The Democratic Party needs to get it's Sh*t together.

[ZX86]

Democrats announced earlier this year that they would hold six official primary debates beginning this fall. Sanders' bid to hold additional debates could run against the Democratic National Committee and its exclusivity rule. Any candidate who decides to participate in the Democratic Party debates must agree to do so exclusively, making them ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/bernie-sanders-debates_n_7479212.html


Exactly how does this provision benefit Democratic voters? Sounds like a real good idea for corporate sponsored lapdogs for the 1%. For the average working Democrat not so much.

[seabeyond]

1. i am not outraged. i will listen to others, to see if there is a reason to be outraged.

but i am not seeing it.

[ZX86]

26. Making a candidate ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups.

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Is the problem with the debates. Debates should be run by third party groups. You know, like the League of Women Voters. When that was the standard actual journalist who valued journalism asked questions. There was a panel of them. Different people, with different experiences, from different parts of the country, representing different news organizations. Having one hand picked, corporate hack, like Chuck "It's not my job" Todd asking questions is not my idea of staying informed.

These corporate network hacks would sell out the country for a parking space. Remember Russert asking Kucinich about UFOs? Remember Kalb (actually Shaw) asking Dukakis a death penalty question in the form of a rape fantasy of his wife? This is the level of debate we get from hand picked corporate hacks more interested in invites to DC cocktail parties than informing the American public.

And why oh why should any Democratic candidate be penalized for participating in a debate not sponsored by the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party shouldn't be sponsoring in the first place!

[MohRokTah]

56. The LoWV only EVER sponsored debates for the GE.

Please learn what you are talking about.

[ZX86]

61. And why was that?

Because it was an important event that required non-partisan moderation?

Yeah that's what I thought.

[MohRokTah]

63. Which is why they NEVER get involved in primaries

Yet you are demanding they do now.

WTF are you really calling for here?

[ZX86]

68. Non-partisan debates moderated by people

who's pay checks are not signed by the same people sponsoring the candidates.

[MohRokTah]

72. And those come AFTER THE PRIMARIES

Get your facts straight.

The primaries are 100% of, by, and FOR the Party.

There is no need to pull in outsiders into our party decision making process.

WTF, do you want Republicans running our debates?

[ZX86]

83. I want non-biased debates interested in informing voters.

Primaries should be for the people in the party. Not party bosses. Instead of arguing for authority why not just explain why open debates with moderators representing the American people and their interests is not as goods as debates moderated by corporate hacks representing corporate interests.

[MohRokTah]

90. And you get those in the GENERAL ELECTION!

There is absolutely NO PLACE for anybody outside the party determining our internal party primary processes.

NO PLACE AT ALL!

[ZX86]

104. You're wrong on that point.

The presidential primary process is the business of American voter. Full stop!

[MohRokTah]

107. BULLSHIT!!!!

It is 100% the business of the individual PARTIES.

This is why it is called a PRIMARY process.

This is why the outcome only determines a party's NOMINEE.

[ZX86]

125. Being loud doesn't make you right.

Voters are the customers here. Not party bosses.

[MohRokTah]

126. Being right does, though. eom

And the Party bosses are determined by the members of the party. They aren't magically set by corporations like you apparently beleive

Don't like it? Become a party precinct committeeman and work the party process.

If you aren't that involved, I think your complaints about the party processes ring incredibly hollow.

[ZX86]

129. Only a fool believes that corporate money

does not have undue influence in either the Republican or Democratic Party.

[MohRokTah]

130. Only a fool ignores the fact that a Democraticc candidate who cannot raise eough money

will lose to the Republican every time.

[Enthusiast]

190. Plus one!

[LanternWaste]

202. Nor does repeating the same thing over again make you right.

Nor does repeating the same thing over again make you right. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[RobertEarl]

114. Bernie agrees with you - ZX86

2016 hopefuls parade on the Sunday morning shows

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cbc2da56e0ed4c068ca036faf17d0e10/2016-hopefuls-parade-sunday-morning-shows

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders is itching to debate and not just with other Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination. He says Democratic and Republican contenders should be debating each other during the primary season, too.

That shakeup is unlikely to happen — each party is planning its own debates, as usual. But the network news shows Sunday morning were something of a debating society of their own as 10 declared and likely candidates from both parties appeared in a parade of political argument and sound bites, touching on ISIS, personal ambition, immigration, hair color and more.

<snip>

BRING ON THE DEBATES

"We need a lot more debates in this campaign," Sanders told NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Vermont senator said the Democratic debates should begin as soon as July and, in a twist, some Republicans should be in the mix.

[merrily]

132. Speaking truths to Americans on talking heads shows? oh, my.

[merrily]

127. Willing to argue anything that benefits Hillary, no matter how

undemocratic (lower case d) it is.

[JHB]

151. Actually, I don't remember Kalb asking Dukakis that question...

I DO remember Bernard Shaw asking it.

[ZX86]

159. I stand corrected.

I knew it was a Bernard somewhere in there.

Thanks!

[Enthusiast]

189. You are absolutely correct. Thank you for the thread.

The purpose for this is to stifle debate. It is as simple as that. Pay no attention to the swarm.

[2banon]

46. you have to sort of see beyond, in order to see it.. :)

[seabeyond]

53. ha ha. you are funny. i am sure we know each other well, but... i only remember

the couple of resent 'hello's' from you today

i attract instant friends. just something about me. and they tag along, every where i go.

[LanternWaste]

203. His petulance is a thing of peevish beauty

His petulance is a thing of peevish beauty, as is his pretense of hiding behind implication lest anyone take him at his actual word...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government;

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson quotes 

[dlwickham]

3. he's running for the Democratic nomination

why would he want to debate republicans at this stage

[Exilednight]

66. Better question, why wouldn't you?

[dlwickham]

148. because this is the time to try and win over Democratic voters

I'd think winning the nomination would be more important right now unless of course he's not running to win the nomination

[Exilednight]

149. One stone, two birds.

[NightWatcher]

4. Let's start by replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of DNC

Then we can address further rules changes, but replacing DWS should be first.

[LuvNewcastle]

133. I agree. She's doing a terrible job,

at least for those on the left. Makes you wonder if she's moonlighting for someone else.

[brooklynite]

5. How do more debates help the average working Democrat?

Since the average working Democrat who's not a political junkie doesn't watch Primary debates?

Add to which, how many do you need? Six debates is roughly one a month. Do you believe having 8, 10 or 12 will be radically different?

And by the way: what is the "Democrat Party"?

[MohRokTah]

8. "Democrat Party" is the denigrating name Righwingnuts use for the DemocratIC Party. eom

[brooklynite]

16. I know, that was a referral back to the OP.

[MohRokTah]

20. I know, the OP has been told multiple times.

Yet the OP refuses to edit the title.

[jwirr]

43. When you have nothing else to say attack the messenger. I am an older FDR Democrat or should

it be democratic? This new argument regarding politically correctness to me is just plain useless. Until recent years I have never heard this argument. Any evidence that FDR never said Democrat Party?

[MohRokTah]

54. Democrats are members of the Democratic Party.

It's really very simple grammar.

[Cha]

162. Actually he was helping him.. "Democrat party" is what rw call us to denigrate.

[ZX86]

28. More information is always better than less.

Also these network anchor people are not the kind of people I want asking questions. Some person making millions of dollars per year at corporation does not represent my interests. Do you really think you'll hear questions like this at a Democratic/Corporate network debate:

Should bankers be jailed?

Is waterboarding torture?

Should war criminals be prosecuted?

[Carewfan]

33. I want weekly debates on issues, nationally televised

uncensored, no softball questions.

Would you agree to that? I would. Issues needs to be covered.

[MohRokTah]

39. What a completely revolting suggestion.

Spend money to get your candidate's message out. Don't demand free media to do it.

[ZX86]

45. Yeah, more money in politics is the solution.

Not!

[MohRokTah]

50. It's the game we have.

Play by the rules or don't play at all.

[ZX86]

64. It's not a game.

Bankers getting away with stealing the retirees pension funds is not a game. Sending young people to fight and die for lies is not game. Ruining the lives of millions of Americans is not a game.

[MohRokTah]

67. It's more like a game than anything you can describe.

Play by the rules or GTFO.

[ZX86]

75. It isn't playtime.

Stealing old people's money is not a game. Sending young people to war is not a game. Working multiple jobs and still living in poverty is not playtime.

[MohRokTah]

77. IT HAS RULES!

The rules are set by the body elected by members of the party to determine those rules.

Abide by the rules or GTFO.

[ZX86]

86. I will not GTFO!

And I also will not bend over and take it for the sake of getting along. I'm not a Republican. If changes need to be made I stand up and say so. I believe power should come from the bottom up. Not the top down.

[MohRokTah]

92. Then vent your anger on an internet messge board and have the same effect as...

pissing in the wind.

[ZX86]

100. The post is about presidential debates.

Not your perception of my anger. Get with the program.

[MohRokTah]

119. The debates and rules are set.

The candidates must abide by them or run for the nomination of another party.

[ZX86]

122. Or change rules.

You're still not explaining why the rules exist and why they don't merit modification. Just saying "rules are rules" or "love it or leave" is not in the spirit of democracy or the Democratic Party.

[MohRokTah]

123. Not gonna happen. eom

[ZX86]

128. Not with that attitude.

Not expecting much from people who believe that money should determine the value of ideas in a democracy.

[MohRokTah]

131. Money does determine the value of candidates in the United States.

This is a factual reality.

Trying to wish it away will not alter that simple fact.

[ZX86]

135. Who said anything about wishing?

Talking about changing the rules.

[MohRokTah]

137. Well for the 2016 capaign cycle, you ai't changin' it, so all that's left are wishes. eom

[dlwickham]

150. why are you setting yourself crazy debating this person

it's not worth it

[Enthusiast]

191. +1 an entire shit load.

[2banon]

55. WTF???? ??????

That statement has topped my list of the most uninformed understanding of what the media is supposed to be doing in a democracy. Unbelievable that you said with a straight face.

[MohRokTah]

58. It's called "vetting".

Candidates must spend money to get their message out. It is part of the vetting process. If a candidate is incapable of raising the funds to get their message out, they are winnowed out of the process.

[2banon]

79. Your world utopia is a plutocracy apparently. what's the point in holding elections at all?

It is apparent to me you're all about giving cover and protecting the "rights" of the privileged class over and beyond the rights of everyone else.

And if you're going around telling people that the media is not meant to be THE source/platform for voters to "vet" the candidates during the PRIMARIES as well as the general, based on the merits and principles of democracy.. than your opinion wrt the time of day would have no credibility what so ever in my book.

[MohRokTah]

81. No, my party vets the fund raising capabilites of the candidates.

Either they can raise funds and get their message out or they become an "also ran".

It's really very simple.

[tularetom]

194. "Either they can raise funds and get their message out or they become an "also ran"."

In other words, you pretty much agree with Citizens United.

I think you're in the wrong party.

[MohRokTah]

195. Love you putting words in my mouth.

I understand the realities of Citizens United. You apparently do not.

[tularetom]

198. Here's some words right from your mouth, dude

"Money does determine the value of candidates in the United States. This is a factual reality.

Trying to wish it away will not alter that simple fact."

Clinton's $1 billion will look like chump change in the general election campaign. Does that mean that the republican candidate has more value than her? Sounds like that's what you're saying.

[MohRokTah]

199. What is not true about what I said?

The answer is nothing.

And Hillary Clinton will have $2.5 billion. The Republican will have abut $1 billion.

[2banon]

200. Pro-Citizens United = supporter of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas.. Shouldn't he be a Repuke?

I think so. That's the Plutocratic Party. isn't it?

Again, what the hell is the point of holding elections at all, other than to carry on the charade to uphold a long standing myth that we're actually a democracy of ANY STRIPE.

[Enthusiast]

192. To achieve fair elections millions of us want publicly funded elections, as you know

and understand. Apparently this poster doesn't see the appeal of removing money from the election process.

[Scootaloo]

153. Was the title line a preface to the message body?

'Cause yeah, that is a pretty revolting idea.

[MohRokTah]

154. The disgusting thing is refusing to allow a candidate to be vetted on their fund raising capability.

ESPECIALLY in a post Citizens United world.

[Scootaloo]

156. You are advocating buying the nomination

Which is unsurprising, as money is all that your candidate has to offer.

[MohRokTah]

158. I am advocating winning the General Election.

Your way guarantees a Republican president takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.

[Scootaloo]

161. No, you are advocating putting the nomination up for auction

Why not put it on the open market? Since the only qualifier for quality to you is money, let's see if we can get one of the Koch brothers to run on our ticket. With his brother as VP.

[MohRokTah]

166. You are simply not being realistic.

IT takes a vast sum of money to get elected in a national race.

In 2016, any candidate who is not capable of raising $1 billion is incapable of winning an election.

This is a simple fact of US national politics.

[Scootaloo]

169. I'm using your argument.

You stated that money is all that matters, that how much a potential candidate can front up should be the sole deciding factor.

So, using your stated argument, there's no problem with the Koch brothers seizing the democratic ticket.

[MohRokTah]

170. If somebody besides Hillary Clinton can prove they can raise $1 billion they become viable.

I simply see no candidates in the field who meets those requirements other than one.

That makes all others nonviable.

[Scootaloo]

171. Including the Kochs.

What i'm struggling with is why you're bothering as a Democrat? There's another party that represents your sole interest far better.

[MohRokTah]

173. Super PACs are an entirely different conversation. eom

[Scootaloo]

175. I'm suggesting we put the nomination up for auction, like you want

Let any person - or hey, corporation, remember, "Corporations are people my friend" - bid on the party's nomination. Highest bidder wins.

No debates.

No policy outline.

Just money.

Just like you want.

The reality is that the candidate who gets the most votes wins. And contrary to your frankly perverse thinking, voters do not decide to vote based on money in the candidate's chest.

[appalachiablue]

183. +1

[MFrohike]

172. And this is why we can't have nice things

When you spout off libertarian talking points, you demean us all. I get that you think you're being pragmatic, but you're really not. You're just pushing the libertarian morons further into the mainstream by legitimizing the idea that politics has a price.

And save the bit about "the game." Amateurs talk about "the game," nobody else does.

[MohRokTah]

174. OFFS

Nothing I have said even approaches anything on the libertarian scale of things.

[MFrohike]

176. Whoops

I guess this bit doesn't count:

"Spend money to get your candidate's message out. Don't demand free media to do it."

That is the fucking libertarian credo. The fact you can't even recognize it should frighten you. I'm sure you still don't get it, so I'll give a real-life example I hear quite a bit just to make it clear.

"Don't spend tax money to fix that road. Let the users pay for it."

Not much difference at all, chief.

[hollowdweller]

80. I think they'd be more likely to catch a few if there were more of them?

[jeff47]

85. Because then they can get a debate on issues relevant to them.

If the Des Moines Register wants to set up a debate on issues that are much more relevant to Iowa, they could. That's going to get more attention from "average working" Iowans than a national debate.

These rules forbid that. Or more precisely, they set up such an enormous cost for attending these debates that the Register will get no attendees.

The Republicans after 2012 decided they needed fewer debates, because their front-runners kept "Ooops"-ing their way out of the race. So they wanted fewer opportunities for Republicans to shove their foot in their mouths.

Democrats proposed these rules for the first time this election cycle. The party leadership has yet to articulate any reason why these rules benefit the average working Democrats you are so concerned about.

[appalachiablue]

182. +1 You get it, totally. As few chances as possible for the people to learn about real

issues and shield the clown car of morons at all costs. Just make it about money.

[Scootaloo]

152. What do you know about the "average working Democrat"?

You're the owner of a five-bedroom house in New York City where you host politicians and campaign staffers.

I'm not saying you should shut up, but, I don't really think you're quite qualified to expound on the thinking of the average working democrat.

[MohRokTah]

6. IF Bernie cannot abide by the rules of the DNC, maybe he'd better seek the...

Democratic Socialist nomination for president.

[workinclasszero]

25. Totally agree. /nt

[ZX86]

32. Because to acquiesce to authority

is the highest form of patriotism?

How about the DNC create rules that benefit Democratic voters instead of party bosses? How about that!

[MohRokTah]

35. They DID create rules that benefit Democratic voters.

I have no clue why you are complaining about them.

[jeff47]

88. Really? What's the benefit?

Before this year, a newspaper in New Hampshire could sponsor a debate, where the debate could focus on issues New Hampshire voters were most interested in.

How does that harm Democratic voters?

They might pick a candidate that would make you less money?

[MohRokTah]

94. OFFS

[merrily]

138. Voters benefit from more debates, not fewer.

[jeff47]

91. These aren't the rules of the DNC. They are the proposed rules.

The DNC has yet to explain why these rules are better.

[MohRokTah]

96. These ARE the rules.

They have been set.

Six debates.

End of story.

[jeff47]

97. Sorry, no. The exclusivity rules are new and not yet adopted.

Boy, you really do love to skip over all this ugly "democracy" stuff.

[MohRokTah]

105. Sorry, no, the exclusivity rule went into place and was announced May 5.

It can be changed, but I seriously doubt it.

Rules were similar in 2004 and 2008 and in both years, there were only 6 debates.

[jeff47]

109. No, the rules were not similar. Exclusivity is utterly and completely new.

Because there were actually 34 debates in the 2008 primary. There were a whole lot of those local debates I talked about.

One candidate does not want to attend more than 6 debates. That candidate just happens to be supported by the DNC leadership. And suddenly the leadership comes up with an exclusivity rule. And fails to explain why that exclusivity rule is such a good idea.

Oh, and surprise, surprise, that's your candidate too.

[merrily]

143. +1

[JaneyVee]

7. The Democrat Party, really?

[frazzled]

9. There is no such party

It's the DemocratIC Party. The only people who call it the Democrat Party are Republicans (who were instructed to do so back in the 90s by Newt Gingrich).

[FSogol]

14. I think that was Lee "POS" Atwater's idea. n/t

[jwirr]

44. Do you evidence that FDR did not use Democrat Party?

[MohRokTah]

62. Ahem

http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

He called it what it was, the DEMOCRATIC Party.

[jwirr]

71. But I suspect he called it "the democrat party' also. And I can tell you we did not use this silly

argument to drive a wedge between party members back then. As I have said I have never heard this argument before the last few years. But then I guess we have no more important things to talk about. Like the issues.

[MohRokTah]

74. You are under the burden of proof here.

Provide the text, audio or video where he referred to it by anything other than the proper "Democratic Party", which is what it has been since the days of Jackson.

[Cha]

163. Really. Trying to defend "Democrat Party" on DU? I see the OP changed it.

[MohRokTah]

168. I know, then demanding we prove a negative on top of it. eom

[Art_from_Ark]

84. +1

[appalachiablue]

184. A couple years ago I was sending an email about a heated topic and paused once when

writing the Party. I probably wrote Democrat then changed it, and I've voted D all my life, 4th or 5th gen. Dem. I never noticed a huge fuss until here. It is what it is for Heaven's sake.

[frazzled]

144. Its 2015, not 1940

Get with the program.

[merrily]

142. Well, Democrats who named the New Democrat Coalition came close.

Someone here tried to call me out as a Republican for using the name that New Democrats gave their coalition. Go figure.

[City Lights]

10. No such thing as the "Democrat" Party. It's the Democratic Party. nt

[seabeyond]

13. tells... see i missed that. iddnt see the outraged, but did say i would check back and listen

the answer is clear

democratIC. too excllent.

[ZX86]

19. My bad.

I hate that term.

[City Lights]

22. Thanks for making the correction.

[Spirochete]

188. It's always fun

until someone loses an "I"

and a "C"...

[Duckhunter935]

11. It's DemocratIC

[ZX86]

17. That was an oopsie. It is Democratic Party.

I hate that term! I monitor a lot of right wing media and it must affected me. My apologies. I deserve any and all admonishment for that slip up.

[Duckhunter935]

23. evereybody makes mistakes

[merrily]

145. ....

[FSogol]

12. Big whoop, if you want to appear at another event, you just have to call it

a moderated roundtable discussion or town hall meeting.


PS: It is Democratic Party, not Democrat Party. That's what they call a "tell" in poker.

[MohRokTah]

15. He'd better edit soon or else somebody's gonna alert that shit. eom

[ZX86]

31. Some people around here will alert

on a ham sandwich.

[MohRokTah]

40. Sometimes the Ham Sandwich deserves the alert. eom

[AtomicKitten]

18. WTF. "Democrat Party" ????

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States for the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.

[jwirr]

48. Please show me the evidence that anyone gave a damn back in 1940. Up until the last several

years I have never heard this argument. I guess those of us old enough to remember back then were not so thin skinned and thought there were more important things to argue about. Like the Great Depression.

[AtomicKitten]

99. I simply posted the definition

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 08:30 PM - Edit history (2)

... that I found here: https://www.google.com/search?q=DEMOCRAT+PARTY&oq=democrat+party&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j0j69i60l2j0.2528j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

FTR I think limiting the debates to 6 is bullshit. There were 26 in 2007/08.

[stage left]

21. We Democrats

call it the Democratic party. You don't call the Republican party the Republic Party, do you?

[MohRokTah]

24. I had an aquaintance call it the "Democrat Party" when we were having a heated discussion.

I proceeded to call his party the "Republan Party".

He immediately called me on it.

I said, "Based upon what you called my Party I though we were leaving out the 'I' and 'C' from our respective party names."

He's never called it the "Democrat Party" to my face since then.

[stage left]

186. Good one!

[Thinkingabout]

27. The DNC does not need to have lots of debates. If the candidate can not get their message out in

Six debates then twenty debates is not going to help. If the candidates are running under the Democratic Party then the rules will be determined by the DNC. If you don't like the rules then find a party who will agree to your terms.

[ZX86]

29. Love it or leave it?

Debates used to be sponsored the the League of Women Voters. What was wrong with that arrangement? Why was it changed? To benefit Democratic voters and the American people or to benefit corporate sponsored candidates who want corporate approved questions only?

[MohRokTah]

37. That was only in the GE.

The GOP complained and the LoWV was out.

[Thinkingabout]

38. When you don't have an argument do you think the "corporate" word rolls out.

It doesn't work on me and it will not work on the DNC. When you say you are going to follow the rules of the DNC then stick to your word.

[ZX86]

47. If you don't understand how corporations

have ruined the democratic representation of ordinary citizens of this country there's nothing I can say to help you.

[MohRokTah]

65. OFFS

Same shit was spewed about FDR from the left.

[Thinkingabout]

82. Apparently some feel corporations should share profits with every one.

[MohRokTah]

87. And they wonder why people freak out about Socialism. eom

[ZX86]

98. Yes. It's called being a good corporate citizen

and paying your taxes. When corporations start funding wars and corporate executives and their children start fighting wars they can keep every dime they make. Until then they will be called out for their selfishness.

[MohRokTah]

124. You haveno clue what that term means. eom

[Thinkingabout]

160. You missed on that one. It isn't any wonder this nation doesn't function well.

[merrily]

147. We all share our income. It's called paying taxes. Corps. don't pay a fair share.

Neither do wealthy individuals.

[Scootaloo]

155. Well, if they're going to share the COSTS with everyone, it's only fair

[Thinkingabout]

70. I perhaps do not share your opinion.

[ZX86]

112. If you don't understand that corporations

by their nature only exist to make money for their owners and investors is not an opinion. That's a fact.

[Thinkingabout]

157. I understand the corporation makes money for the owners (shareholders) and it may surprise some but

They also hire people, ergo paying a paycheck. I for one have enjoyed getting a paycheck from a corporation.

[ZX86]

164. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Undue influence in democracy is undue influence in democracy. It doesn't matter how large or small their payroll is. One man, one vote is the standard. Everything else is bull pucky.

[hrmjustin]

30. 6 is enough imo.

[Carewfan]

36. Double it, and you're talking..

[MohRokTah]

41. Don't like it, run for the nomination of a different party.

End of message.

[ZX86]

57. Because when they changed it from outside groups

like the League of Women Voters running debates it was for the best. Having an actual panel of journalists from various newspapers asking questions was bad. Having corporate lackeys like Wolf Blitzer and George Stephanopolus so inside the DC Beltway asking questions is better. Yeah, millionaires asking other millionaires questions is what leads to an informed electorate.

[MohRokTah]

59. The LoWV have NEVER sponsored primary debates.

Please learn the facts.

[ZX86]

120. You're missing the point and focusing on minutiae.

Debates should consist of multiple panelists from various backgrounds and news organizations. Having one White, rich, millionaire, asking other White, rich, millionaires questions approved by the same corporations who sign checks to the both of them to the tune of millions of dollars does not benefit democracy.

[MohRokTah]

121. OFFS

Did you ever think the Democratic Party may not be the party you should belong to?

[ZX86]

134. That would be a no.

What about you?

[MohRokTah]

136. Since I'm very active locally and am a precinct comitteeman, it's definitely

for me.

I get a vote at the state party convention.

Do you?

[ZX86]

139. No.

I busy barely making enough money to feed and house my family.

[MohRokTah]

140. So you cannot spend about 2 hours per month?

What are you doing here then?

2 hours per month in local party meetings has abut a thousand times more effect than 200 hours spent posting on the internet.

[kenfrequed]

201. I am very active as well

I look at what you have written in this entire thread and scratch my head at the vehemence of your arguments. I really want to know what you think you are personally losing by having more debates or what you think our party is gaining with this exclusionary rule.

[hrmjustin]

42. i don't think we need 12. 6 is enough imo.

[jeff47]

95. No, it isn't. Because all 6 are national debates.

Iowa voters are going to care about different issues than New Hampshire voters, and South Carolina voters, and California voters.

Until this election, entities in those states could set up debates focused on issues for that state. These proposed rules remove that, and the DNC hasn't quite gotten around to explaining why it's better.

[hrmjustin]

102. I think you can ask questions about individual state isuues in a national debate.

I think 6 is enough.

[jeff47]

106. Yes, we can completely cover 8-1/3rd states in each debate!!

Again, the problem is the exclusivity agreement. 6 is fine for national debates. Just don't require candidates to skip local debates.

[hrmjustin]

110. Well then the candidates can petition the dnc to change the rules.

[jeff47]

113. How bout the DNC explain why they changed the rules first?

There were 34 debates in the 2008 primary, including 6 national debates sponsored by the DNC. The DNC has yet to explain why they feel the need to force the others to be canceled.

[hrmjustin]

115. Ask them.

[jeff47]

117. I'm not the one with Debbie on speed-dial.

You also operate under the mistaken assumption that the DNC leadership is willing to talk with us lesser folk.

[hrmjustin]

118. Lol point taken. But you are not lesser folk imho.

[jwirr]

34. Yes, it does sound that way.

[bowens43]

49. The Party doesn't care. Understand that. There is only one party. Two ends of the same worm.

the only one who benefits from limiting debates is Hillary. The more she seen the more obvious it is that she should never be president.

[MohRokTah]

51. Ridiculous.

That's some Ralph Nader level bullshit right there.

[workinclasszero]

178. Really? What party would you

recommend then?

[jwirr]

52. Of course all the pro-6 debate supporters are those who's candidate will benefit from the limited

number most. The rest of us have no say. Especially since our DNC chairperson openly supports their candidate.

[arcane1]

60. One candidate will get most of the questions, the rest will get asked only about that candidate n/t

[MohRokTah]

69. If your candidate can't get their shit together i six debates...

any more will only bore the public into a lethargic apathy.

[jeff47]

103. Debates do not have to be national debates.

The DNC can host as many national debates as they want to. The issue is the exclusivity requirement.

Take that out and 6 are fine. Candidates can choose to attend or not attend primary debates set up by other entities.

[MohRokTah]

108. The DNC held 6 debates in 2004.

The DNC held 6 debates in 2008.

Candidates participated exclusively in those debates.

End of story.

[jeff47]

111. No, candidates participated in 34 debates in the 2008 primary.

There were 6 DNC-sponsored debates, and lots of local debates.

You should go back to lying about NAFTA. It's much more comfortable territory for you.

[jeff47]

101. It's such a surprising pattern. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! (nt)

[Jefferson23]

73. If you're not confident in your candidate, you'll want to limit debates and who writes the

questions etc is always interesting too.

[Art_from_Ark]

93. Absolutely

I want to see as many debates as possible, moderated by people who aren't on a fat corporate payroll.

[Jefferson23]

167. I would like that.n/t

[merrily]

146. It's a disadvantage to candidates who are less well known and less well funded.

Before announcing, Hillary had 91% name recognition.

[Jefferson23]

165. snip*

An advisor to a presidential campaign has accused the Democratic National Committee of “not negotiating in good faith” over plans to limit the number of debates in the party’s 2016 presidential primary.

The DNC announced on Tuesday that it would only authorise six debates in the party’s 2016 primary, 22 fewer than the number held in 2008. Starting in October, each of the four states holding early nominating contests (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) will each hold one debate as will two other states to be determined.

The DNC will also introduce an “exclusivity clause” which would ban candidates from official debates if they appeared in ones which it had not sanctioned.

However, according to the campaign advisor, the DNC had originally ruled out an exclusivity clause saying it was “undemocratic” and such a rule would be “unfair and too punitive”.

The aide claimed the DNC had not “negotiated in good faith with campaigns” and that “the cake was baked” from the start. The advisor predicted that “the DNC is going to find the schedule unenforceable. It will fall apart”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/07/democratic-national-committee-didnt-act-in-good-faith-over-primary-debate-limit

Interesting

[ZX86]

177. Democratic and exclusivity

are mutually exclusive. If a candidate doesn't want to debate they shouldn't have to. Candidates that do debate should not be punished.

[Jefferson23]

179. Exactly. That it was changed from 22 is telling.n/t

[merrily]

185. That's The Guardian, seen by us political junkies and 14 other people. Let's see if the DNC toughs

it out or not.

In any event, at least we have Bernie speaking out against it on TV for America to hear.

Super delegates who, in a nation of 350 million souls, get about 20% of the vote.

An anointee who is an incumbent gets no primary, followed by trying to repeat that with an anointee who is not even an incumbent.

If sucessful, that would have meant maybe a dozen years without a meaningful primary--our one realistic chance at having a say.

And when the efforts to discourage a challenger fail, they change the rules to favor someone with 91% name recognition and hundreds of millions of dollars.

And that's the Democratic Party.

Honestly, I don't know how much longer I can stomach things like this. Something needs to change.

[jwirr]

76. I am so glad we have ignore. BTW not for you.

[JI7]

78. you do realize it's a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

nothing is stopping Sanders from getting out and directly talking to the people which matters more anyways since Obama didn't stand out much among the other dems in the debates . but he was an amazing campaigner and won people over through that.

[ZX86]

181. But if he talks directly to another candidate

he should be punished? That's nonsense. The Democratic Party should not be in the business of limiting free speech.

[orpupilofnature57]

89. That's the truth, another fixture to steer the Election away from voters,

and where Insiding misanthropes prey on human nature and ingratiate us out of our Democracy .

[merrily]

116. This is to protect the only candidate who starts primary season with 91%f name recognition.

[Teamster Jeff]

141. The root of the problem is that the DNC can't be trusted nm

[DCBob]

180. They dont want a repeat of what happened to the GOP in 2012.

I think there were 20 and it took its toll on the eventual nominee.

[stage left]

187. The More debates the better.

I look forward to our Democratic candidates wiping the floor with their Republican rivals.

[Scuba]

193. Limiting debates favors the candidate with the highest name recogniton, ergo the policy.

[NCTraveler]

196. Derp. nt.

[tularetom]

197. Funny how everybody on this thread who agrees with this silly debate limitation

has the same avatar.

[azmom]

204. Limiting debates goes against everything Democracy stands for.

It's not right.