The American people don't want to be bored stiff with endless debates.

[RBInMaine]

Is ANYONE going to seriously argue that this small number of Democratic candidates can't make their cases to the American people is SIX, I say again, SIX full debate sessions? How many does it take? Ten, twelve, fifteen or more endless debates going over the same talking points again, and again, and again?

As I understand it, six was the number of debates the last time around when there were about this number of candidates. There wasn't any screeching then. Hmmm??

And there are other forums outside the purview of the DNC where they will be debating. My goodness. They also have ads all over tv and the internet, press conferences, interviews, speeches, websites, and on and on to get their points out.

The Republican debates are silly clown shows making people sick, and the American people don't want to be bored with these endless debates.

And this talk of six debates not being enough and being some plot to just help Hillary is a load of sheer paranoid nonsense. I'm not a big fan of Wasserman as DNC chair, but she isn't trying to rig the debates. It is the VERY SAME NUMBER OF DEBATES they have had in the past. Let's get real, and enough of the crazy conspiracy theories.

Six DNC sanctioned debates is plenty. More is just overkill.

[artislife]

1. A lot of words that mean

diddly. Ask O'Malley supporters if they agree.

Thank you for for being so unconvincing.

[elleng]

7. Thanks. We do NOT agree.

[artislife]

10. Big smile back at you

When is that man going to hire you for PR? You have been such a good ambassador for him. You changed my mind from an "absolutely not" to a "good plan B, VP or next election cycle". That is pretty big. Gotta go with my guy, but if something happens...O'Malley is in the On Deck Circle.

[elleng]

11. SMILING here too, artislife!

And thanks, I can do research, and glad I was able to move you a bit, but I don't think I'd be good with the up close and personal stuff probably necessary for a REAL PR person!

[ms liberty]

22. I agree with artislife...

You are an excellent advocate for O'M, and have really made me look more closely at him than I might otherwise have. Thanks!

[CTyankee]

26. Love your response!

The more we Dems -- including ALL of our Dems in the race -- talk, the more our message gets out.

Keep smilin', ellen! You are doing good stuff...I appreciate your efforts, even if I am for Bernie...it's all good...

[JustAnotherGen]

21. +100

And if they keep six? Fine. Pull them all in by two weeks.

[Pope Sweet Jesus]

2. It must be that important you had to post it twice.

[cali]

4. you had to post this junk twice?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. The American people don't want to be bored with endless slick and glossy commercials.

[elleng]

6. It appears you don't understand that We the People want to SEE and HEAR the candidates

in as many situations and discussions and debates as POSSIBLE.

Have YOU ever seen and heard Governor Martin O'Malley discussing and debating matters?

Six was NOT the number of debates last time around, there were many more, as I recall.

As to 'screeching,' dws caused florida to break the rules, resulting in florida losing some opportunities to participate. (DUers, please refresh our recollections on this matter, please.) found this: Although Obama led Clinton in delegates won through state contests, Clinton claimed that she had the popular vote lead as she had more actual votes from the state contests.[2] However, this calculation could not include many states that had held caucuses, which Obama had dominated, and it did include Michigan and Florida, which neither Clinton nor Obama contested due to the Democratic National Committee's penalization of those states for violating party rules.[3]

MORE, the 2008 Dem party kerfuffle: Disputed primaries[edit]
Main articles: Florida Democratic primary, 2008 and Michigan Democratic primary, 2008
In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee stating that only the four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008.[54] In May 2007, the Florida Legislature passed a bill that moved the date of the state's primary to January 29, 2008, setting up a confrontation with the DNC.[55] In response, the DNC ruled that Florida's 185 pledged delegates and 26 superdelegates would not be seated at the Democratic National Convention, or, if seated, would not be able to vote.[56] In October 2007, Democrats from Florida's congressional delegation filed a federal lawsuit against the DNC to force a recognition of its delegates, but the suit was unsuccessful.[54][57] The presidential candidates promised not to campaign in Florida.

Meanwhile, Michigan moved its primary to January 15, 2008, also in violation of party rules. In October 2007, Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards withdrew their names from the Michigan primary ballot, under pressure from the DNC and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.[58] Kucinich unsuccessfully sought to remove his name from the ballot,[59] whereas Clinton and Dodd opted to remain on the ballot.[60] In December 2007, the DNC ruled that Michigan's 128 pledged delegates and 29 superdelegates would not count in the nominating contest unless it were held on a later date.[61] The Michigan Democratic party responded with a press release noting that the primary would proceed with Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich on the ballot. Supporters of Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and Obama were urged to vote "uncommitted" instead of writing in their candidates' names because write-in votes for those candidates would not be counted.[62]

None of the top candidates campaigned in Florida or Michigan. The events were described in the media as "beauty contests,"[63] and voter turnout in both states was relatively low when compared with record-high turnout in other states.[64] Nevertheless, Clinton claimed wins in Florida and Michigan, and she flew to Fort Lauderdale on the night of the Florida election to thank supporters for what she called a "tremendous victory."[65]

As the primaries continued, various groups tried to negotiate a resolution to the standoff between the DNC and the state parties. The Clinton campaign advocated first for the results to stand and then for a new round of voting to take place in Michigan and Florida, while the Obama campaign deferred the matter to the DNC, while expressing a wish that the delegations be seated in some form.[66] On all sides, Democrats worried that a failure to resolve the problem could lead to a rules or credential fight at the convention and low Democratic turnout in the general election in November.[63]

On May 31, 2008, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee[67][68] voted unanimously (27-0) to restore half-votes to all the Florida delegates, including superdelegates. The Michigan delegates were also given half-votes, with 69 delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama; this proposed change passing by 19-8.[69][70]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

[RiverLover]

8. 22.9 million tuned into CNN to watch the GOP debate

Why are people always watching things they expect to bore them?

[Suich]

13. I have a problem with that number.

Granted, 22.9 million might have tuned in for the first 5-10 minutes, but there is no way 22.9 million people watched 3 hours + of the GOP "debate

[RiverLover]

18. Its always an estimate based on Nielsen ratings

And if homes with nielsen boxes tuned in for at least 9 secs, it gives the show ratings. But this debate is one if not the most watched show on CNN acc to the ratings, and that's all we have to go by.

That's a lot of interest, even if some of them were drive-bys.

[Suich]

20. I had no idea you only had to watch for 9 secs.!

I was definitely one of the drive-bys!

[RiverLover]

24. You only counted in the ratings if you're a nielsen home with a box on your TV set.

But maybe you are & you did!

[cheapdate]

9. It's not that 6 official debates aren't enough.

That's not the issue. The issue is the DNC's exclusivity rule that requires any candidate who wishes to participate in the official debate schedule to agree to not participate in any "unsanctioned" debates anywhere, for any reason. That's a problem in my view.

[orpupilofnature57]

15. + 1000

Republicans are Esoteric, we're supposed to be inclusive .

[Half-Century Man]

19. That whole "you must only play with us or you are cast out" thing is right out of high school.

This is real life, not a WB show.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. It's the only chance to see the variances between candidates, and give them a chance to explain their

votes, actions, and how they are going to do what they propose .

[underthematrix]

14. I watched the DEM debates the last time and they were good.

HRC is an excellent debater and I imagine Bernie is really good too. O'Malley is also an excellent speaker. We also have a professor, Lessig and Chafee and Webb. I just want the host to ask substantive questions. And we may get BIDEN. He's a fantastic debater.

[Suich]

16. I agree with you RBInMaine.

I have no idea what someone expects to hear in the 3rd or 4th debate that they didn't hear in the 1st or 2nd.

[restorefreedom]

17. the american people don't want to be bored stiff

watching the loony tune Republican message get out unimpeded while the DNC rubberstamps it's preferred candidate. It's funny how people in the US actually want to participate in a democracy.....who would've thought it?

[frylock]

23. Then don't watch..

and once again, it's the EXCLUSIVITY CLAUSE that is at issue here.

[MADem]

25. It's a canard. Lesser known candidates always want more free publicity. Better known ones don't

need such a shitty, risky, game-playing format (though the better known ones are also often way better at the gotcha format than the newbies to it).

Believe me, if the people who are, right now, screaming for more debates see that their favored candidate is suddenly doing a shitty job in the CNN or FAUXSNOOZE "debate format" they will overcome their objections so quickly your head would spin.

Then the complaint will be "WAAAAH--the CORPORATE MEDIA is being UNFAIR to (insert candidate name)."

These televised debates are not debates.

They are "gotcha" games.

[LWolf]

27. How many of these threads are you going to do?

I'd like more debates. I would have liked them to start this summer.

[jfern]

32. He's hoping to bore us stiff with these threads

[djean111]

28. Oh, I had no idea that a few Hillary supporters spoke for "the American people"!

The hubris is amusing. And irrelevant. If you don't want to watch a debate - then - don't. How simple is that? Easy as pie!

[arcane1]

29. Then don't watch them n/t

[cyberswede]

30. It's not like the same people watch each & every debate.

Having more debates provides more opportunities for different individual people to watch.

[highprincipleswork]

31. Picking the best candidate!

First, it's clear the eventual nominee will have to debate. So many people have discussed how the primary debates provide valuable practice.

Second, it's unfortunate but true that so many people do not know the candidates. Fewer debates appears to work to the advantage of Hilary. Two problems here. She may not be the best candidate. Let them all compete in an open and honest forum, where they are tested by the value of their own skills and ideas and by public reaction.

The greater problem is that of a rigged system. If the system seems rigged, as this one clearly does, with the DNC and DWS forcing something down our throats, there will be consequences.

I do know that I will find it hard to support a candidate that I feel had been unfairly chosen, though I would gladly support them if they fairly won a free and open contest.

I doubt that I am alone. Result? The same disastrous Democratic turnout that DWS has engineered in the past.

More debates, or else? Let's just say - I don't think it would be pretty.

[99Forever]

33. I'm an American people, and I sure as fuck don't recollect...

... ever asking for or suggesting that you speak for me. If you're "bored stiff with endless debates," turn your fucking TV off and quit whining to those of us that actually give a damn about the future of this Nation. Or is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch?

Enough phony excuses and juvenile whining.













Must be a freakin' echo in here.

[HereSince1628]

34. Meme for today?

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Especially ones scheduled when pretty much nobody will be watching.

Three of the first four are on weekends. Wtf?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. You don't speak for me, so stop it.

You may speak for some segment of the population--bored people who can't be bothered to think, craven fans of a frontrunner, or some other group. But you sure as fuck don't speak in my name, and it's important for me to draw that distinction.