it is to fool people by nature.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)arlington.mass
(41 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Maybe for those still in the dark. Wake up, and feel the Bern!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for some. The 1% owns the DEmocratic Party Elites. I mean how hard would that be. The Party Elites want to retain the status quo that sees the profits of the 1% growing along with the poverty level.
Those that believe Clinton that we can fix the problems of poverty and continue to allow the 1% to hid their money and not pay taxes, are in lala land. Her plan for fixing poverty involves the middle class paying the bill.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)and didn't see it as satire
but, that does not reflect poorly on them, it merely reflects their impressions of this site
Scuba
(53,475 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MY take is that the DNC is saying to hell with that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But they never do.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There will only be 4 debates before IA.
There is not enough time between IA and NH to squeeze in another debate.
There is a very small window of time to squeeze in a debate between NH and SC. Not impossible, just very, very difficult.
There is no time to squeeze in a debate between SC and NV
There is no time to squeeze in a debate between NV and Super Tuesday, due to the large number of Super Tuesday states where the campaigns will want to make an appearance.
And the vast majority of the time, the nominee is obvious when Super Tuesday's results come in.
So there will be 4 debates. There is a very slim chance of 5. There will only be 6 if we get the very rare event of no one dominating by the end of Super Tuesday.
aggiesal
(8,916 posts)you can bet, that the DNC will add debates for Hillary to try and regain her footing,
and the DNC will say "You wanted more debates. So here they are."
But, if she does well, their strategy will have worked.
George II
(67,782 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)murielm99
(30,741 posts)all 27 primary debates. The candidates and the voters have better things to do. Overexposure hurts candidates. It is not that different from the ads that run during election season. People are happy when they go away.
I would rather see them making appearances. I would rather see them researching and honing their platforms and positions. I would rather see them meeting with groups of constituents and holding town halls.
I would rather spend my time on GOTV.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)After that email press conference performance,
her handlers better shove her back in the bunker.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... for decades - as First Lady of Arkansas, FLOTUS, NY Senator and Secretary of State.
She has also done book tours, public speaking engagements, and has been interviewed hundreds of times by newspapers, magazines, and TV talk-show hosts.
She has probably had more exposure than any woman who ever lived - and a great deal of that exposure has been negative. She has had everything thrown at her from Whitewater, to Travelgate, to having allegedly arranged for the murder of her supposed lover, Vince Foster.
And yet, despite all of the above and more, she is currently the undisputed front-runner in the race for the presidency.
So tell us again how "overexposure" has hurt Hillary. It seems blatantly obvious that the opposite is true.
HRC is living proof of the old adage that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. And she is currently in the strongest position to become the next POTUS.
The constant blathering here about Hill shying away from the media, or the DNC limiting the number debates so as to "shield poor Hillary" from public scrutiny, are laughable in the extreme. She's been there/done that, and still has has the majority of Democrats supporting her.
The idea of Hillary having "handlers" who need to "shove her back in the bunker" is not only ridiculous, it flies in the face of the evidence there for all to see.
I realize that BS supporters need to believe that Hill is some weak shrinking violet who needs protection from the mean old world - but given her history, and the fact that she's still standing after decades of battling the forces aligned against her, it is rather ludicrous to even suggest that she requires any protection from anyone.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I guess that's why she's dropped 21 percentage points in the race for the Democratic nomination in the past few months, and why her "trust" ratings are currently underwater.
If she's in the "strongest position", then we are in deep, deep trouble.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... Hillary has the support of the vast majority of Democrats, and she will be the next president.
And all the "she's losing support every day" bullshit that gets posted here isn't going to change that fact.
Cha
(297,275 posts)Indeed.
And, look who wrote the article.. Kristin Powers.. who's written "The Silencing"..
"Lifelong liberal Kirsten Powers blasts the Left's forced march towards conformity in an exposé of the illiberal war on free speech. No longer champions of tolerance and free speech, the "illiberal Left" now viciously attacks and silences anyone with alternative points of view. Powers asks, "What ever happened to free speech in America?"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Silencing-Left-Killing-Speech/dp/1621573702
Sound at all familiar?
LOL.. she's got all the bona fide rwingers giving her wave reviews..
But, one of her points is a little questionable ..
I say it's calling out faux "news" for being fooking liars.. I doubt if that's just me.
"•How the illiberal left is obsessed with delegitimizing Fox News"
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)21st Century Fox $302,400 $302,400 $0
Cablevision Systems $336,288 $306,900 $29,388
Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Corning Inc $274,700 $256,700 $18,000
Credit Suisse Group $290,600 $280,600 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Ernst & Young $297,142 $277,142 $20,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $273,550 $265,450 $8,100
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441 $294,441 $17,000
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Merrill Lynch $292,303 $286,303 $6,000
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
National Amusements Inc $297,534 $294,534 $3,000
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640 $402,140 $4,500
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596 $305,158 $5,438
Time Warner $411,296 $386,296 $25,000
University of California $329,673 $329,673 $0
A champion for Democratic principles or a sellout?
You decide!
And what makes you so sure that Hillary is the best standard bearer of the Democratic brand?
She takes the same money as her republican counterparts do.
And her meeting with BLM was cringe worthy to say the least. You can almost feel her contempt on the screen.
And she does not prioritize getting money out of politics.
She does have many weaknesses.
What makes me wonder is how Hillary supporters think one ounce that the American people are such fans of political royalty. I mean, are the Bushies and Clintons your only liable candidates except for Trump?
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... for corporations to donate directly to a candidate. Ergo, there is no such animal as a "corporate donor".
But you knew that, right?
Given HRC's polling numbers, it seems obvious that most voters don't consider "political royalty" - your words, not mine - as a detriment to her candidacy.
Hillary has as much right to run for office as anyone else. So does Jeb Bush.
If you think spouses or relatives of former presidents should be precluded from seeking office, I suggest you contact your congress-critter and demand legislation to make it illegal to do so.
okasha
(11,573 posts)for all the hair pulling and jumping about over "taking money from the private prison industry," GEO/Wackenhut is nowhere on that list.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)And how are people going to be able to run for office if they are not on the payroll of Wall Street?
Nice try to make Hillary clean as a whistle. Nice delusions if you think she will get money out of politics and hold her corporate sponsors criminally liable for the crimes they did during Bush jr.
Also you seem not to be able to get out of the Bush/Clinton paradigm.
Are you for corporate donors corrupting your candidate?`
Are you for TPP?
Are you for the Keystone Pipeline?
Were you for the wars that Hillary voted for?`
Are you for the "Patriot Act" that Hillary was in favor of?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Really? Try some honesty, it feels better, one needs fewer showers.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But that's not the point.
Large numbers of debates allow more eyes and ears to learn about candidates.
Most might only be able to watch a few but with more debates working people will have a better opportunity to make informed decisions.
Debates are critical for this process. Appearances, town halls, and small groups do not get the state and nationwide exposure that is required for a functioning democracy.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)And then turn it off and let the rest of us enjoy a legitimate process.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)My husband and I were extremely impressed with the two of them in the debates. Before the debates we were undecided.
Debates do make a difference. Hillary was extremely weak, especially on Social Security in the 2008 debates.
Without debates, candidates like Hillary who avoid answering questions on issues can sneak past voters by spending lots of money.
That is not democracy.
Hillary needs to stiffen her back, swallow her pride and debate. We in California don't get to see much of the candidates. We want debates. Six is not enough.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Would you have needed 12, 20, 30 to make up your mind???
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)The trouble for Hillary is, when ever she opens her mouth, she loses.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Why this aversion against more debates?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Can you clarify what you found objectionable?
Q: Would you take a pledge of no tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes.
CLINTON: I don’t want to raise taxes on anybody. I’m certainly against one of Senator Obama’s ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators, police officers, firefighters and the like.
OBAMA: What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don’t have to pay beyond $97,000 a year. Now most firefighters & teachers, they’re not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6% of the population does. And I’ve also said that I’d be willing to look at exempting people who are making slightly above that.
Q: But that’s a tax on people under $250,000.
OBAMA: That’s why I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis
OBAMA: [to Clinton]: I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to stabilize the Social Security system and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.
CLINTON: I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. You’ve got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund. And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security wa 1983. Pres. Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do. And I will say, #1, don’t cut benefits on current beneficiaries they’re already having a hard enough time. And #2, do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.
OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: No, teachers & police won’t pay if cap over $102K
Clinton exaggerated when she said that lifting the cap on wages that are subject to the Social Security tax “would impose additional taxes on people who are, you know, educators here in the Philadelphia area or in the suburbs, police officers, firefighters and the like.”
In fact, only individuals earning more than $102,000 a year would be affected. A spokesman for the union representing Philadelphia’s public school teachers tells FactCheck.org, “There are some affluent suburban districts where only the most senior educators with a master’s degree and probably 25 or more years of experience whose salaries might approach 100k. However, I think that’s a very small number overall.“
As for Philadelphia police officers, an officer would have to work more than 1,200 hours of overtime in a year to push even the highest base salary above $102,000.
The Clinton campaign pointed to budget figures showing that principals of Philadelphia’s large high schools earn $111,500 on average.
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate , Apr 16, 2008
I’m certainly against one of Senator Obama’s ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators, police officers, firefighters and the like.
Those of us making between $118K and $250K a year can easily afford to pay a little more social security tax. And as your own excerpt points out, very few public school teachers make that kind of money and no police officers.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Hillary isn't, and THAT is your objection? Wow.
I hope you noticed, Obama did not raise taxes on the middle class after all. Was he wrong not to do that?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I have only ever heard Obama say one incorrect thing on economic matters when he said that he, "doesn't know much about economics". He has been 100% spot on when talking about the economy. But because he doesn't trust himself on the issue, he went along with those who had the best resumes on the subject.
Problem is, you need a Harvard Business School PhD to have the best resume. And to get that you have to learn and prove the ability to argue in favor of rightwing economic policies. So you're not going to get a lot of people with the best resume who are not, in fact, complete fools on the subject.
Off topic National Security may get even scarier on this note. A National Security degree was first offered by either Liberty College or Patrick Henry University. I forget which one offered it. Both are Christian Dominionist institutes. The next Democratic President might rationally think "a degree in National Security" should be a requirement for a national security job not realizing that may pack the NSA, etc with Christian Dominionists.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)middle class. And in more expensive areas, they really aren't either.
Right now, the wealthy pay the same payroll taxes as people earning under, I think it is sill around $107,000.
Lifting the cap on people who make $107,000 and requiring them to the current percentage of pay payroll taxes on all their income combined with lowering payroll taxes on people earning under, say $50,000 a year would lift the burden on the real middle class, people earning under $100,000 per year of paying VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.
Hillary was completely wrong in the debate portion that you quoted. I remember at the time just sitting stunned at how utterly little she knows about how ordinary Americans live and how little money we made/make.
She is a terrible debater.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)It's really ...undemocratic ...but then that may be what happens when the Dem party keeps leaning right.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I hope Bernie tells people he thinks anyone make over $100k is rich. I would love that.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you are in a big city, you may earn $100,000, but most people earn less than that. And if they do, every cent they earn is taxed for Social Security.
If they earn $300,000 a year, only the first $100,000 is fully taxed for Social Security. The idea of raising the cap on money earned over $107,000 would be to maybe be able to lower the percentage of money paid into the payroll taxes for people earning under $107,000 which is just about everybody.
Maybe lawyers and doctors earn over $100,000, but other people????
Who earns over $100,000 per year?
I think that even in Los Angeles, $100,000 is an above average salary.
Here you go for California, a state in which salaries are high (explaining that Silicon Valley is much higher than the median in California)Ned:
$61,320
At $94,572, the region's 2013 median household income dwarfed both California's statewide $61,320 median and the nationwide $53,291 median, according to a new analysis of federal data by think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley.Sep 24, 2014
Silicon Valley tech-fueled median income tops US, California
https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=average+income+in+California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_income
Here is Mississippi:
$36,919
Mississippi once again leads the nation in poverty and lags in median household income. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Thursday, Mississippi had a poverty rate of 22.6% in 2011, while its median household income came in at $36,919.Sep 20, 2012
https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=average+income+in+Missippi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_locations_by_per_capita_income
Median wage in the US:
$50,500
The median wage in the US per person is $26,695. This tells us a lot since the median household income is at $50,500. Since the Census data looks at households, this data hones in on individual wage earners. 66 percent of Americans earn less than $41,212.Dec 31, 2012
https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=average+income+in+United+states
Hillary proved she was way, way, way out of touch with ordinary Americans when she debated. It was downright embarrassing.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Her record especially in Syria and some other countries was not that great either. She wasn't awful, but she wasn't great.
Kerry is doing a better job.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)the world after the Bush disaster...trying to push that into the amensia closet is, at a minimum, dishonest.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)testing benefits, all of which hurt everyone depending on SS for some or all of their retirement.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Or just till your preferred candidate makes a showing?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)before the first primaries because these primaries have a right to know what is involved. After that we also want debates throughout the primary at intervals that keep the candidates visible to the voters. One of the big reasons that the DNC does not want more debates is because Hillary lost when there were many debates. Maybe they do not think she does well in debates.
One of the reasons we do not want the exclusionary clause limiting allowable debates to only DNC debates is that would ensure different perspectives. It makes a big difference who selects the debate questioners. And I fail to see how exclusivity is even a democratic or Democratic principle.
randys1
(16,286 posts)What the hell, I say.
I say we might as well go full on, as in if Bernie isnt the candidate, lets piss and moan to the point where Hillary cant win the election and the men who will destroy all life on the planet, will.
It will be such AWESOME live television.
I mean think about it, the SC has just overturned Roe and Women are in back alleys dying in Alabama
How ENTERTAINING will that be 
Oh god, and then since the voting rights act and civil rights act have been overturned, imagine the Q&A required to vote if you are Black and in the South oh my, it will be SO FUNNY
Something like this: "What is the square root of 3,478 divided by 4,789,000?"
Then, the pièce de ré·sis·tance, the ULTIMATE laugh, wait for it...
YELLOWSTONE PARK is now owned by KOCH INDUSTRIES 
I cant fucking wait...
(obviously there is not one god damn thing funny about any of this, or the thousands of other horrific things that WILL happen if ANY con is elected, but I thought I would try and make a point)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
What nonsense ...like Bernie wouldn't select a great SCOTUS.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Demanding debates is equivalent to letting the GOP win.
Good to know.
Seriously though, if we have a candidate that cannot stand up in debates with fellow Democrats then how the hell do expect them to be able to debate a republican?
Also, we actually are the Democratic party. We don't do coronations.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They have a tone of things to run against her with...and will fill the airways with them as soon as she has the nomination.
And it is likely any SC nominee will be corporate friendly.
randys1
(16,286 posts)appointment would also be pro choice, and for voting rights, decent wages, social security and universal healthcare.
There is no excuse for ANY white american to not vote for whoever the dem candidate is unless they are
a. republican, therefore too stupid to know better
b. libertarians who are focused solely on their pocketbooks
EVERYBODY else votes for the Democratic candidate in a sane world.
Well, maybe not everybody. I wouldnt blame a Black person or Latino person or Gay person if they said fuck it and didnt vote at all, given no matter which party is in power there is still potential for them being abused.
The list is longer than those 3.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)By her record on gay rights and civil rights?...or because she has evolved and once evolved never goes back?
But Wall Street don't give a damn about any of those things one way or the other...it is all about profit. And if a WS friendly SC has before it a case that will hurt the prison industry you know what side they will come down on.
But you are right about that...no matter what party is in power nothing changes. Which is the point Sanders is making...we need a political revolution. And that will require us to break with the insiders in our party.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)With the same cynical, fatalistic style ....
Not sure if I care to read anymore ...
Maybe I'll pull you back out after the crazy primary season ends ... until then; Down the Obliette you go ...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)This is some childish bullshit and highly sexist. No one in their right mind could refer to her as a chicken. Pure sexist bullshit that would not be thrown at her if she was a man.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to L0oniX (Reply #14)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It doesn't hold water. Kirsten Powers? So much is making sense now that the masks are coming off.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Sorry you don't get it. Maybe you have a hatred for men and it is affecting what you think you are reading.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Pretty simple. Go get your next talking point from Kirsten Powers. Great job.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm a big fan of transparency. Didn't alert on the racist who called Marissa a house rat either. Strange thing to say.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)I got the same challenge a couple of days ago. They are trying to draw a line in the dirt and daring us to step over it.
They alert constantly and get our posts hidden. They want to be able to claim that we are doing the same thing.
Don't fall for it.
840high
(17,196 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I asked you to provide a link in a reply to the OTHER post where you claimed it happened . Now I'm asking again. IF any DUer called a PoC a "house rat" I want to know who it was and I will to go to the Ask The Administrators forum and demand Skinner ban that person.
I've done a site search for the term "house rat", and the ONLY posts that come back are both from you. Please honor my request and provide me with a link, or if you can't, provide me with details from the thread so I can find it myself.
Thank You in Advance.
Chris
historylovr
(1,557 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)This post was totally delirious.
840high
(17,196 posts)used it. Not sexist.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It means coward because chickens tend to frighten, easily - and that includes many roosters (maybe not fighting Banties, but I digress).
How about we re-word that if you don't like it: "Clinton is afraid to debate the other Democrats because she's not great at the stump or with questions."
Better?
FBaggins
(26,743 posts)To treat a female candidate in the same position differently would strike me as more sexist that to treat her the same.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It is a calculated decision because she knows that certain issues she would be asked about would not lean in her favor if she gave honest answers. So she would have to pass on those questions with answers that don't really touch the question and it would come off looking badly for her.
It's not fear, it's political savvy that is keeping her out of debates as long as possible.
I don't think "chicken" was meant in a sexist way in this thread, but I think it is wrong and not a nice thing to accuse her of. She is not a cowardly person. She knows when it's better to not be put in a position that might reflect poorly on her.
She's smart. Very smart. I give her that. But I don't trust her.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)It indicates " coward" and always has.:
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)Any criticism applied to Hillary is sexist. Because her supporters know (don't ask how, they just know, ok?) that you would never apply the same criticism to her if she were male.
Oh and since you didn't get that memo, you should also know that you're a racist (I'm sorry, a white supremacist) if you wanted to primary Obama in 2012. There's no way you could've possibly disagreed with his policies or effectiveness, it must've been because he's black! It was in the same memo...
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Anybody that votes to send young men and women to die while they sit in their comfy office and live a jet setting millionaire elitist lifestyle is a chickenhawk and a chicken. If our political leaders were forced to lead from the front or send their own children as sacrifice you would see all wars end.
Bernie can out debate anybody in politics because his message of fairness and equality is undisputable. Hillary and the DNC know Hillary is going to look bad in any debate against Sanders hence why they are afraid.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)She is a chickenhawk.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=530689
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Chicken hawk" refers to a sexual predator who abuses much younger, usually underage victims. Inappropriate on this board, even with a fig leaf of redefinition.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 19, 2015, 08:33 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As usual, lots of nasty posts at this site." Chicken Hawk" has ben used since the 60's with the meaning of cheerleader for war but doesn't want to fight---think Cheney.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree with their opinion but I respect the right to voice an opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't know of "Chicken Hawk" is, in fact, a term for what the alerter described because I have only ever heard it used to describe the kind of person the OP was describing.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Utter bullshit, alerter. I will be alerting the results to make sure the admins see this intentional misconstruing of the term.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert is an abuse of the system. I hope the person who alerted is punished for it.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The alert is bogus. Chicken hawk is a longstanding reference to someone who didn't serve in the military but sends troops to war in a whim. I'm voting to hide because the post is BS and the poster is being a dbag.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster had every right to call HRC a "chicken hawk" because there is no way in hell Chelsea was going to Iraq even if there had been a draft.
I was juror number four.
Would the alerter care to speak up?
WDIM
(1,662 posts)That was good.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)definitely out of bounds
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)and #6 deserves it
7962
(11,841 posts)All thats needed is for 1 person to be "offended" and you're in trouble!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Used to be liberal and then lost her fricking mind.She's radically anti choice,calls for Planned Parenthood to be closed down and her latest book is titled: The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)i am sure Limbaugh and Hannity will have some 'valid points' to say about Bernie soon. It will be important for DU to give those two a platform
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)on the right. She headed to Fox News where her attributes would be appreciated.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She's a total asshat, I grant you.
And I'm not sure that anymore than six debates are needed to make up voters minds, if they were held in a timely manner.
What I object to is the DNC's insistence on exclusivity. Have their six debates if they want, but why penalize the candidates for participating in others?
But since a Clinton is involved, motives will always be suspect. And you can't always blame the VRWC, they bring it on themselves with their obsession with secrecy and defensiveness.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Those trailing, like Bernie, want to debate every night. Doesn't work like that.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)What a silly, patently obvious attempt to smear Sanders supporters as sexists.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Supporter. Not supporters. Your wording is outright dishonest with respect to what I said. Words matter.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)the insult is aimed at the person, not the gender.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The manner in which the op used the word is no different than calling an individual a pussy. He simply cleaned it up to try and be cute. You whole concept that an individual cannot be insulted in a sexist manner is simply not based in reality. Many people, including the op, insult women on an individual basis with sexist language.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)your super broad definition of sexism is incorrect.
7962
(11,841 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Hope you didn't throw your back out trying to twist that way....
jwirr
(39,215 posts)do not think this is any different.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)other things but this colloquial speech thing is not sexist.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The media has turned debates into a version of reality TV. 6 debates is plenty given the number of candidates running.
In addition, I don't know why you expect the Democratic Party to do anything to give Sanders a leg up given that he has been dissing the party for 25 years. When you crap on an org for 25 years you don't get special favors.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
Please let Bernie know don't want him on the Dem side of things with caucusing and stuff. Apparently he has been making a big mistake the last 25 years.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)His "caucusing" with Democrats is meaningless.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, his caucusing with the Democrats is actually quite important.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
Every single "Democratic" bill that passed 51-49 with Sanders's vote, every single "Democratic" bill that was barely not filibustered.
Want a specific bill? How about the ACA? Sanders was one of the votes that stopped the attempted filibuster of it. Without having to be bribed like Bill Nelson or Joe Lieberman. Both of whom sported a "D" after their name.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Are you making shit up?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Imagine if the DNC was not in the tank for Clinton, and scheduled a Democratic debate around a week or so after each Republican debate.
You give the voters insanity -> sanity -> insanity -> sanity. Over and over and over again. It would be fantastic for the party.
Instead, we're giving the voters insanity -> well, I guess this is normal -> God I hate politics -> wait, there's another party? UGH! What else is on? -> Damnit, they bumped my favorite show for this crap.
840high
(17,196 posts)is perfect.
jkbRN
(850 posts)and always using the argument that he has spent years bashing the Democratic Party. There is no question that he has criticized the two-party system, and as we know--it is nearly impossible to win outside of the two-party system. Therefore, he knows that to change this type of system (that puts independent campaigns at a complete disadvantage), that he will need to run within the party that he caucuses with and has been on committees for--which is the Democratic Party.
To make elections for independents fair, there has to be someone that is willing to run and make elections for candidates equal.
I have no problem saying that the DNC & RNC are amoral for their exclusions among their caucuses--epitome of a corrupt system.
Criticize the system, not the candidate.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You must have a reason for stating that Sanders has been "dissing" the party for 25 years, but I can't think of what it is.
MoveIt
(399 posts)matched with such nonsense! Kudos!
ram2008
(1,238 posts)If the trend continues Bernie will be probably around 10-15 points behind Hillary once the debates start. Hillary will absolutely have to do perfectly in the debates before the caucuses because if she doesn't it'll feed into a narrative of her losing ground and not being personable.
The debate schedule also shields Bernie from surging too early as Obama did in 08, having a meh performance, and lose his footing (Obama did regain it at the end though).
If there are too many debates it sort of dilutes the importance of each one, with only 4 debates it raises the stakes much more for each candidates performance. If Bernie has a few solid performances i he will almost certainly win Iowa and New Hampshire... and that will blow the race wide open.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If HRC does well in the debates and Bernie doesn't are you going to shift your support to her? No, and neither is anyone else. People don't vote based on debates.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
winter is coming
(11,785 posts) Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Other than scandals, there is almost nothing else of significance in primary contests. The debates are critical to the average voter.
Not to those who are already deeply entrenched, but the debates are huge to the average voter.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Let's assume (incorrectly) that people base their votes on debates. If they can't make up their mind after 6 debates then they simply can't make up their mind.
Is YOUR vote going to change based on debates?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)People do not decide based on the news drone. The debates are significant events in the primary. That cannot be denied.
It isn't that people are going in undecided necessarily, it is that candidates can do very poorly and lose a lot of ground or do very well and gain. This happens every cycle and shouldn't surprise you, if you pay as much attention as you claim.
There is no reason to limit the debates to six, and no reason to delay start of debates until October, and no reason to require candidates to not participate in any others.
Actually, there is one reason -- to protect the front runner. The front runner has the most to lose going into a debate. The front runner has the most risk. And the front runner is probably quite scared.
Another thing, two of the six debates are not scheduled and marked for "February or March." In other words, if the frontrunner is successful in protected her lead, those last two may not even happen. So we are really talking about four debates, from October to January. Being afraid of debates is not a leadership quality.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)is a poor debater, six is way too many, which is why they hope it is really only four. And why they hope that candidates will violate the exclusivity clause to reduce the risk.
frylock
(34,825 posts)let's just select our candidate through a raffle or something.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)6 is still plenty.
frylock
(34,825 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Close to calling for anything other than the regular primary. Truth: I have said the primary needs to change as our candidates momentum is started by the completely white portion of the party.
But where do you get the rest. Is straw on sale?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm simply good with six. I do think we should have already had at least one, and none should come after any votes are cast. I would also be good with ten. Twenty some are unnecessary and laughable. We should be working to increase voter turnout, not put them to sleep. You still didn't address my point in any way. Deflection. Maybe Kristen Powers will write on it. Keep an eye for it in your inbox.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Nor will they ever admit they were wrong, even when it's blatantly obvious.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Many people have given soft support to Clinton because they know her and then there are others who don't know who they support at all.
The debates will give them their first chance to see all the choices and their plans at one time.
Many people start congealing after a series of debates.
Will it change minds on this board? Probably not. Most of us are junkies who have made our choice, already, but we're not the average person who doesn't even start thinking about the elections until, well, about now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I often wonder whether the premise may be true, However,that article doesn't provide any verifiable proof of that.
The writer simply quotes O'Malley, not n objective source, and then it says "But party insiders are trying..." and then quotes O'Malley again.
No smoking gun, or even third-party hearsay.
Just trying to be intellectually honest.
elleng
(130,945 posts)What sort of 'proof' would you like? 
Armstead
(47,803 posts)No problem with O'Malley. I agree with him.
But if the article were to be what the headline and lead claims, the reporter would have gotten ahold of people in or connected to the DNC, to determine whether in fact that is the case.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)It is easy to argue for more debates without posting and promoting the work of a right-wing hack as a credible source.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Of course they are.
What else have they got?
Why do Hillary supporters think the debates are so limited? If your ideas are good, then you want to talk about them...a lot. Right?
elleng
(130,945 posts)
Facts is facts.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes, she's one of Fox News's "Democratic Liberal" Housepets.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)As long as no one notices the sources.....
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I think it is mean to call him their pet tho.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)My bad. No wait, I was right. He is the only DUer I know that proudly plays a liberal on FOX TV when it suits them.
Is this Kristen person posting here now? I'd like to see her profile, excuse my ignorance of the situation, I just thought it was mean to call him a pet, didn't know there were others of his ilk here.
I really would like to see the profile and posts of the other DUer mentioned, I searched after your reply but to no avail.
A link would be nice. Thanks!!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
FSogol
(45,488 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
elleng
(130,945 posts) elleng
(130,945 posts)
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Bernie is a good man and I like his views. He can stand on his own with a positive message. If he wins with a positive campaign, I'd gladly vote for him and work for his election.
DO YOU REALLY HAVE TO ATTEMPT TO TEAR HRC DOWN in order to win? If you have to use RW talking points and RW non-scandals to advance Bernie's cause, it shows a bankruptcy of your candidate in winning with simply his platform.
What you are doing is unhealthy for the democratic party. Your attempts at cutting HRC down over manufactured non-scandals and posting so called "opinions disguised as news" with unnamed sources, conjectures and speculations is resulting in harm to not just Hillary but the entire democratic party. What is really galling is your use of speeches by Trump (YES, T-R-U-M-P!) to support Bernie. Has Bernie fallen on such hard times that he needs support from Trump, Rove, Koch Brothers, Adelson, Gingrich and Faux News? If you are a TRUE progressive, you'd reject such support instead of relishing it. It reveals that you are just as Machiavellian as the right wing and no progressive. You believe in "Winning at all costs" and I doubt it helps Bernie in the GE. It will cause massive bitterness in true democrats and handing over the election to Jeb or Scott Walker or even Trump.
As to the debate issue --
1. HRC is a seasoned debater. She is a Yale educated lawyer who had a life as a practicing attorney. She is not "chicken" -- ALL FRONT RUNNERS IN POLITICS CURB THE NUMBER OF DEBATES. They have nothing to gain from the debates and everything to lose.
2. Debates are not going to be a panacea for Bernie -- HRC could easily highlight Bernie's views about the democratic party and his socialist statements that would hurt him immensely. You may not believe that but middle of the road America is weary of socialists/communists.
3. Perhaps you should ask your candidate to FORMALLY JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY before insisting on DNC organized debates. "Caucuses with Democrats", "Has democratic views", "He is running as a democrat" etc. is NOT ENOUGH. We want a formal membership as a democrat - not peripheral garnishes.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)All we are asking for is a reasonable fair playing ground and not to be shut out by the DNC and the oligarchy.
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)We have to tear her down, because nobody will tell the truth. The coronation of HRC is disgusting. The lack of passion or interest from so many in this party to challenge it, is also disgusting.
I will not support a candidate because I'm told to by the party establishment, when that candidate does not live up to the values of my party and what it's supposed to stand for. The big money, shadowy deals and endless lies make me sick. Hillary Clinton thinks the rules don't apply to her, and so do many of her supporters.
HRC doesn't represent me or my values, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna support somebody like that. It's not about just "winning" and election. It's about right and wrong.
When the democratic party becomes only about money and who can "win" and not about principles, then it's getting as bad as the GOP.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)"Big money" -- all front runners attract big money -- that doesn't mean candidates are beholden to it. HRC has far more contacts and has networked well over the years to get big money support -- that is the way the game is played by all. You may not like it but that is the political reality. This is why Barack Obama rejected public funding -- he also had "big money" but you never whined about that did you?
"shadowy deals" -- again, show ONE deal that you can call "shadowy" -- just ONE -- instead of just parroting a meme.
"Endless lies" -- what has she lied about? NOTHING -- but you keep repeating the meme.
If you want to change the party to your liking, I have no quarrel with you but tearing down people who think differently is authoritarian -- perhaps it fits the "socialist" meme.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)What next, some chickenscrawling from Breitbart or Newsmax?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Are you in favor of politicians and Hillary getting big money from Wall Street?
Are you in favor of money in politics?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ready for the responsibilities of president and her agenda. This is when the facts will come out and on more than a few subject matters.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)the GOP.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Who wants to just give republicans free air time with out even challenging their crap? We'll have our first debate months after the republicans and let them have nearly twice the amount of air time?
There's no way that looks good. It honestly looks like the party's bound and determined to put lead shoes on whom ever it's candidate is.
Logical
(22,457 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)An old White guy from Vermont who is a senator only because the democrats cut a deal with him is really going to "destroy" a former FLOTUS, SOS and a Yale graduated lawyer.
American people are really not ready for communism just yet.
Please send me whatever you're smoking.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Yet it's the Bernie supporters who are the savage ones.
Hillary donors:
21st Century Fox $302,400 $302,400 $0
Cablevision Systems $336,288 $306,900 $29,388
Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Corning Inc $274,700 $256,700 $18,000
Credit Suisse Group $290,600 $280,600 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Ernst & Young $297,142 $277,142 $20,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $273,550 $265,450 $8,100
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441 $294,441 $17,000
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Merrill Lynch $292,303 $286,303 $6,000
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
National Amusements Inc $297,534 $294,534 $3,000
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640 $402,140 $4,500
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596 $305,158 $5,438
Time Warner $411,296 $386,296 $25,000
University of California $329,673 $329,673 $0
I think the majority will go for the "commie" one.
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)Thanks for the thread, L0oniX.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Her lack of judgement, lack of relevant experience and inability to articulate a consistent message on any issue would be displayed for all the world to see. She thought that she was entitled, she is appalled that anyone questions her ascendancy, her right to claim the crown......
she may get the nomination but she will never be president......
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Hillary cannot, will not answer that question.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)that steaming POS Debbie the hell out.
elleng
(130,945 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)They have to keep the Neo Democrat brand going strong. They do not want Hillary to spend too much time trying to explain her yes vote for Dubya's insane war. A war that made mega millions for Halliburton (Darth Cheney) and other contractors, while so many got killed or maimed.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)What would the DNC do if Bernie were to win the primary? Think they might be loosing some power and control?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)No wonder there was careful avoidance of all mention in the OP of the author of the original hit piece...err..."opinion"!
Got lots of Recs. though...there is that.
From the link to Kirsten Power's published piece...draw your own full informed conclusions, dear reader....is "chicken" used derogatorily in Kirsten Power's opinion piece, because I ain't reading that chickenshit scrawling:
"Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY and is author of the upcoming The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech."
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Rhetorically speaking that is one messenger I would shoot on sight within weapons distance of my territory! Before she opens her mouth and pretends to just be a "messenger".
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The Coulter screed also got a shitload of recs from DUers.
Welcome to Neo-DU where right wing sources are very much appreciated, as long as they attack Clinton, Obama and other prominent Dems.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)At least they are mostly all being called out for it.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)Only a matter of time until these RW nutjob opinionators are going to open their sewage pipes on Bernie.
I have no clue why any DU'er would align with those poisonous snakes.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Thomas Jefferson
delrem
(9,688 posts)And of course they disagree with the contention that Wasserman Schultz is rigging the system for their candidate.
In fact, one says that debates are worthless! A crude defense, but why not? It's the best of their responses.
They remember how Hillary lost to Obama after steadily losing debate after debate to Obama (and others) in '08. They don't want *that* happening again!
Much better to let all her sponsors' cash, her PACs and SuperPACs, supersaturate the MSM and internet with pro-Hillary feel-good bullshit mixed with a shitload more dirty tricks and Rovian swift-boating negativity aimed at opponents. Hillary supporters *do* insist that big money always wins, and that's one of the major reasons why they support the big money candidate - so why not do everything possible to make that prediction come true by limiting debate?
Isn't this Dem primary sweet, so far? I can't wait for what's next.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It is overt and infuriating.
The fifth and sixth debates are given a date of (February/March) for both.
So, is it possible that we might only have 4 debates prior to Super Tuesday? Super Tuesday is March 1st.
It certainly seems like they would love to only have 4 debates prior to Super Tuesday with that scheduling. By then they would hope to have it all wrapped up no doubt. Lots of bad blood could result from this with just enough people deciding to sit out the general to hand the Presidency to the Repubs. It is a slap in the face to Democratic primary voters. It is vastly different from what we have done in the past, and it is much less democratic than even the Republicans give to their primary voters.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be getting holy hell rained down on her right about now.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it will only get worse. this move was in such bad faith, there's no way to sugar coat it.
the fact is that "swing voters" sit out elections when they feel like they're being hoodwinked. this is such a clear case of that, that if she gets the nomination, it could mean we wind up with a R president.
the debates are needed for Clinton to sell herself, as much as much as anyone else. this bunker mentality has never worked for her. i don't understand why she keeps defaulting to it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)reason tricky dick got soooo far into trouble was his paranoid personality.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)who couldn't win at a time when people wanted change.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)IA is on Feb 1st. So #5 can't happen before it.
There isn't enough time between IA and NH to hold another debate.
There's barely enough time to squeeze in a debate between NH and SC. But it would be hard to do so so it's unlikely to happen.
There isn't enough time between SC and NV to hold another debate.
And there isn't enough time between NV and Super Tuesday to hold another debate, especially with all the states that the candidates will want to appear in.
Which means the most likely case is 4 debates before Super Tuesday. There's a slim chance of 5. There's no way we will get 6.
okasha
(11,573 posts)If only I had more free air time I might get all the way up to 5%!
If I had more free air time I could get out of the teens in the national polls!
If you had more free air time you'd bore everyone silly except the most ardent devotees. It's better to be "Oh, him!" than "Oh. Him."
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) okasha
(11,573 posts) Logical
(22,457 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)although it's clear many are desperately hoping. Sanders is no Obama. He's a minor figure from a homogenized milk-white state who wins the majority of a demographic only among liberal, college graduate white males 30-45.I.e., the demographic whose idea of "income equality" is nudging their way up to create a top 2% instead of 1%. The economy isn't letting that happen, and they haz a sad.
and a mad 
.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)this happened for "no reason" ?
BTW, I'm at the bottom, so I don't fit the demographic you're touting there.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)In the original article, the word "Clintons" was spelled correctly (without an apostrophe).
Did you really feel it necessary to add that apostrophe in where it wasn't supposed to be, like Dan Quayle adding an 'e' to some poor kid's correctly-spelled "potato"?
7962
(11,841 posts)What a disaster that was.
I've said it a thousand times; she is her own worst enemy and is not good in situations where her people have no pre-screened control
riversedge
(70,239 posts)her many questions. She comes across as interested, relaxed and caring.
7962
(11,841 posts)Lets see her just show up somewhere and answer questions on the spot like others do. The only time that happens we get the shuffling of the press conference or the "we left the white house broke" screw ups.
riversedge
(70,239 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)going to be subjected to larger groups including the press. She needs to be able to do both.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) NCjack
(10,279 posts)pulls ahead and has strong momentum the day after the 3rd debate. Then we will see Debbie scramble to schedule more debates "because the issues need more in-depth examination."
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)But then, speaking of chickens, we all know who believes she is at the top of the pecking order.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)limiting them only hurts our overall chances.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I'm glad people are resisting this attempt to shove another corporate puppet down our collective throat.
If she had any real caliber as a President, she would be eager for the challenge of a debate.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She does not want to face O'Malley or Sanders, both excellent debaters.
What will she do against the Republicans. She, of all the candidates, needs this experience.
But then she did not do well against Obama in 2008 so it is understandable that she is afraid of debating.
If she is afraid of debating, what else is she afraid of?
Being president takes courage. Does she have it?
Looks like she doesn't.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Knight and the Pips, with Hillary leading the charge.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)on Social Security and health care she was not good at all.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that will on balance imho, backfire because of the fuel it adds to the thing behind the support BS is garnering -- the growing perception/realization (or fedupness) that the political game is fixed and the widespread "Network Moment"-like imapct it is having.
They can thank the current president more than they know for the petri dish and culture in which more people got sick of it...
They're just showing the curtain behind which their masters sit because they think the higher price would be paid by the negative toll of her performances.
chicken indeed. I think it's worse than that...lol
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Its like listening to Ben Stein reading War and Peace. DWS just wants to make sure that people don't realize this and keep the progressives like Bernie and O'Malley on a leash.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
Thanks for a great image and a good laugh!!
"It was in July, 1805, and the speaker was the well-known (anyone? anyone?) Anna Pavlovna Scherer, maid of honor and favorite of the Empress (anyone? anyone?) Marya Fedorovna. With these words she greeted (anyone? anyone?) Prince Vasili Kuragin, a man of high rank and importance, who was the first to arrive at her reception."
jwirr
(39,215 posts)assume there may be some subjects that she really feels comfortable with but I have not seen any.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Yeah, it seems obvious to some of us why the HRC campaign would nudge DWS to keep a conservative debate schedule. But I don't see them as being averse to a strategic gamble. The numbers I saw just released showed another slide for HRC against Sanders, and also against a GOP candidate like Trump.
The Clintons know how to plot a graph and might see an advantage to changing the game. Get Secretary Clinton out more, and have her looking bold, and asserting herself, by calling for earlier debates.
Lol, that might mean they only get moved up a couple of weeks, so it could be the best of two worlds.
But yeah, though I support Sanders, if I was advising them I'd say little is gained by the perception of just sitting on a big lead and the campaign's innate advantages. Don't have to alter the strategy much, but definitely alter the perception.
P.S. I'd say come out swinging with a comprehensive plan to shore up Social Security and (eventually) expand benefits. Remind people how government was meeting its obligations before Bill Clinton was succeeded by a Bush. Seniors, and everyone else, will draw the correct inference, you'll be safe under Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm wondering what advice her campaign is listening to. For the idea of Biden coming off the sidelines to gain traction says plenty about how the current campaign is lacking.
People might start flocking to Sanders not because they lean more to his policies, but because only his campaign looks robust enough to go on to survive the inevitable forces from hell the Republicans will unleash.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)They're going to get a max of three presidential debates..... and if Hillary Clinton is such a damn poor debater which I keep reading over and over on this website six should be enough to finish finish her shouldn't it?
And the truth is if anyone other than Hillary runs in the dem slot a repub will be president.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's a friendly audience and if they can't get it done and sixty babe how the hell are they going to handle the only three presidential debates.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)start with three early elections that deserve to have a very good look at the candidates. That includes at least several debates. From there on debates at intervals to keep all of our candidates in the public eye.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Sanders & O'Malley need to gird up and get their message out there.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)message out there either. However, a lot of people all across the USA seem to want to hear what Bernie has to say and he is answering.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Dis makes Mr. Burns saaaaaaaad.
It's called campaigning. If you have the clear lead, you sit back and enjoy it... Not exactly a new concept since it's been used by the parties since the beginning of the US and the first elections after George Washington..
You get your Ron Paul of the left up enough in polls to actually become a threat, she might start taking you seriously.. until then..
LOL @ all the "Hillary won't come out and play with us" whines.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)are the very people who are limiting the debates so their chosen candidate (Hillary) has a better chance at winning the nomination and maintaining the oligarchy that controls our government.
Charles Montgomery "Monty" Burns, usually referred to as Mr. Burns, is a recurring character in the animated television series The Simpsons, and is voiced by Harry Shearer. Burns is the evil owner of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and is also Homer Simpson's boss. He is assisted at almost all times by Waylon Smithers, his loyal and sycophantic aide, adviser, confidant and secret admirer.
Although originally conceived as a one-dimensional, recurring villain who might occasionally enter the Simpsons' lives and wreak some sort of havoc, Burns' popularity has led to his repeated inclusion in episodes. Modeled after Jacob Rothschild while having David Rockefeller's speech patterns; Mr. Burns is a stereotype of corporate America in his unquenchable desire to increase his own wealth and power, inability to remember his employees' names (including Homer's, despite frequent interactions – which has become something of a recurrent joke) and lack of concern for their safety and well-being. Reflecting his advanced age, Burns is given to expressing dated humor, making references to Jazz Age popular culture, and aspiring to apply obsolete technology to everyday life. Conan O'Brien has called Mr. Burns his favorite character to write for, due to his arbitrarily old age and extreme wealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Burns
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Yes Mr. Berns is a good figure head for the oligarchy. Of course the oligarchy works hard to inhibit Democracy from a primary election.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Bernie and old liberal jewish guy who was never on the take = Mr Burns.
Yet Hillary is a woman of the People. Despite the fact that she won't come out and play with the other kids, but would rather sit inside in secure environment without too much excitement and risks.
But keep up the civilized talk. It's always entertaining to watch.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)that if Hillary has jam-up debates, that will not change a single mind of any Bernistas on DU. Guaranteed!
This is just another tired “I Hate Hillary and Here’s Why” thread.
Geez, and I use to love coming to DU until the Hillary Haters took over.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)And you are correct neither Bernie or Hillary supporters on DU are likely to change their minds.
And exactly what is wrong with the Here's Why threads? Most of the threads on both sides are telling us why we support our candidate. Or talking about why we do not support the other candidate. That my dear is politics.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Six debates is plenty. There have been multiple threads on DU covering this topic. None has said more than the second debate had much of any impact on voters. Here's another:
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup
All this flame throwing at DU ignores the basic reality that BS now needs to build a coalition of Democrats, HRC will be trying to keep hers.
Oh and just so you know I'm an undecided, not a Hillary plant, a cheer for your guy Bernie!!!
Bernie Sanders is the man!!!
Stomps out poverty where he can!!!
Mean ole fascists keep him down?
Not our Bern', HE'LL WEAR THE CROWN!!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Thank you...Thank you very much
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Spazito
(50,349 posts)the same number as in this primary:
PRESS RELEASES from the Democratic National Committee
For Immediate Release
May 16, 2007
Contact: Karen Finney, Stacie Paxton
DNC ANNOUNCES DATES, MEDIA SPONSORS AND LOCATIONS FOR SANCTIONED DEBATES
Washington, DC - The Democratic National Committee in partnership with six state parties today announced the dates, media sponsors and cities for the six DNC sanctioned debates. Additional details regarding specifics for the individual debates including additional media partners and logistics will be announced at a later time. The DNC sanctioned debate schedule will be:
DNC SANCTIONED DEBATES:
July 23, 2007: YouTube/Google and CNN* in Charleston, SC
August 19, 2007: ABC in Des Moines, IA
September 26, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Hanover, NH
October 30, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Philadelphia, PA
November 15, 2007: CNN* in Las Vegas, NV
December 10, 2007: CBS in Los Angeles, CA
"Our strong field of Democratic candidates have been working hard, talking about the issues the American people care about and laying out a positive vision for America’s future," said DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "We are grateful to the media sponsors and our state parties for their role in providing important, diverse settings for the American people to hear directly from our candidates."
*Debate will be simulcast on CNN en Espanol.
**Telemundo will re-broadcast both debates.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/primdeb08/dnc040507pr.html
I guess they were shielding Hillary Clinton then as well.... or not.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)2008 Democratic 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)What do other past and current and long standing actual MEMBERS of the Democratic Party think of that?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)control is what they have for the first time in history.
Are you aware that they did not even answer the letters of those of us who wrote to say we do not like that?
I thought they represent Democrats. I guess not all Democrats.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)"WASHINGTON – Today, Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced details for the DNC’s six presidential primary debates. This debate schedule reflects the Democratic Party’s diversity and values and will best position Democrats to win the White House next November.
“We are thrilled to announce the schedule and locations for our Democratic primary debates,” said DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. “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.”
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
Each Democratic State Party will serve as a debate co-host in their own state.
Additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships will be announced soon."
https://www.democrats.org/more/press
I see no exclusivity related to either schedules, the announcements for both 2007 and 2016 are almost identical in text.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)this year for the first time ever. That means the candidates cannot accept invitations to any debates held other than the 6 DNC debates. As I said total control.
In the past groups like the League of Women Voters hosted our debates. Now we have the DNC exclusively doing it.
That means that if they support a certain candidate they have a monopoly. It is hard to believe that DWS who helped run Hillary's campaign last time is not supporting her this time. She also controls the DNC.
Many of us used to work with the DNC but over the years we have seen them use that organization to move the party to the right. So now they think we are going to donate to them so they can elect their candidate. Not likely.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Spazito
(50,349 posts)one supported by the DNC and that is debates are limited but forums are not.
"There is a loophole, of sorts. While the extra debates are forbidden, the DNC’s rules welcome additional candidate forums, where contenders speak back-to-back from the same stage, but do not engage directly with each other.
“I’m sure there will be plenty of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that they will make the most out of every opportunity,” the DNC’s Schulman said. The party will happily facilitate those type of events, but is prepared to crack down on unofficial events."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/liberal-group-latest-call-more-democratic-debates
I do think limiting the numbers of debates candidates can participate in on penalty of exclusion is appalling. It should be the candidates' call, imo.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)all the candidates were on it.
That will not work for us unless all the candidates agree to be on it. Then the DNC would not be able to enforce their rule.
That means we have to have Hillary agree to a forum.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)I think it will depend on where things stand, who is still in and who is out as to how many appearances, debates and forums, candidates participate in, imo.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Spazito
(50,349 posts)
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Spazito
(50,349 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I take issue with the lock out clause and the timing. Cheers!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)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
Spazito
(50,349 posts)There were more debates and forums as wiki lists but they were not done through the DNC. There may well be more than six this time as well, they might be called forums rather than debates. Wiki is not a good source, imo, for anything to do with politics, religion, etc.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)After the 3 in January, and the 3 in February.
nikto
(3,284 posts)The more she shows of her actual political stands and allegiances,
the less chance she has of winning any election, ever.
This is empirical, and unavoidable.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary will be able to present her ability to answer questions, has a vast knowledge of the issues. She is able to present facts and will be great in the debates.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?
Sid
senz
(11,945 posts)I'd hate to imagine what her presidency would be like. Like the Clintons, Richard Milhous Nixon was famous for secrecy and enemies lists. If she should win, I hope we wouldn't be in for more of that.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)even if it's not the best source. Could have probably avoided the attack-the-messenger stuff with a better source, but the point is obvious enough and, as seen from the responses in this thread, irrefutable. The DNC wants no debate whatsoever, hell they want no primary, just the nomination of Hillary. That's not democracy.
paleotn
(17,920 posts)....I guess that's all they want out of us. I never realized royal coronations were part of our American democracy. Whoda thunk?
Keep-Left
(66 posts)I love Sanders and if I could wave a magic wand and pick the President I would pick him and Warren as VP.
With that said of course Sanders wants more debates and Hillary wants less debates. That's called common sense. If your way ahead why risk the debates. If your trailing you want more exposure. Nobody is chicken. Nobody is hiding. If your in a sports game and your up you run out the clock. Its no different in politics. And not only is Hillary up in the Dem side she is up against every Republican.
As Dems we should be happy. Im not going to cry with Hillary as President. The door it would open for many women and little girls to see the first ever women President. Hell I would love to see that also.
George II
(67,782 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Truly, though, Bernie is not running against Hillary, nor she against him. What it's going to come down to is Hillary's more detailed grasp of the issues, especially on social justice and foreign affairs, where Sanders is weak.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)She has already been paid to deliver goods only a POTUS can do. They never believed she would face any real opposition that wasn't republican.
