DNC Chair Closes Door On More Debates

[Purveyor]

Source: The Hill

September 10, 2015, 10:01 am

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is closing the door on adding more Democratic presidential debates, and says that a controversial clause penalizing candidates for participating in unsanctioned debates will stand.

Speaking at a breakfast with reporters hosted by The Christian Science Monitor, Wasserman Schultz said the debate schedule was final and there would be no changes.

“We’re not changing the process. We’re having six debates,” said Wasserman Schultz, who has been under fire from several Democratic presidential candidates over the debates. “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.”

In recent weeks, pressure has been building on the DNC to grow the debate schedule. The national party has sanctioned six debates, a dramatic cutback from 2008, when there were about two-dozen.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253196-dnc-chair-closes-door-on-more-debates

---

Calls Mount For Changes To Democratic Debate Process

09/09/15 10:42 PM—Updated 09/10/15 01:53 PM

In a major victory for underdog Democratic presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, two top officials with the Democratic National Committee publicly broke with the party Wednesday night, calling for changes to the debate process that the candidates have advocated.

In a joint statement posted to Facebook, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, both vice chairs for the DNC, called for increasing the number of debates and said a so-called exclusivity clause was a “mistake.”

“As vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee, we are calling for several more debates than the six currently scheduled, and withdrawing the proposed sanctions against candidates who choose to participate in non-DNC sanctioned debates,” they wrote.

So far, the DNC has not budged. At a breakfast with reporters Thursday in Washington sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz made it clear she had no interest in changing the rules. “We’re not changing the process. We’re having six debates,” she said. “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.”

more...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/calls-mount-changes-democratic-debate-process

[redwitch]

1. Sanctions against candidates participating in other debates is bullshit.

Man I am beginning to loathe the DNC. I am a lifelong Democrat, cast my first vote for Jimmy Carter and this just makes me furious!

[thesquanderer]

10. The sanctions are toothless.

Let's say that Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee got together for a debate. Now the next "official" debate rolls around. What are they going to do, put Hillary on the stage by herself? Cancel the debate? Neither of these options are viable for the democratic party.

[elleng]

14. but they WON'T get together,

many/most/some either don't care or are afraid. The chief beneficiary of appearing separately would be Martin O'Malley, and hrc and maybe bernie don't want to appear with him, imo.

[restorefreedom]

62. it would only work if they all did it

but if all 4 non hrc candidates agreed, then the dnc would be screwed. i agree, om is hurt the most by this non debate schedule. and my guess is that none of them want to miss a chance at facing hillary.

dws has effectively screwed over four good candidates (ok three good ones plus webb imo), the party, the country, and democracy itself.

too bad she probably sleeps well at night, although i don't know how.

[thesquanderer]

82. I realized. there's also the Biden factor

If Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee agreed to do a debate themselves, as I said, HRC can't debate herself, so the "offical" debates get cancelled unless they dismiss the exclusivity rule... EXCEPT if Biden then jumps in, and then the "official" debate is simply between HRC and Biden... which the DNC would probably love. That's where their leverage is, as long as Biden is even a theoretical possibility for entry into the race.

[restorefreedom]

83. very plausible scenerio

but Joe would have to be definitely all in. I think he would smell it a mile away if he thought the DNC was just using him to have Hillary have a debate partner. I think she still wind up looking bad.

[SusanaMontana41]

63. Martin O'Malley is a threat to Bernie? Rubbish. eom

[elleng]

66. I said, 'maybe bernie,' you know.

[SusanaMontana41]

77. No problemo!

I was just throwing in my $.02.

We all like debate. I'm here to learn. DU is a great teacher.

[passiveporcupine]

29. The sanctions are not toothless

Hillary would probably be very pleased to be the only dem on the stage against repubs. I think she would happy to skip any debates against other dems.

[arcane1]

2. A toast to those two voices of reason, however unheeded they may be

[closeupready]

3. Debbie Wasserman Scultz needs to go, period.

[DebbieCDC]

12. Amen!!

[Babel_17]

54. I want more debates, so yes

Maybe referring to her as "Clinton ally, DWS", and "opponent of President Obama's treaty with Iran, DWS", will help grease the skids for her departure. I'm hoping for a major drive calling for her ouster. I think the administration might be willing to signal that they agree it's time, after the Senate finally recognizes reality regarding the treaty with Iran.

[mpcamb]

72. Where do we write to, asking for her expulsion?

She's either a tool or a fool or a turncoat.
Don't we all support Democratic ideals?

[George II]

4. She didn't "close the door" - it was never truly OPEN! There will be SIX debates, live with it!!

[rhett o rick]

8. DWS is a close friend of H.Clinton. This is totally irresponsible. She is acting like a tyrant and

not listening to the grassroots of the Party. Not unexpected from the DLC wing of the Party. The fix is in.

Risk losing the general to assure that H. Clinton doesn't have to answer any questions. The Oligarchs will do anything to prevent a progressive from winning the nomination.

[George II]

24. MOST members of the DNC are "close friends" of past and present Democratic office holders.

[retrowire]

33. open your eyes. n/t

[Gore1FL]

49. I hope most are not "close" enough to rig the game against other "close friends." n/t

[rhett o rick]

56. You are really scrambling with your rationalizations. DWS is limiting debates to help her very

close friend H. Clinton. That has nothing to do with what you said. She should be neutral and support a democratic process. This type of insider crap is hurting the Party. The reason that so many people are coming forward to support Sen Sanders is their desire to end the established corruption of our Party.

[AgingAmerican]

68. She is Hillary's campaign co-chair

From 2008. She is trying to rig the primaries for Hillary. She will fail and step down in humiliation.

[Ikonoklast]

40. So much this. They know Clinton will "work with them", and Bernie will spit in their eye.

As my dear aged father told me the other day, he would rather vote for an actual Republican and get screwed because you know it's coming, than a fake one who calls herself a Democrat and still get screwed.

[rhett o rick]

58. And that's exactly the position that Goldman-Sachs and the Oligarchy want us in.

Clinton or Bush or Clinton or Bush. The choices of the billionaires.

[appalachiablue]

73. +1

[JDPriestly]

13. We need more debates.

If we lose in 2016 after this gag order from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Party will either see enormous change or will fall apart.

Mark my words.

If we lose in 2016 after this gag order from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Party will either see enormous change or will fall apart.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is taking a huge risk if she enforces this decision. It is a very bad, very unwise decision.

It gives a lot of free air-time to Republican ideas and cuts back on the air-time given to the Democratic ones.

For all their differences, all of our candidates are good spokespeople for our Party, and they all deserve, and our party deserves, more TV coverage.

Also, if the DLC deviants in our Party were really opposed to Citizens United, they would want many debates so that money would not be such a big determinant in the amount of airtime and coverage that our candidates are getting.

And Citizens United is the issue that most divides the Hillary crowd from the Sanders supporters.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's stance on this is, in my view, very pro-Citizens United in that it empowers the monied elite who can buy air-time.

[Enthusiast]

64. Exactly. nt

[morningfog]

22. Yep. Because more and earlier debates would only hurt Hillary.

[totodeinhere]

25. We are not going to live with it. What is Clinton hiding from? Why doesn't

she want more debates? And it is not fair for one candidate to have the DNC chair in her pocket. This is bullshit.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Debbie can --

twirl on it. The fact that candidates cannot appear at other debates makes it abundantly clear this is SOLELY about protecting Hillary.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Now you all can feel our pain.

[jwirr]

7. I assume DWS is not up for election this year? I

would be very glad to donate to whoever is running against her. But I doubt she will be running again as she thinks she is going to get a good job in the government.

[jeff47]

23. She's in the House, so she's up.

No idea if she has a primary opponent.

[HooptieWagon]

34. I think she does. nt

[jwirr]

37. Thank you. I will look into it.

[Divernan]

9. Time for Democratic Party to close the door on Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Debbie!

[SoapBox]

11. Wow...the ARROGANCE.

Of all the fucking "brass".

[SusanaMontana41]

50. Cowards. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

15. There is nothing democratic about Schultz, she is a disgrace.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.

[erronis]

16. "Spiral out of control" - nice eupemsim for not getting your boss into the CIC seat.

“If you don’t have the national party put a reasonable number of debates on the schedule and insist that the number is adhered to, it starts to spiral out of control and the entire contest becomes built around the debate schedule,” she said.

After HRC said earlier (today/yesterday) that she was in favor of more debates. Way to go Hillary! Use your surrogates to deliver the grim news - as we knew you would.

[jeff47]

21. Clinton never said she was in favor of more debates. She said she was "open" to them.

As in, does not oppose. But "does not oppose" is quite different from supporting.

[Geronimoe]

17. This could backfire

If Hillary's numbers keep falling, she'll be the one demanding more debates. And surly Debbie will reopen the closed door.

[jwirr]

39. I was thinking that also.

[msongs]

18. so which candidates will put action before their words and participate in outside debates? nt

[LongTomH]

19. "Offfff with their heads!!!!!" -- the Red Queen screamed!

[morningfog]

20. And HIllary thanks her.

[Gregorian]

26. It's meaningless since they aren't even debates anymore.

Sanders is getting his message out without the permission of Miss What's Her Name.

[Truprogressive85]

27. Debates should never have set number

I expect this type of funny play from Republicans ,but for a Democrat to say well 6 debates is enough its really pathetic.

On top of that if a candidate wants to debate outside the 6 debates than they are sanctioned


The DNC wont get a penny out of me until DWS is replaced

The Democratic Party has been tainted with corporate venom that is killing the party
The party bosses love that corporate money so much

[Bonhomme Richard]

28. All it would take is for all our candidates to get together and....

plan a debate elsewhere. Then what would she do?
This will also tell us who actually wants more debates and who doesn't.

[yeoman6987]

52. The DNC would then not give a dime to the candidates who don't follow the rules

And of course those that would do that are in most need of funding.

[Bonhomme Richard]

70. Do you really think that the DNC wouldn't give them a dime if....

they all banded together and did it.
That would be crazy.

[yeoman6987]

71. Six months ago I'd say no way. But the behavior has been sketchy lately so I wouldn't doubt it

[bowens43]

30. the last thing they want is more exposure for bernie,

The have to protect the anointed one.....

[CincyDem]

31. I caught my wife getting ready to drop a DNC contribution in the mail...

...it's been a usual thing for us and not something that we usually discuss in advance. It was only by coincidence that I was taking the mail out and noticed the envelope. Told her I was dead set against it but we would send it on if, after her doing a little more reading, she still felt it was right. She's a big picture person and I'm more the day to day details but, in general, we usually end up on the same side of just about every issue by our own paths.

She wasn't aware of the current issues with debate schedules, the code of silence constraint (no other debates) or the unwillingness to have a DNC resolution to support the current Democratic President (Iran). Needless to say, by the time she dug into a little more that little check is going into the void pile. We'll support candidates directly.

Good that I was taking the mail out.

[peacebird]

43. We also stopped sending money to the DSCC, & the DNC. We send to the individual candidates now

[SoapBox]

47. I keep getting emails for Store sales...

Delete.

[MurrayDelph]

75. Good start

but you need to let them know WHY you've stopped sending them money.

I wrote them that I would not send any money as long as their chair is gaming the system for her preferred candidate, since until the primaries we don't have A candidate, we have several potential candidates.

[LibDemAlways]

32. Candidates could agree to a series of

"round table discussions" in order to take the word "debate" off the table. Let DWS sit on the sidelines and stew.

[Fearless]

36. The kind of politics that is wrong with Washington.

[hobbit709]

38. The fix is in.

The inside the Beltway leadership is determined to make sure their Anointed One is the candidate and no dissenting voices are allowed.

[peacebird]

44. The CEO of Goldman Sux has said he would be equally happy w either Hillary or Jeb as Pres....

[Phil1934]

41. Expanding on that

If two candidates are invited to a Sunday morning news show, will that be considered a debate?

[frylock]

42. I'm really going to enjoy watching her downfall.

[BlueJazz]

45. 2 things that are not good for your health.

LITTLE DEBBIE
.
.

.
.
AND LITTLE DEBBIE
.
.

[SoapBox]

48. LOL

[virgdem]

46. Well then, it's time to close the door...

on little Debbie. Not one more penny to her re-election campaign or to the DNC.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. Bye Debbie. Don't forget to pack your curling iron.

[Indepatriot]

53. She needs to get got ...(electorally speaking)

I will contribute to any Democrat who runs against her (within reason). She is emblematic of just how bad things have gotten for the Democratic party.

[gerryatwork]

55. A threat by Sanders....

... as a 3rd party candidate unless they expanded the debates would instantly change the mind of the DNC.

[rhett o rick]

59. I don't at all agree. They want H. Clinton as their nominee. That is more important than losing

the general. The threat would play into their hands. The Oligarchy would love Sen Sanders as a Third Party candidate. They want either Clinton or Bush.

[restorefreedom]

65. agree 1000 %

dws does not care about the general, the party, or the country, or for that matter, democracy itself.

her agenda is clear.

she might as well start practicing her cursive R's cuz that is what she is.

[Ed Suspicious]

57. Fuck her.

[blackspade]

60. Debbie is such a scumbag.

"a controversial clause penalizing candidates for participating in unsanctioned debates will stand."

She could have gone half way by eliminating this bullshit condition.

[Unknown Beatle]

61. Why is Obama staying silent on this?

Is it because he's friends with both the Clinton's and Bush's? Is it because he knows that it will help Hillary and if she's elected president, she'll continue with shielding wall st. and she'll continue with drone strikes?

Did he issue her an ultimatum, vote for the Iran plan and I'll let you be to do what you want?

Obama's silence is a cause for concern.

[MisterP]

67. this is a wheels-coming-off moment: they're attacking immediate subordinates,

they're saying that a schedule written when there were no other candidates is fine, they say we're gonna get as much democratic process as THEY'LL allow us; Clinton is very clearly being shielded, and very clearly needs the shielding

of course the debates will be three expert pols talking at each other and Clinton trying to bring up guns over and over, and Sanders will note the NRA hates him, call on the Senate, and note that it'll happen pretty quickly if politics weren't held hostage to any corporation that comes by and complains and moves to responding to the people

[davidn3600]

69. What job did Hillary promise Debbie in the White House?

It's amazing how much the DNC is protecting Hillary. Why don't they just declare her the nominee and save everyone the trouble. It's what they want.

[mhatrw]

74. It would not be Democratic to have too much democracy!

[LiberalElite]

76. That's what SHE thinks eom

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

78. DWS makes me nauseous.

[fadedrose]

79. Is HC the only candidate against more debates?

What happened to democracy, Debbie?


We are on our way to a dictatorship? Already?

[phollins347]

80. How far are rules going

There seems to files for every little thing one does these days. Now candidates are being penalized for participating in unsanctioned debates. In the first place what makes the debates unsanctioned. Do they have to deal with ethical issues,?

[davidpdx]

81. I'm glad the DNC has decided only six states are "special" and therefore deserve debates

The other 44, well fuck those states. Those states don't need no fucking debates.

List of Debates by Region:
Northeast: 1
South: 2
Midwest: 2
West: 1

Tell me which regions are getting the best deal?

I have heard people complain that minorities are not given enough attention, but it is the good ole' DNC that is putting the debates in states that have overwhelmingly white population. So why isn't there outrage?

Debate States (% of white population based on 2013 numbers)
Nevada: 76.7
Iowa 92.5
New Hampshire 94.2
Wisconsin 88.1
Florida 78.1
South Carolina: 68.3

Thanks Debbie!!!!!!!!!!