2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWasserman Schultz Not Budging On Democrat Debates
By Frank Ramirez on September 18, 2015 U.S.
Congresswoman, thank you very much for being with us.
Clinton also called the Republican debate on Wednesday night silly season, criticizing the lack of substance in the debates.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, DNC CHAIR: Well, you know, its important that our candidates be seen in a wide variety of formats and venues. Theyve had two debates, the Democrats have not had any debates yet. Every time a candidate has to engage and get ready for a debate, they have to come off the trail.
If Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Martin OMalley, Jim Webb, Lawrence Lessig, and Lincoln Chafee wish to debate each other this month or next, they should just do it (Democrats irate over debate limits: State party leaders view DNC restriction as dictatorship, Metro, September 12). He frets that the DNC is allowing the Republican presidential candidates-namely, Donald Trump-to dominate the national debate, and whoever our nominee is will emerge stronger as the result of a vigorous debate process.
OMalley, who is polling at 1.8 percent in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, has accused the party of facilitating a coronation for longtime front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Ben Doernberg, founder of #AllowDebate, said it appears to be only Wasserman Schultz defending the six-debate schedule in the face of increased pressure, but he is confident the movement will be successful.
more...
http://www.ledgergazette.com/wasserman-schultz-not-budging-on-democrat-debates/75928/
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...a corporatist is elected. Doesn't matter to her if it's a D or R. Seen her pull this shit in Fl over and over.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She has a primary opponant next year, for the first time in years, but he's not viable, and might even be worse than she is.
Uncle Joe
(58,111 posts)Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.
Bonhomme Richard
(8,992 posts)appalachiablue
(41,052 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)To not fully promote our Democratic Candidates is harming our chances of winning this election.
There must be a means to remove a rogue Chair of our party.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...when they had Democratic challengers. She's a DINO.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"the Democrat party" is a Joseph McCarthy-era slur which implies that the party is a collection of sleazebags and saloon-keepers(a fun crowd in the right context, but not a positive image to have for electioneering purposes).
We need to try to not repeat insults other people aim at us.
delrem
(9,688 posts)For Republicans it's easy, "that Republican is a sleaze" is proper US English. But what about for Democrats, or sorry for having offended, Democratics? "that Democratic is a saint" doesn't parse well. So I say "that Dem is a saint" instead, not wanting to hurt the feelings of ... er... Dems. And it's a fucking pain ihaving to watch my backside like that.
Whereas "Republican" can mostly stand on it's own as a noun and if I mean the party I can either say "the Republican Party" or "Republicans", in the case of "Democratic" the word is by nature an adjective and I can't say "the Democratics" without being awkward, so I'll lapse into saying "the Democrats" and then maybe get my ass handed to me for being politically incorrect - as e.g. you're bringing up a McCarthy-era slur - from over half a century ago and from totally different times when nobody really remembers, most having not being born. Or is "the Democrats" ok, sometimes - but if so, when?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The word "Democratic", with a capital "D", applies to the party as an entity. "Democrat" applies to an individual associated with it.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The key is to avoid calling it "the Democrat Party" because doing that ends up making the whole group sound disreputable and vaguely criminal. And because the other reason Republicans like calling it "the Democrat Party" is that they don't accept that we have any right to use the word "democratic" as our very name...it's a way of saying we are an UNdemocratic organization.
delrem
(9,688 posts)"the Democrat Party" is wrong on all levels, the first level being that such a thing doesn't exist.
I'm not having you on - I actually have flogged myself over this silly issue. I won't be so pained about this in future.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...or so I've been told...
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I don't see the sense in taking our nominee off the trail. We need HRC front and center and focusing on the rethugs "silly season". I realize Bernie supporters will find that upsetting, but let's be realistic and move the party forward.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)That's so yesterday.
And our nominee is perfect. So there's nothing to worry about.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)That is terrible strategy.
The debates are a time when we can focus on the range of Democratic opinions and make the press talk about democratic policy and the differences between the candidates.
It is a free media blitz that takes up a few press cycles and gins up energy that will be needed in the lead up to the generals and it also increases interest in down ticket races by giving those candidates places to hang their hats.
It also takes up head space with regards to the issues and allows us to frame the discussion.
It isn't Bernie supporters that are getting burned by this worst. It is the party and the platform that takes a hit. The other three candidates O'Malley, Chaffee, and Webb are also taking a huge hit as it deprives them of oxygen.
Bernie IS the big opposition to Hillary right now and holding off on the debates is NOT going to magically make him go away. He has inertia, vitality, and is speaking with the voice that people are more and more wanting to hear. His numbers spike once people know about what he stands for and hears him speak.
And debates ARE part of the campaign trail and I think anyone that suggests otherwise either has no idea of what they are talking about or is guilty of being intentionally obtuse.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Assuming that she will be at this point is arrogant.
It's the same thing as saying that none of the other candidates have any business even running.
The only thing we've had so far are polls.
And there have been many, many occasions in the past when the person considered the frontrunner for the nomination ended up not getting anywhere close to it.
Muskie in '72...Teddy in '80...Cuomo in '88...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
delrem
(9,688 posts)WTF?
This is in extremely bad taste.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(could you pm me to tell me what it was that got removed?)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Even AFTER Clinton has made it clear she is open and willing to additional debates, DWS would say no. DWS is giving Clinton cover to say she'd do more debates knowing full well there won't be any.
SIX STATES, only six are hosting debates and TWO of them were automatically the first two races leaving four others. Only ONE state west of the Mississippi (that is Nevada) is hosting a debate. Hey you people west of the Mississippi, DWS says fuck you. The Democratic Party doesn't give a shit about your issues.
frylock
(34,825 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)MoveIt
(399 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Living in Florida, I cannot wait to vote against her or any other DINO I can not-vote for. I don't think she is going to try for the Senate, though, because that campaign would air out all of her DINO bullshit, like helping GOP buddies get elected.
Again, we ARE stupid for perpetuating that lesser evil thing. Not really lesser evil in some ways, a Blue Dog disguised as a democrat.