Is the Democratic National Committee in the Tank for Hillary? (Dems Protest DNC)

[RiverLover]

Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz plan to host 20 fewer debates than 2008 to help Clinton? That’s what protesters in D.C. said Wednesday—among them Martin O’Malley’s spokeswoman.

Outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday night, a few dozen protesters—some on Martin O’Malley’s payroll, some holding Martin O’Malley signs, others wearing Bernie Sanders T-shirts, and none supporting Lincoln Chafee—gathered to register their dissatisfaction with DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s plan to host just six debates, compared to 26 in 2008.

...Anyway, the song and the man with the bongo drum aside, the lack of Democratic debates is a very real problem for the party and, you could surely argue, for the democracy itself. And no one is angrier about it than O’Malley, who is polling at 1.8 percent.

Earlier Wednesday it was reported by Politico that the DNC had “carefully negotiated” the number of debates with the Democratic campaigns, but Lis Smith, O’Malley’s spokeswoman, said that’s just not true.

Standing among the protesters, holding a “#WENEEDDEBATE” sign, she told me, “It was not a negotiation, it was a decree.”



The DNC approached the O’Malley campaign in February, March, and April with its six-debate proposal, according to Smith, and she said the campaign shot the DNC down each time. And not only was there no negotiation, Smith said, but the DNC also lied about the exclusivity clause, which stipulates that candidates can’t participate in events not sanctioned by the DNC. The party assured the O’Malley campaign there wouldn’t be one, Smith said, but then, an hour before announcing its debate schedule, it changed course.

Asked if Smith believes the DNC is limiting the number of debates in order to protect Clinton, who benefits from having the highest name-ID of any announced Democrat and is not exactly known for being light on her feet in debate, the O’Malley spokeswoman said, “In the absence of them offering any other excuse, I think that has to be the natural assumption.”...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/16/is-the-democratic-national-committee-in-the-tank-for-hillary.html

This isn't the first demonstration. Here's a pic from protesters at the Iowa State Fair~



WENEEDDEBATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Johnson wrote a good article about this yesterday~

Still No Democratic Debates. What’s Going On?
September 16, 2015
Dave Johnson


The second Republican Presidential candidate debate is tonight. The ratings for the first one were through the roof and tonight’s is also expected to be a ratings blockbuster. People are interested and tuning in to the campaign and the Republicans are getting all the “eyeballs.”

Meanwhile there hasn’t been even a hint of a Democratic candidate debate. What’s going on? Why are the Democrats letting Republicans have the attention? Do they feel the party has nothing to offer – or something to hide?

“Just spell my name right.” It is basic marketing that any publicity is good publicity....

http://ourfuture.org/20150916/still-no-democratic-debates-whats-going-on

[djean111]

1. Why yes, yes it is. n/t

[ibegurpard]

2. this has gone far beyond them carrying Hillary's water

They are actually sending out emails telling us to watch the REPUBLICAN debates. You don't cede the entire conversation to your opponents (let alone tell your own supporters to listen to them) for 4 months before your own debates. That's a lot of time to let a narrative gel.
Edit: "at least I'm not a Republican" has never worked and it will never work.

[RiverLover]

3. Its just so stupid.

Its like they're not only trying to help Hillary in the primary, but also lose the GE next year.

[zeemike]

19. That was the shocking thing to me.

That they told us to watch the GOP debates...as if we should substitute it for ours.
DWS needs to go, but she won't until her mission is accomplished.

[A Simple Game]

21. Everyone knows that advertising too little and too late is better than

advertising early and often. Ask anyone in the business community, they'll tell you. And if that isn't enough tell your potential customers to watch your rivals advertisements.

It'll be interesting to see where and who DWS goes to work for when she is booted from Congress. Hillary may think DWS is working for her, but I'm not so sure that is her true boss. I think this mole goes deeper than that.

[MisterP]

35. even Roger Sterling would never have been so drunk to think THAT was a good idea

[beltanefauve]

25. Debbie

wanted us to watch the debates AND play bingo

[peacebird]

4. Yes, clearly the DNClinton is in the bag for Hillary.

[KoKo]

5. Recommend!

[WillyT]

6. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Dustlawyer]

7. It's very clear Debbie is protecting Hillary. What cabinet post has Debbie been promised?

[RiverLover]

9. That's the real Q here.

Sickening.

[CoffeeCat]

23. No kidding...

A rigged system. When did the Democratic establishment become so much like the Republican establishment that our entire party used to fight against?

It's pathetic.

[daleanime]

8. Is water wet?

Had to be said.

[RiverLover]

10. The sky is blue?

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Of course it is.

I'm glad they're protesting. DWS wil just ignore it though. She's a tool.

[L0oniX]

12. The DNC will be to blame for the 2016 loss.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Yes, but on the other hand the answer is also yes.

Thanks for the thread, RiverLover.

[RiverLover]

15. You're welcome. This should make every Democrat extremely pissed off.

It's like our issues & causes don't even exist.

Our candidates have to tweet to try to be relevant. Its beyond maddening.

[kenfrequed]

14. OK

I agree with all of this and I have been a continual critic of DWS and the bullshit of these delayed debates.

Now in defence of DWS, specifically on the debate thing and NOT her failing to support a few Democratic candidates because she was buds with the republicans they were running against, I am going to point out that maybe she isn't as much to blame on this particular matter.

She is having to deal with what would be an unprecedented invisible primary in an election without a solid Veep running. Hillary has spent all of her time racking up superdelegates and money since even before 2014. This has created a situation where DWS is finding herself in an unenviable between party activists and those superdelegates that happen to be elected officials. If somehow Hillary doesn't get the nod then she might have a few of these angry superdelegates to answer to.

That all being said I think she is still running this badly, she has a terrible sense of strategy, and it is clear that she is more concerned with shielding a front runner and preserving the front runner's campaign flexibility than she is in providing a showcase of why the general population should support Democratic candidates.

[RiverLover]

24. Very good points.

But I have to admit, this extraordinary amount of power that Clinton wields is flabbergasting to me. I mean it blows.my.mind.

[Divernan]

16. Debbie/Hillary flunked Psych 101/Marketing 101

Look, EVERYBODY'S natural instinct is to rate the debaters in a debate. So EVERYBODY who listens to the GOP debates is ranking them. Once you have selected one brand or new car or debater over another, you will shore up and rationalize your choice by thinking better of that choice. This will then influence how you view the debaters in the second debate, the 3rd debate and so on.

Once a viewer picks a GOP candidate, he/she has some personal investment in thinking well of that choice and becomes less likely to even watch Dems debate.

Classic marketing psychology. It's like deciding to buy a new car. You look at several models & makes, but once you pick one, you become more committed to that choice, emphasizing to yourself & others why you made the best choice, and more open to seeing/exaggerating shortcomings in the makes and models you rejected.

I do believe Wasserman co-ordinated this setup with Clinton, that there is a significant quid pro quo in play, and that it was the stupidest choice Hillary has made since she decided to stay with Bill after the international humiliation and public rejection of her as a wife and woman. Yes, her Iraq war vote was awful; her vote against banning use of cluster bombs as well - a lot of her votes and actions were against my policy preferences. But other politicians voted the same way. But can anyone name a single elected politician who has remained married to a spouse who publicly, serially cheated on them?

[RiverLover]

26. Wow, and more good points.

Thanks for your post. You bring up many insightful points, as usual Divernan.

[Enthusiast]

17. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Don't we believe in democracy?

[CanonRay]

18. Of course it is.

The Clintons have been positioning things for this run for years. You think they'd leave the DNC to chance?

[99Forever]

20. Without a doubt, yes.

If the Democratic party won't step up and do something about it? That's on them. They do nothing at their own risk.

[CoffeeCat]

27. This is, in part why many are rejecting Hillary

So tired of establishment, elitist politics in which "We The People" are ignored and these assholes play with our government and our processes--as if they are a playground for them to control.

They're rigging the election.

Sick and tired of some Democrats behaving like depraved Republicans. This is why we don't vote for your establishment candidates! You play dirty and behave like corrupt assholes. If we wanted this kind of bullshit, we'd be Republicans and vote for Republicans.

This is maddening! You expect this bullshit from Republicans. It's such a betrayal when some Democrats bring this cancer into our own party.

[Zorra]

22. Second best rhetorical question ever.

And Hillary's superdelegates will override the popular vote in the primaries as well.

We're going to have to nominate Bernie in a popular vote landslide in order to overcome all the dirty deeds done dirt cheap by our competition.

[RiverLover]

28. Time to get involved then. ALL of us, who know what's at stake here.

Instead of sitting back & watching the slow motion train wreck.

Our party is on the line. Here's to a LANDSLIDE for popular populist Bernie!! Not bought & paid for by corporate America!!

[CoffeeCat]

29. That was a threat that was trial ballooned...

…during the last primary. When Hillary started to sink in the polls and it became clear that Obama may win Iowa, her campaign floated the "rumor" that the Superdelegates were going to vote for HIllary anyway, so it didn't matter what "We The People" wanted. Screw them, right?

The Superdelegates will honor what the voters decide. Yes, many of them are probably establishment Dems who are loyal to Hillary, but thus far, Sanders is looking to win Iowa and NH. He's gaining in SC.

If he wins handily, I can't imagine these Superdelegates will not subvert the party members. They'd have hell-on-earth on their hands, if they tried.

[Divernan]

31. Superdelegates allowed to switch pledges from 1 candidate to another!

And those superdelegates know it. Their pledge is not legally or ethically or religiously binding. Yes, every single Super Delegates is free to switch his or her allegiance to Saunders.

I keep hearing how many Super Delegates have "pledged" to Hillary. Yeah, right! It may come as a shock to the Clinton camp, but a Super Delegate pledge does not constitute any kind of binding legal contract. Nor is it even a religious or morally binding promise like a marriage vow, i.e., when Bill pledged his troth to cling only unto Hillary, forsaking all others till death do they part. Here's the real deal, and it ain't good news for Hill.

Superdelegates have to consider how to use their votes carefully. They may:

Vote in step with how the voters in the majority of states voted
Vote in line with Democratic voters nationwide
Vote in favor of the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if it is just a slim majority.

A superdelegate can also choose to vote his or her "conscience." This is one way of saying that a superdelegate may not vote the way the majority of voters do, but on the candidate he or she feels is best. "Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience and supposed to vote for person they think would make the best candidate and the best president," Howard Wolfson of Hillary Clinton's campaign said in February 2008 . This is what California Congressman Dennis Cordoza did when he officially switched his pledge from Clinton to Obama the following May, citing her "contentious primary campaign" .

Cordoza illustrated another characteristic unique to superdelegates -- they're allowed to switch their pledges from one candidate to another. They can also pledge and switch long before the national convention. Most commonly, a superdelegate rescinds his or her pledge based on his or her constituency. In the 2008 primaries, Georgia Rep. David Scott changed his pledge from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama. Around 80 percent of the Democratic voters in Scott's district voted for Obama, and Scott changed his pledge .

Ohlemacher, Stephen. “Superdelegates are flocking to Obama.” Associated Press. February 23, 2008. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V007M80.html

[SolutionisSolidarity]

30. DWS and HRC prefer President Trump to President Sanders.

Win the primary at all cost, no matter how much you damage the party in the process.

[d_legendary1]

32. DWS wants the Republicans to win

There's a reason why they won big during the midterm elections and why they'll win big in 2016 if she keeps sanctioning the candidates from attending other debates. I'm convinced she's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[emsimon33]

33. DUH

[emsimon33]

34. DUH!

[eridani]

36. Anything that damages the Democratic brand damages Clinton too n/t