Democrats will hold 12 debates for the 2020 presidential contest

[bearsfootball516]

Source: NBC

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee announced on Thursday that it will sanction 12 upcoming presidential primary debates, with the first ones taking place in June and July of 2019, DNC Chairman Tom Perez said on a conference call with reporters.

Six of the debates will take place in 2019, Perez said, while the other six will be held in 2020, with the final one occurring in April of 2020. Perez announced that none of the states with the first nominating contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — would host a debate until the 2020 calendar year.

Given the potential size of the Democratic field, Perez said the DNC would split the debates into separate events on back-to-back nights, with participation on a particular evening determined by a random selection open to the public.

That’s in contrast to the early Republican presidential debates in 2016, when the GOP held an undercard debate on the same day before the primetime debate featuring the major candidates.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-will-hold-12-debates-2020-presidential-contest-n950391

---

Link to tweet

[jalan48]

1. Great to see. No repeat of 2016 on this one.

[George II]

8. No repeat of 2016? In 2016 (beginning in 2015) there were nine debates and 13 forums. Plus....

...there was a planned debate in May 2016 between Sanders and trump!

Tuesday October 13, 2015 – Las Vegas, Nevada
Saturday November 14, 2015 – Des Moines, Iowa
Saturday December 19, 2015 – Goffstown, New Hampshire
Sunday January 17, 2016 – Charleston, South Carolina
Thursday February 4, 2016 – Durham, New Hampshire
Thursday February 11, 2016 – Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Sunday March 6, 2016 – Flint, Michigan
Wednesday March 9, 2016 – Miami, Florida
Thursday April 14, 2016 – Brooklyn, New York
Planned May debate/Potential Sanders/Trump debate

November 6, 2015 – Rock Hill, South Carolina
November 24, 2015 – MoveOn.org
January 11, 2016 – Des Moines, Iowa
January 25, 2016 – Des Moines, Iowa
February 3, 2016 – Derry, New Hampshire
February 18, 2016 – Las Vegas, Nevada
February 23, 2016 – Columbia, South Carolina
March 7, 2016 – Detroit, Michigan
March 13, 2016 – Columbus, Ohio
March 14, 2016 – Columbus, Ohio and Springfield, Illinois
March 21, 2016 – Washington, D.C
March 30, 2016 – Wisconsin and New York City
April 25, 2016 – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

[jalan48]

19. That's a 33% increase in the number of debates. Way to go Dems!

[ehrnst]

41. From 9 to 12. But it does gives one another chance to get in a slam on Dems for 2016, doesn't it?

Great to see. No repeat of 2016 on this one.

No matter how small the difference.

[jalan48]

56. Ah, reality. Sometimes one just wants to be like an ostrich and ignore it.

[ehrnst]

67. ...

Look who's talkin.

[jalan48]

70. Here's lookin at ya...

[ehrnst]

71. "i know i am but what r U?"

[ehrnst]

66. "Fetishists?"

[LanternWaste]

68. I'd refer to proud Democrats as fetishists too... had I nothing of substance to offer.

I'd also pretend DUers know little of the real world.

Alternative facts are trendy and popular, and I don't blame you at all for co-opting some of them.

[JackRiddler]

76. That was NOT the original plan

Some of us remember well that the DNC tried to prevent late debates and several (including the one in New York) were added after DWS and HRC came under pressure from the grassroots.

[JudyM]

10. Exactly. Good to see new leadership learned that lesson.

[ehrnst]

28. What lesson? (nt)

[phandancer917]

2. My hope...

...is that they allow ALL candidates participate this year...as opposed to blocking Michael O'Malley from debating last year.

As an older guy (50), I really would like some younger blood in the mix. I will support the candidate, no matter who is nominated.

Please no more 50 year veterans....Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Michael O'Malley et al instead of old line folks.

[NurseJackie]

3. Are you referring to MARTIN O'Malley?

Are you referring to MARTIN O'Malley?

My hope...
...is that they allow ALL candidates participate this year...as opposed to blocking Michael O'Malley from debating last year.

When was O'Malley "blocked" from participating in any of the debates? (When you say "last year", I presume you mean 2016?)

[OnDoutside]

4. We'll never forget you, Michael O'Malley !

[NurseJackie]

5. ...

[George II]

6. Ah Michael, we hardly knew ye!

[still_one]

12. Obviously it is Mike to his close friends, Martin to everyone else

[Gothmog]

25. LOL

[Jose Garcia]

7. O'Malley was invited to and participated in all of the debates prior to

his dropping out: lhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums#Presidential_debates

Perhaps you forgot because his performances weren't that impressive.

[elleng]

15. because party, in concert with networks,

limited his participation (in # minutes allotted to him.)

[NurseJackie]

16. Yes. I'm sure that's it. Definitely.

[ehrnst]

30. Isn't that true for all candidates? (nt)

[elleng]

32. I don't know whether or not the Party informed the moderators that

Lincoln Chafee's time in debates should be limited, but I do know that happened re: Governor O'Malley.

[ehrnst]

34. What happened re: Governor O'Malley? (nt)

[elleng]

36. The party determined he should receive only 3 minutes worth of time

in at least one debate, and the network complied.

[ehrnst]

37. Again- wasn't that true for all the candidates?

Why do you think that O'Malley was treated any differently?

What is your source that he was treated any differently by the party? (You can PM me, if you feel hesitant to post. I'm genuinely curious)

ABC had the same criteria for everyone.

[NurseJackie]

45. Unbelievable.

[elleng]

46. I wish.

O'Malley points to fewer questions in presidential debates.

*"The rules are never designed in a way to help the challenger," O'Malley told WMAR's Richard Sher.

"The public never was told this, but they would tell us, 'Look, Secretary Clinton's going to get 50 percent of the questions, Senator Sanders is going to get 40 percent and you're going to get 10 percent of the questions,'" he said. "And they said, 'If you want to be heard, you're going to have to jump in on one of their questions.'"

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-sun-investigates-omalley-debate-20160521-story.html?

And:

O'Malley: CNN limited debate time for low-polling candidates.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omalley-cnn-limited-debate-time-for-low-polling-candidates?

[NurseJackie]

47. Looks like these things are determined at the network level, by journalists.

"But for the primary debates, several analysts said, networks have more journalistic license to choose who gets which questions — and how many."

Looks like these things are determined at the network level, by journalists, not by the party.

because party, in concert with networks,
limited his participation (in # minutes allotted to him.)

Did I overlook where there was collusion with the DNC? Neither link you provided supports such a claim.

[ehrnst]

65. Not seeing where "the Party" limited his questions. Source?

It sounds like it's "wishing" something that isn't true.

[Me.]

9. Personally I Don't Care To Profile Anyone

a good leader is a good leader and the best leaders are the best leaders regardless.

[Power 2 the People]

14. +1

[Hortensis]

29. Well, the debates had a Jim, a Bernie, a Hillary, a Martin,

and a Lincoln (had to look that whatshisname up). But you're right: no Michael.



As for your ageism, has it occurred that you no longer meet your own requirements and perhaps should retire your voice? Except for voting once every two years of course.

Be the change you want to see.

[SCantiGOP]

39. I had forgotten about Jim Webb

He needs to switch parties and help rebuild some sort of 'moderate republican' wing of their party, cause he doesn't have a place in the Democratic Party.

[Hortensis]

53. Yes, his aggrieved white males split between

Sanders and Trump, poor guy. I had trouble remembering his name also. Agree redeveloping a moderate plank for Republicans would be a worthy task, just doubt he'd make a success of it there either.

[Eric J in MN]

43. Lawrence Lessig is the guy who wanted to debate

...last time but wasn’t invited.

[brooklynite]

11. Is there any indication that candidates would be penalized for attending a "non-sanctioned" debate?

NYC is going through a Special Election for Public Advocate, with 18+ candidates, and there are dozens of candidate forums being organized by political and community groups.

[Eric J in MN]

23. It says the DNC will ask candidates to only go to official debates, but

...won't ask them to avoid forums (where one candidate at a time is on stage.)

It doesn't that they will be punished if they ignore the request.

[still_one]

13. As long as they are registered Democrats who have filled the appropriate papers I have no problem

No non Democrats

[NurseJackie]

17. Totally!

[Eric J in MN]

24. 19 states have no party registration, including VT (and my state of MN). NT

NT

[still_one]

26. Patrick Leahy is a Democrat. Gee, he has not problem with that LABEL, and neither do the

DEMOCRATS in Minnesota, so your argument doesn't cut it

and in case you are UNAWARE, Senator Sanders BECAME a Democrat when he was running for President

Ralph Nader tried to pull that bullshit a few years back to participate in the Democratic party primary debates, and fortunately, that asshole was DENIED

You want to participate in the Democratic Debates then you become a Democrat, or start your own party, and make your own rules

[Eric J in MN]

42. Was Ralph Nader seeking the Democratic nomination? NT

NT

[still_one]

48. That was a misstatement on my part. Nader wanted to take part in the Presidential debates even

though he had less than 5% of support, which failed to meet the requirement.

As far as I am concerned my other points hold. ANYONE who wants be a Democratic candidate has to register join the Democratic party, or they should NOT be part of the Democratic debates

[elleng]

33. Thanks

[still_one]

49. Sp you are for people who WON'T join the Democratic party, running for the Democratic nomination

of that party?

Patrick Leahy and every other DEMOCRAT in those states that don't require party registration have NO PROBLEM JOINING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and proudly IDENTIFYING AS A DEMOCRAT

Anyone who has a problem identifying as a DEMOCRAT, and wants to RUN AS A DEMOCRAT, I have two words for them

**** ****

[George II]

40. Fellow Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has been a member of the Democratic Party since before....

....he was first elected to the Senate in 1974, forty-four years ago.

Vermont has conducted separate Democratic and republican primaries for decades. You can verify this on https://ballotpedia.org

[still_one]

50. Also George, those who want to run for the Democratic nomination have no problem joining the

Democratic party, and wearing the Democratic label, whether their states requires party registration or not.

Anyone who doesn't want to do that, does NOT deserve to be part of the Democratic process where DEMOCRATS determine who their nominee will be

[SCantiGOP]

18. Meanwhile, South Carolina's GOP

which has been very protective of their disproportionate role with the 3rd primary is considering not holding any primary in 2020 so Donnie the Snowflake won't get his feelings hurt by having to beat someone who says nasty things about him. The head of the party said this was an obvious move since "everyone" in the SC GOP supports the Prez.

If we had a truth-in-labeling law for politics the GOP would have to change their name to the Undemocratic Party (or I guess the Undemocrat Party as Rush and FOX would label it).

[still_one]

20. If that is what the republicans want, they deserve what they get. Their primaries also are winner

take all. They do not have proportional allocation of delegates.

Nothing about the GOP is Democratic

[SCantiGOP]

38. I don't think it's what they want

I think they are just motivated by pure fear and self-preservation. Especially in the deep red states they are scared to death of getting on the wrong side of Trump, because that's how they get primaried and lose their seats.
That's how we overcame an expected 6 point loss to flip the 1st District seat around Charleston for the first time in almost 40 years. Trump came out strong against the incumbent who was very conservative but had two flaws - he was opposed to offshore drilling and had other liberal to moderate environmental stances; and - his most grievous sin - he spoke out against Trump. We couldn't have beaten the incumbent but we surprised the "I'm with Trump all the way" idiot that won the primary.

[left-of-center2012]

21. May the best candidate win

Regardless of race, gender, etc.

[Eric J in MN]

22. What's the benefit in asking candidates to only participate in authorized debates?

In 2008, there was no such request from the DNC, there were a lot of debates, and we won the White House.

[still_one]

27. We didn't win the WH because of the debates.

[ehrnst]

31. How so? (nt)

[still_one]

55. I believe the debates convince very little people who are not already true believers who they are

going to vote for.

The 2008 financial crisis was a significant part of it, and the republican policies were held responsible for it.

By the time 2008 came about it was clear that the Iraq war was based on a lie, wasted billions of dollars, over a million lives were lost, and the entire middle east was destablized as a result of the foreign policy disaster.

It became very clear that the republican choice for VP was a compete idiot, and her ignorance and inane jumble of words everytime she opened her mouth questioned the judgement of the republican candidate.

However, in my view the most significant issue was the economic collapse which motivated people to get out and vote Democratic

[ehrnst]

73. So how were the debates the "reason we lost?" (nt)

[still_one]

77. I believe you are reading my response out of context ehrnst. I was responding to the 2008 election

which we won. The person I was responding to was arguing that there shouldn't be a need for authorized debates, and he used 2008 as his justification for that, also implying that the more debates the better.

I was responding that I don't believe the debates significantly change anyone's view


The reason we lost in 2016 wasn't because of the debates, it was because of Comey, those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting, and the shabby media coverage of the whole mess


After Comey released the letter to the republicans 11 days before the elections, every media outlet was saying the email investigation was being reopened. THAT WAS A LIE. They then paraded every right winger accross the news outlets spewing that lie for the next several days.


I could go on with the other lies and distortions that the media presented as fact, but I think you are aware of what happened.


Hillary was ahead 4-5 points in all the polls until that event occurred.


Of course there was the Russian and other trolls use of social media, along with Facebook allowing their medium to be used as a propaganda tool for these trolls


Anyway, I may not have worded it correctly, but I was referring to the 2008 election which we won, and I gave the reasons why I thought other factors had more influence then the debates in that election, the most important being the economic collapse under bush

[George II]

54. Were there any unauthorized debates (I seriously don't remember either way)? However....

...in 2016 a debate was arranged between Sanders and trump to be held in May.

Link to tweet

trump backed out, uncharacteristically saying it would be "inappropriate".

[Jim Lane]

58. That's the whole point. The DNC's coercive tactic succeeded.

In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz introduced a new innovation: The DNC would not only approve certain debates, but it would demand the exclusive right to do so, and would enforce that new power by barring, from its "approved" debates, any candidate who had the temerity to engage in an exchange of ideas not approved by the DNC.

The candidates who were disadvantaged by the artificially truncated debate schedule complained about the new rule. Nevertheless, they were forced to acquiesce. The new rule achieved its purpose. The DNC succeeded in drastically reducing the number of debates, as compared with the calendar during the previous competitive cycle (2008). Furthermore, the DNC's stranglehold on the debate schedule enabled it to further diminish the debates' impact by starting them later in the season and holding them at times that reduced viewership.

If, in the next cycle, the DNC gives up its attempt to stifle debates it doesn't like, then that will be a step forward.

[George II]

60. "Coercive"? BTW, during the period of the 2016 debates there were 13, over the same period...

...in 2008 there were 12.

There were a number of debates in the summer of 2007 (a YEAR before the convention!) that were essentially pointless. By year end most of those who participated in them were about to withdraw. And hardly anyone watched the few that were televised.

As for being "coercive", I suppose the NFL is "coercive" for making their player wear helmets.

Who would you propose establish rules for the Democratic debates? The RNC? Congress? Baseball Commissioner?

[Jim Lane]

61. Very clever "no true Scotsman" argument.

One of the widely voiced criticisms of the 2015-16 schedule was that the debates started several months later than in 2008. The Republicans had the airwaves all to themselves for a long time.

I criticized that aspect of the schedule. You respond by looking only at the part of the 2015-16 schedule during which the DNC deigned to allow any debates, as if those were the only debates that mattered.

And, yes, "coercive", damn right. AFAIK, neither major party had ever before attempted to prevent candidates from debating, but that's what the DNC did. Its innovation last cycle was to announce that it would bar from all of its approved debates any candidate(s) who participated in a single non-approved debate. The threat of exclusion from the debates that would get the most attention was powerful enough to bludgeon the disadvantaged candidates into reluctant compliance.

The latest release from the DNC suggests that that particular undemocratic practice, at least, won't be repeated. The wording could be more forceful. Nevertheless, I commend the DNC for correcting one of the mistakes it made last cycle.

[George II]

62. No doubt they started several months later because there was very little interest in 2008.

None were on broadcast network television and a number of them weren't televised at all.

Who did the DNC attempt to prevent from debating and if so, what were the circumstances?

[Jim Lane]

64. There may just be some doubt about the motivation.

You ask, "Who did the DNC attempt to prevent from debating and if so, what were the circumstances?"

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what additional information you're looking for, beyond what I provided. I'll try rephrasing. The DNC (or, more precisely, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, acting without a vote of the full DNC) approved a small number of debates, which were thereby guaranteed to be the best-watched. The new rule she imposed in the 2015-16 cycle was that any candidate participating in any other debate would be barred from those "officially" approved debates. Thus, the candidate who were prevented from debating were, nominally, all of them, and the circumstances were that they were all effectively prevented from joining in additional debates in any other forum.

Now, I admit, the prevention was only nominal as to any candidate(s) who would not have wanted more debates, earlier debates, or debates held at more propitious times. Any such candidate was happy with the reduced schedule. There were, however, candidates who were not as widely known and who hoped to use the debates to bring their ideas to the attention of the Democratic primary voters. The unusually constricted schedule worked to their disadvantage.

If you want me to spell it out any more explicitly for you, you'll have to start a thread on Discussionist or some such place and send me a link.

Anyway, my bottom line, as per my previous post, is that the procedures just announced by the DNC are, IMO, an improvement over what happened last cycle. You didn't expressly address that point. If you don't join in my praise of the DNC on this score, that's certainly your right. DU is and should be open to people who offer constructive criticism of the DNC.

[JudyM]

69. Well stated, Jim. This was a major point of contention that alienated many voters. DNC is redeeming

itself by depoliticizing, so to speak, the debate structure now, in advance of any problems. This action, itself, is a healing unification.

[philly_bob]

35. Looking forward to making up my mind.

The occasional DU'er backing a candidate this early is regular pre-primary maneuvering. Let's be easy on each other and not be divided.

For the record, I know next to nothing about Kamala and Beto.

[Iggo]

44. I recuse myself from this discussion.

[itsrobert]

51. Key word.... "Democrats"

No more freeloaders I hope.

[Eric J in MN]

75. Bernie Sanders fundraises for the DSCC and donates to it. NT

NT

[George II]

78. Sanders hasn't contributed anything to the DSCC over the last two years.

Here are contributions from Senate Committees, Senators, DCCC, and Senate candidates in 2017-2018 (I may have missed a few):

$1,000,000.00 PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY
$737,000.00 MCCASKILL 2018 VICTORY
$649,000.00 HOUSE SENATE VICTORY FUND
$496,000.00 MICHIGAN SENATE VICTORY 2018
$368,000.00 MASSACHUSETTS SENATE VICTORY 2018
$350,200.00 OHIO SENATE VICTORY 2018
$346,100.00 FLORIDA SENATE 2018
$259,903.59 KAINE VICTORY FUND
$250,000.00 ELIZABETH FOR MA INC.
$247,000.00 PENNSYLVANIA SENATE VICTORY 2018
$229,000.00 RHODE ISLAND SENATE VICTORY 2018
$198,579.45 DCCC
$155,000.00 CALIFORNIA SENATE VICTORY 2018
$151,500.00 OHIO 2018 VICTORY
$150,000.00 FRIENDS OF CHRIS MURPHY
$141,250.00 KAINE ACTION FUND
$100,900.00 LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
$100,000.00 JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON
$100,000.00 WYDEN FOR SENATE
$70,000.00 SCHATZ FOR SENATE
$37,500.00 MINNESOTA SENATE VICTORY 2018
$33,900.00 MCCASKILL, CLAIRE CLAIRE
$33,900.00 WARNER, MARK R
$30,750.00 MCCASKILL SENATE VICTORY 2018
$30,000.00 BEGICH, MARK

[Eric J in MN]

79. How about the last 12 years? NT

NT

[George II]

80. Nothing in 2015-2016 from either his Senate or Presidential Committees.

I'm not going any further back than that.

[Mike Nelson]

52. Sounds good to me...

… I predict a large number of candidates, so planning 12 is logical. If it got down to 2 or 3, they should do something different... vary the format so people don't tune out.

[Cha]

57. Yes, the Democratic Party Debates.. Not 3rd party.

[jmowreader]

63. How is this going to work?

They say they're running 6 debates in 2019 and 6 in 2020. Is this three groups of two debates per group, and half the field is in each one, or is it six two-night events? I'm of the opinion that once you go beyond two or three debates, you're just doing the GOP's opposition research work for them.

I want to see three debate topics:

Debate 1 is Domestic Policy
Debate 2 is Foreign Policy
and
Debate 3 is How You Plan to Detrumpify This Country.

The third debate is most important.

[Eric J in MN]

74. Twelve 2-night events. NT

NT

[StevieM]

72. Whatever the debate format is, one thing is certain about the response to the plan:

It will be used as an opportunity by Clinton-haters to repeat the nonsense that the 2016 debates were an atrocity and that they somehow constituted a rigging of the primaries.

[TJKatd]

81. I dont know the answer...

But I sure wish someone would come up with a better format. Twelve sounds good and all, but getting excited and making time for debate #7 or 9 will be difficult. With so many candidates, there wont be enough meaningful time per candidate for anyone to be significantly introduced and persuasive. Maybe do one on one debates, randomly selected, with the winners of each progressing to a larger 5-7 candidate debate. And maybe have another one for the others, then find a way to whittle down the total number for the next one. I dont know of a great idea; I just know the current hackneyd approach doesnt excite me.

And another thing, change up the moderator selection some how. Andrea Mitchell, Lester Holt, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Wallace and others like that...YAWN!! Find some way to be interactive via the internet.

The large number, if it happens, needs to reduced the number of candidates quickly somehow.

Again, I dont have the answer, but if I were head of the DNC, I'd at least be kicking things around.