Democrats Eye MORE National Events as ANGER GROWS Over Debate Schedule

[Segami]

DNC vice-chair Donna Brazile tells TIME the party is considering "expanding opportunities for the candidates to talk more" Democratic party leaders are in discussions about new ways to give their presidential candidates national airtime, according to a vice chair of the party, following months of withering criticism about the Democrats’ limited debate schedule.


The talks, to be held among top Democratic National Committee officers, will center on adding more national forums for the candidates. “As officers, we’re going to talk over the next few days to see what agreements we can come to with regards to scheduling more — expanding opportunities for the candidates to talk more,” DNC vice-chair Donna Brazile told TIME on Friday afternoon. “So we’re actually going to try to see what we can agree to that candidates, and of course state parties and media partners can agree to.”


“This is a fluid process,” Brazile added. A party spokesperson confirmed that officers are discussing how to maximize viewers at national venues. The internal DNC discussions in the coming days could lead to an expanded schedule of national appearances for the Democratic presidential candidates, including forums or town halls in which the candidates can reach a national audience.


It’s unclear, however, whether the party will add more debates to the six already scheduled, the first of which took place Tuesday in Las Vegas. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has come under fire for limiting the number of debates to six and prohibiting candidates from taking part in additional debates. In 2008, the party had more than 20 debates and Republicans have scheduled 11 for the current presidential race. Some senior Democrats say the current schedule sacrifices invaluable television airtime to the Republicans, who get more hours and national viewers. The DNC has insisted that six debates are enough, and that too many debates are a distraction to candidates who are forced to prepare for each meeting.


cont'

http://time.com/4077162/democratic-debate-schedule-events/

[99th_Monkey]

1. Rachael said the other day she's moderating an MSNBC "Forum" soon

NOT a debate, mind you, but a Forum, where each candidate gets to make an extended self-presentation,
or speech if you will, to the studio audience and TV viewers.

I don't recall the date of it however and am too lazy to google it.

I guess this is better than nothing, as it does help keep Democrats more visibly on the airwaves
for more hours, but I don't think the viewership will be nearly as large, but I could be wrong about
that .. guess we'll see.

[daleanime]

3. Wouldn't mind that forum....

becoming a debate. Rachael would make a great moderator.

[Robbins]

5. "forum"

Is nothing more than seperate interviews.hardly making up for the debates.

[99th_Monkey]

14. I hear you. But I suspect that tone-deaf DNC/DWS will not.

That said, Rachael just announced that the tickets for the forum event sold-out
in 5 Minutes .. from 9am-9:05am this morning.

So there's apparently some interest, but I agree it's not an adequate substitute
for actual debates.

[roguevalley]

58. If forums aren't nationally broadcast then they're bs. Personally, they

will have to prove themselves to me that they aren't supporting Schultz before I'll believe them.

[99th_Monkey]

68. Hey, I'm really not all that concerned about the msnbc forum.

We've seen Bernie go to Liberty University, to the Ellen show, to the rigged CNN debate, et. al. and
still come out smelling like a rose, boosting donations and expanding his base ever-deeper into "enemy
territory", as we've seen over and over again; so a forum moderated by Rachael Maddow is the least
of our worries IMHO.

GO Bernie. You totally ROCK!

[daleanime]

2. Honesty....

doesn't require much preparation.

[TheBlackAdder]

79. So True! Also, the more debates, the more the Progressive word gets out to those who might miss it!

.

These debates need to be aired on a TV network that is not subscriber-based, for full access!


Staging debates on holiday weeks or subscriber channels are just ways to suppress the Democrats message.

Again, this acquiesces power to the GOP--giving them the lion's share of network coverage!


===


I would be very leery of someone who feels OK with the current debate schedule and structure.


.

[Armstead]

4. Well gee. Hillary does okay in a debate, and NOW they'e ready for more "forums"

How thoughtful.

[sabrina 1]

29. Actually she lost the debate by evrey measure. The ONLY place she 'won' was on the corporate media.

When a supposed News outlet, ignores its own polls, deletes them when they don't like the results, deletes comments favorable to THAT WINNER, then shut down a channel that covers that winner, seriously, does ANYONE take them seriously anymore?

The word now is that CNN is part of the Clinton Campaign. Losing ALL credibility to even comment on the Primaries.

Social Media grows more powerful every day.

They CAN'T delete our support for the Winner there.

[beerandjesus]

40. Hahahahaha, nailed it!

Although, thus far, it still just "talks" about forums. Cuz you know, they have get O'Malley to agree to more public exposure too, right?

[reformist2]

6. The "debates are a distraction" to what, their fundraising???

[wyldwolf]

7. be careful what you wish for.

[Uncle Joe]

15. We're wishing for more democracy, it's too bad everyone doesn't feel the same way.

[wyldwolf]

17. how does Democracy suffer when a few whiners don't get the amount of debates they want?

[Uncle Joe]

18. Do you mean like in 2008 when Hillary thought 18 debates wasn't enough so they had 26?

[wyldwolf]

19. how does Democracy suffer when a few whiners don't get the amount of debates they want?

[Uncle Joe]

20. Do you mean like in 2008 when Hillary thought 18 debates wasn't enough so they had 26?

[wyldwolf]

21. No, I mean how does Democracy suffer when a few whiners don't get the amount of debates they want?

I'm assuming you know the definition of Democracy. Are you proposing the number of debates be set by popular vote?

[Uncle Joe]

24. The bedrock of any well functioning democracy is a well informed electorate, nothing informs the

people better than well run debates wherein the candidates can present their ideas to the American People and have them rebutted in real time.

Debates aren't for the candidates, they're for the people.

Having an arbitrary, cynical low number of debates scheduled for when they're either too late to make a difference and/or least likely to be viewed is anathema to democracy.

Having said that I wish debates were still sponsored by an honest broker as in the League of Women Voters, then you wouldn't suffer from the so much manipulation as is now performed by the corporate media.

Even so today's debates are far superior to having none at all but they could be infinitely better.

[wyldwolf]

27. So? Who decides how many debates are needed for well informed electorate? Should we VOTE on it?

And what if the vote comes back as none or one or 100? And why should the inner dealings of a political party be subject to 'democracy?'

And why would one even believe the DNC should be forced to do ANYTHING that involves a non-Democrat like Sanders?

[Uncle Joe]

34. If the DNC actually had a vote on it that would be better but they didn't, Schultz decided this

on her own without consulting her vice-chairs.

In a spate of pure, immature pettiness, she even dis-invited one of them to the debate and from what I understand Congresswoman Gabbard is and has been a member of the Democratic Party not to mention a vice-chair of the DNC, but that made no difference to power mad autocrat; Schultz.

Bernie has met the legal criteria and is running as a Democrat whether you like it or not and in a USA Today Poll the people most associate him with actually being a Democrat over that of Hillary and Biden.

[highprincipleswork]

37. Really, why should the "Democratic" Party be in any way democratic?

Seems like a silly question to me. Nobody, nowhere "has" to be democratic. One can easily see that our system of government is not totally democratic, with electoral college and all that.

But what seems the higher principle?

Also, what is the best way to test the candidates, inform the public, and let the best candidate be chosen? Seems to me that, especially when so few people even know the candidates and their positions, it would be best to have debates that are as widely seen as possible. What's the hurt also, by the way? You know Hillary can do well, at least if the exposure is kept to a minimum. Why not let the truth out as widely as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

As to Sanders being included, he is already included. That is a non-starter and a non-issue.

Why do you prefer a system run solely by one woman who seems to want to run it her own way, without discussion or comment or consideration of all the other people who are in charge of also running the DNC, not to mention countless loyal Democrats who wish for something else? It's beyond my imagining.

The only reasons I can imagine are not high=principled and well-founded at all. In fact, they are the opposite. And my experience tells me that people who "win" anything in that way eventually lose big time. I don't want the Democratic Party to lose in that way because one person chose to be a dictator.

By the way, did you hear her say how busy she is "getting ready for the convention"? I bet she is. I bet she wishes it was tomorrow, so this controversy could be over. Putting the cart a little before the horse, however, and not the best thing for us or for the Democratic Party.

If given enough time and enough exposure and enough debates, the best candidate will emerge with the support of "the people". Given not enough time and not enough exposure, and you're going to have a soured electorate and a spoiled convention and possibly a very nasty election season without true support.

[davidpdx]

46. A response without using the word "whiners"

I really didn't think you were capable of that.

[roguevalley]

59. there are several individuals on that side who will say anything to piss

you off. Nothing you will say will meet anything but more derision. Ignore them. Give them silence.

[beerandjesus]

42. Gotta love how the entire Democratic field is "a bunch of whiners", hahahahaha!!

Except, of course, the Anointed One.

[davidpdx]

47. Good point, O'Malley has been very vocal about more debates

So I guess Hillary supporters think they are whiners too.

[elleng]

54. really!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. It's an invalid and intellectually dishonest question, of course.

[wyldwolf]

72. It's an absolutely accurate question based on the poster's statements

One can't make an association between debate and democracy without being questioned.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. You're predicating this on "a few whiners". It's both false, and intellectually dishonest.

That's just kind of how it is.
When you find yourself carrying water for someone as corrupt as Wasserman-Schultz, don't expect a lot of sympathy for a sneering attack on those who oppose the corruption.

[wyldwolf]

74. Sure I can

The only place I have seen any association between democracy and the number of debates the DNC is having is on progressive message boards and/or from progressives.

A few whiners.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

75. And senators and members of the DNC governing body.

But you keep on speaking up for corruption. You wear it well.

[wyldwolf]

76. Give me names of senators and DNC members and their quotes

Want to see quotes of them saying that six debates is a danger to democracy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. You introduced the danger to democracy trope as a strawman. You defend your strawman.

The other poster advocated for more democracy. Your word games aren't going to help you, not when you try to use them on me anyway.

[wyldwolf]

80. Copout answer and complete avoidance of the question

In a discussion of more debates, poster #15 tied it to a question of democracy. He nor you can seem to add any meat to those bones.

So come on - you claimed there were senators and DNC members who said the lack of debates was a threat to democracy now quote them.

'progressives' have totally water down the terms strawman and democracy. To you any disagreement with your dogma is a strawman and anyone who disagrees with your believes is an affront to democracy

[DisgustipatedinCA]

85. I made no such claim. You did. Don't try using Fox News tactics with me. Don't lie about me.

YOU are the person who introduced the threat to democracy line. The other poster said nothing of the sort, and nor did I.

When you're down to lies that are demonstrated to be false in this very thread, you've lost any credibility you may have had. Straighten the fuck up and quit being a goddamned liar. The world has enough of them.

[wyldwolf]

88. I didn't say you did. I said poster #15 did. Reading is fundamental

OP: Democrats Eye MORE National Events as ANGER GROWS Over Debate Schedule
Wyldwolf: Be careful what you wish for.
Uncle Joe: We're wishing for more democracy, it's too bad everyone doesn't feel the same way.
Wyldwolf: how does Democracy suffer when a few whiners don't get the amount of debates they want?
Uncle Joe: Do you mean like in 2008 when Hillary thought 18 debates wasn't enough so they had 26?
wyldwolf: how does Democracy suffer when a few whiners don't get the amount of debates they want?
Uncle Joe: The bedrock of any well functioning democracy is a well informed electorate, nothing informs the people better than well run debates.
Wyldwolf: So? Who decides how many debates are needed for well informed electorate? Should we VOTE on it?


YOU: It's an invalid and intellectually dishonest question, of course.
Wyldwolf: It's an absolutely accurate question based on the poster's statements
YOU: You're predicating this on "a few whiners". It's both false, and intellectually dishonest.
Wyldwolf: The only place I have seen any association between democracy and the number of debates the DNC is having is on progressive message boards and/or from progressives. A few whiners.
YOU: And senators and members of the DNC governing body.
wyldwolf: Give me names of senators and DNC members and their quotes

THIS is where you started avoiding your topic.

[Fairgo]

92. Narcissistic Do-loop

Caution! Black hole of discourse ahead!

[wyldwolf]

93. wait a minute...

....



DEMOCRACY!!!! MORE DEBATES.

[AgingAmerican]

87. In 2008 HILLARY said only having 18 debates would be 'unamerican'

Is Hillary/DWS un american by their own measure? Wasn't DWS Hillary's campaign co-chair in 08?

[wyldwolf]

89. how is that a threat to Democracy?

[AgingAmerican]

90. You should ask Hillary/DWS

Because that was their position on the matter in 08.

[wyldwolf]

91. I'm asking the person who made the claim.

[sabrina 1]

31. I'm thrilled, Benrie won this debate by every measure other than the Corp Media, who stand alone

in trying to wipe out the results.

Donna Brazille is intersting. She recently sent out a tweet that many felt was an endorsement of Bernie. She followed that with another very positive tweet about Bernie.

Maybe people are coming to the point where they realize just how bad things are with Corporate control of our government.

Having seen her tweets, and now this, I wonder if her conscience is kicking in and she realizes that DWS and the Corporate Media really are damaging, not just the Dem Party but this country.

[ucrdem]

45. Exactly. nt

[AtomicKitten]

8. They say better late than never, but its too late for a fair playing field.

The delay in debates is done, advantage Hillary, someone who already has every advantage. The DNC owed all the candidates the opportunity to be heard in an open forum early and often. Wasserman-Schultz has failed the party with her partisan manipulation of the system. In the effort to declare Hillary the winner before a single vote is cast, she is ensuring a general election loss regardless of who actually wins the nomination. Hillary loses, she hangs on like grim death and blows up the party. Hillary wins, the lack of enthusiasm will metastasize into anger at the process.

[Fred Sanders]

9. Considering how well number one went for Clinton, I am warming to the idea of more debates!

Did not go so bad for Sanders or O'Malley or the whole Democratic Party as well!

Finally some logic to the argument rather than anger.

Not to mention the totally shocking ratings...Americans love real debate!

[jeff47]

10. So....the exact same argument for more debates is no longer anger?

Uh-huh.

[davidpdx]

48. No, whining

You have to get their talking points correct man!

[tularetom]

56. Oh, so NOW more debates are a good idea, huh?

Who undo you think you're kidding?

You were afraid she'd screw up but now that she did OK you're all confident.

You really weren't all that sure about her, were you?

[JimDandy]

81. What's worse is: Hillary Clinton wasn't sure how she'd do.

Shultz was simply doing her bidding.

[MuseRider]

84. No kidding

notice how this is now "fluid". I knew as soon as she did well this would happen.

I hope there are debates. The forums offer no challenge, they are OK but they need to be contrasted by debate. I also wish they would show them on regular channels (I think the last few are but they all should be). People like my brother never get to see them otherwise. He cannot afford cable or Internet.

[FVT]

11. Angry at Wasserman and the DNC? Link to be removed from email list. Strong message!

http://www.democrats.org/page/unsubscribe

[restorefreedom]

12. only FOUR have been scheduled

they should not be able to get away with saying six repeatedly, because it's not true the last two are TBA

[AtomicKitten]

13. there is a reason for that

Hillary Clinton campaign only wanted four debates.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/21/1423552/-Hillary-Clinton-campaign-only-wanted-four-debates

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post provided a great behind the scenes look of the current DNC debate debacle. And from the article it's clear the current number and schedule of debates was made to accommodate Team Hillary.

Last spring, when negotiations between the DNC and the Dem campaigns over the debate schedule got underway in earnest, the Clinton camp’s preference was to have only four debates, one in each of the early contest states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, according to a senior Democrat with knowledge of those conversations.

Asked to comment on this version of events, DNC spokesperson Holly Schulman didn’t immediately dispute it, but declined comment. A Clinton spokesperson didn’t immediately return an email.

The whole story is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/21/how-democrats-got-bogged-down-in-a-messy-dispute-over-debates/ So it's now very clear the position of the Hillary Clinton on debates and she herself has never explicitly called for more debates only that 'open' to it. More exposure for other candidates would certainly not be good for the Clinton campaign, who hopes to ride on name recognition to victory.

[restorefreedom]

23. yup. they are hoping those last two "disappear"

they will be disappointed.

[moobu2]

16. Better hope Bernie does better in the following debates

because manipulating online-polls isn't a very effective strategy.

[think]

77. Were the focus groups 'manipulated' as well?

[magical thyme]

94. right. because Hillary supporters aren't capable of pointing and clicking.

[Todays_Illusion]

22. The Republicans are loving this divisive fight.nt

[Le Taz Hot]

28. The Republicans are too busy trying to figure out how to

list the Speaker of the House job on Craig's List.

Besides, this is the primaries. It's where the differences between candidates are hashed out. It's called the Democratic process. You either have the stomach for it or you don't.

[Trajan]

30. How do you know this ? ..

Why is it divisive ? ...

If Bernie or OMalley supporters think their should be more debates, then why is mentioning it divisive ?

[Todays_Illusion]

33. If the MSM propaganda s news is talking about it everyday, it means they love it, It makes the

Democratic look as broken as the Republicans and I believe our elected Democratic have been remarkably unified in trying to get what they can from first a filibustering Senate and now a Republican majority in both houses.

But sure take the bait, spread the poison.

[Fumesucker]

63. It takes two to argue

Team Weathervane and the DNC are every bit as much to blame for seeming disarray in the Democratic party as any other faction.

[Todays_Illusion]

64. There are facts and opinions, No reason to argure about a fact, a fact is the thing that looks the

same to everyone and no reason to argue opinion we each have our own. I am not interested in influencing anyone, I just like to type what I am thinking.

[Fumesucker]

67. If you expect to type what you are thinking and have no one disagree you are in the wrong place

[Todays_Illusion]

69. You twisted my remark. I did not say I expect agreement.

[Fairgo]

95. Good! Disagreement is healthy

Philosophise with a hammer I say. We only look as weak as our ideas and our debates about them.

[Change has come]

35. Should I be frightened?

Fuck Republicans!

[Todays_Illusion]

38. If that is what you want to do I am not going to intefere.

[Change has come]

70. Thanks for your concern.

[jeff47]

50. Yes, we should base all of our actions on what the Republicans do.

We are utterly unable to act until they do something. Then we can write a sternly-worded letter to the editor of our local fishwrap. That'll show 'em!!!

[Le Taz Hot]

26. This is dog-and-pony show time.

IT'S TOO LATE! But then again, they knew that. Donna Brazile? They don't get any more Third Way than Brazile. What's happening is the peasants are crashing the gate and their idea of "fixing" it is to make it appear they're listening to the rank and file. These people DO NOT listen to the rank and file because they're oligarchs. They don't give a shit what we think.

[haikugal]

62. ^^^THIS^^^

[4_TN_TITANS]

36. I tend toward agreeing w/DWS on this

Over-exposure can be just as much of a killer as not enough, and the Republicans along with all the media time are already wearing on swing voters (just my observation).

[Aerows]

43. Why would Democrats want to put front and center

their values, their ethics and convictions on the national stage so people can decide whether or not they want to vote for a Democrat?



That is the biggest recipe of disaster I've ever heard of, and a tactic taken by those that think they have it in the bag.

Yes, Republicans have lunatics. No one disagrees.

What we do disagree with is people on either side fighting against some damn honesty in politics.

Good Grief if you are afraid of sunlight, what does that make you?

[Todays_Illusion]

61. Have you accidentally posted to the wrong thread? nt

[Aerows]

65. No.

Have you?

[zentrum]

39. CALL DWS 202-863-8000

Make her feel the heat.

It's disgusting the way she is not allowing free advertising for the Democratic message which is what the debates are. Free advertising! The headlines and pundits talk about what was said for days. All the country heard for months was the Republican debate message.

She is really hurting all Democrats.

Call the DNC 202-863-8000

[Aerows]

41. I am replying to this comment before ever reading the comments below.

Those affronted by the lack of better debates and therefore better coverage of our party values, are speaking up because since we are Democrats, we don't like unilateral decisions.

Those that are cheering think it is just fine to have the Democratic Party's message as stifled as possible.

It scares me that I am part of a political party that is afraid of its own values. That's what scares the hell out of me about Republicans.

[oberliner]

44. What can you get from a debate that you can't get from a stump speech?

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not sure I understand the value of debates when in a stump speech one can go into much more detail and specifics rather than looking for good zingers and the like.

[Aerows]

53. It scares the hell out of me

when my own party is afraid of its own message.

[RichVRichV]

83. They both have their uses.

Stump speeches are good for candidates to push their messages and values. It affords them time to get their message across.

Debates allow us to compare and contrast candidates in real time to see the differences clearly. They also force candidates out of their comfort zone, forcing them to go in detail about subjects they don't usually discuss.

Both serve different purposes and are integral to having an informed electorate.

[ucrdem]

49. The irony here is, each debate will give the front-runner more momentum.

At a certain point it won't be worth the while for said front-runner to show up. That point comes sooner the more closely the debates are spaced.

[jeff47]

51. How'd that work in 2008 again?

'Cause Obama only became the frontrunner after about 10-15 debates....

[ucrdem]

52. Here's how it worked on Tuesday: Hillary is now winning in NH.

Sorry.

[BlueStreak]

55. I have mixed emotions about including all 5

The fact is this is a two person race. The others are all polling approximately zero.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Moreover, I don't see that the other 3 are adding much to the discussion. Webb just wants to say that he worked as a congressional staffer for awhile. O'Malley only wants to talk about electricity in 2050. Chafee has some interesting views, but you can't include him and exclude the others.

I think it would be worse to have just Hillary and Bernie because that turns it into more of a confrontation, and I don't think that is good for Democrats.

Considering that Biden is the only other person who polls in the same tier as Clinton and Sanders, I could see some events that have a panel discussion including Biden. That could be positioned as a discussion about the challenges and solutions facing our nation, and it would be perfectly natural for Biden to be part of that even if he isn't running.

[Catherina]

60. Sorry Debbie. Not good enough. Not even in the ballpark n/t

[Bread and Circus]

66. A distraction from what....going to swanky fundraisers and having cocktails with millionaires $

What shit this party has become when the debates are seen as distractions.

[Scuba]

71. Hey, hey, ho, ho. DINO Debbie's got to go!

[winter is coming]

82. Chickenshit half-measure. This "forum" is not a debate.

I'm not sure how a series of one-on-one interviews even counts as much of a forum.

[ecstatic]

86. Who is angry?

The debate was OK as far as substance goes. I probably won't tune in the next one. I like drama and fights. LOL