The debate outrage is pretty silly.

[DanTex]

Right now, there are a total of two declared candidates that are polling outside the margin of error from zero. Two. Unless Biden joins, it's a Hillary vs Bernie race. Which means we are going to have six debates for a two person race.

Also, the first primaries aren't until February. The first debate is in October, four months earlier. Four months is longer than entire election campaigns in most countries other than the US.

I don't really care how many debates there are, but it's not like six debates is some kind of outrage. The debates are going to be mostly the same thing, and anyone remotely interested in the primary is going to have plenty of opportunities to see the candidates debate before their primary. If anyone can't figure out who to vote for after six debates and six plus months of campaigning, that person might as well flip a coin.

The other silly argument is that not having primary debates until October is somehow going to hurt the Dems in the general. The general is over a year away. Nobody is going to remember the early primary debates by then. In fact, nobody is going to remember any of the primary debates, with the exception of gaffes that the opposite party uses in GE campaign ads. A lot of things happen in a year.

[BooScout]

1. I agree....

...but apparently I am an evil establishment Dem so 'I know nothing'.

[leftofcool]

3. That's right, Boo, you are a turd way Democrat!

Yer not even a "real" Democrat because you don't support FDR, JFK and others who I am pretty sure are not running.

[BooScout]

9. I'm crushed...

....and here I am in the 99%, but apparently not part of the 99% that counts since I am not a Bernie supporter.

Should I start a petition?

[leftofcool]

16. I would definitely start a petition. I will sign it.

[brooklynite]

65. I believe the phrase for a 99%er who doesn't support Sanders is "idiot"...

...at least among some of the folks here.

[oasis]

2. Some are laying the ground work for

"Bernie would have won if there were only 2 or 3 more debates". Ad infinitum.

[leftofcool]

4. I have seen that.

[oasis]

5. There's no telling when it will stop after Hill gets the nod.

[upaloopa]

62. There is no telling what the excuses will be

either.
I wonder what the top ten reasons why Bernie had the nomination stolen from him will be?

[oasis]

63. DWS will be Cheney and Rove rolled into one. Sad, so sad. <nt>

[jfern]

45. In 2008, Hillary called for more debates when there were already 18 and got 26

The double standard is ridiculous.

[Duckhunter935]

54. Hypocrisy

[yeoman6987]

61. Wasn't there many more candidates?

We have a really small group this time.

[Alittleliberal]

69. There were 8

Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton,John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson.

This time we have 6(Potentially 7). Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Lawrence Lessig and Biden is exploring the option.

[TM99]

6. I will ask questions that I sincerely doubt I will receive

any honest answers in response.

There is a small group here that does not want more debates. Yes, y'all are all 'establishment' Democrats. Yes, y'all are all Clinton supporters.

You post OP after OP rationalizing why six debates is enough, why starting as late as October is A-OK, and that Hillary Clinton does not benefit from the limited debate schedule in any way.

So during which other election seasons in the past did y'all speak out for less debates? Whether you are a young voter or an older voter, did y'all post on DU or speak out elsewhere for a shorter debate season with fewer debates and an exclusivity clause?

I mean, y'all speak with such certainty and authority on this position. It is as if y'all have always believe this way. Surely, y'all are consistent and congruent, right? Y'all have always felt that any more than six debates starting any sooner than October with an exclusivity clause was always the way to go, right? We didn't need 26 debates in the 2008 season for example.

Or have y'all simply decided this election season that y'all now support this fuckuppery? And if so, why now? Why did y'all evolve on this issue? What made y'all change positions now, this 2016 campaign season?

[TM99]

10. Have you consistently believed this way about the debates in the past?

Did you believe more than six in 2008 was way too many? Did you speak out then? Did you work towards fewer in the future, now?

I hear that you are 'ok' but being ok with what is thrust about you is not the same as what Clinton supporters are advocating with posts like the OP's. They are actively against more debates sooner. You do not sound like you are actively opposed?

You bring up 'taking a candidate down'. I never suggested that or spoke to that. My argument which is consistent is that more than six debates are necessary because there are many important topics that need addressing with more than just a few short sound bytes in a mixed debate. I would like to see debates devoted solely to foreign policy. Sanders supporters are very much against Clinton's post policy decisions and want to see those rightfully attacked. Clinton supporters think Sanders has no experience so they want that proven in a debate setting. We can not do that with only six debates, three falling before the first primary. By then it is a done deal.

[TM99]

14. I hope to achieve more time to debate

more than just a few issues that are affecting us all.

Three debates for a total of around six hours for at least five Democratic nominees to discuss and debate these issues is pitiful before the first primary. It is theater. It is for some media coverage and sound bytes.

[TM99]

22. Reflect on this please.

In 2004, there were 15 debates. Six were officially sanctioned by the DNC. The remaining nine were not but there was no exclusivity clause.

Debates began in May of 2003. I will repeat that....May of 2003. Before the first caucuses and primaries in January 2004, 12 out of the 15 debates had occurred.

This time around the first Democratic debate is in October with only 3 of the six prior to any primary or cause.

Think about it.

[drmeow]

44. The exclusivity clause

is what REALLY pisses me off, personally. To me, that is the kind of sh** I'd expect the Republicans to pull, not the Democrats.

[Duckhunter935]

56. Me too

[TM99]

81. I am pissed off as well.

Between that and only three sanctioned DNC debates before the voting actually begins means this is just Kabuki theater. It is a fucking joke!

[Blus4u]

57. I don't think BS supporters advocate more and sooner debates to "take HRC down"

I think they advocate for more and sooner because it will get Bernie's message out on a national level.

A secondary positive effect will be to show the right leaning electorate who still retains some sanity that there are alternatives to the clown car on the Dem side.

Peace

[DanTex]

11. I thought I made it clear that I don't care how many debates there are.

I would be fine with more, and I'm also fine with the current schedule. I don't think it's a big deal. There will be plenty of debates and plenty of chances for everyone to see the candidates say the same things over and over.

What is silly is the outrage.

[TM99]

15. If you don't care, and you think it is no big deal

why do you have so much 'outrage' over what you consider to be 'silly outrage' by those who disagree with you?

[Scootaloo]

27. Because DanTex hates Sanders, and anyone who supports Sanders

And so, in his head, any argument we make, any position we hold is inherently wrong.

[DanTex]

33. How many times have I said that I like Sanders now? I even made an OP about it recently.

It is true that some Sanders supporters are impervious to facts (e.g. this last post of yours), but Sanders is great.

[Scootaloo]

34. Actions speak louder than words, don't you think?

Yes, you keep saying "I like Sanders!" but your actual post history really undermines such a statement. If you can spend a week - just a week! posting pro-Sanders pieces, instead of your constant, sustained efforts to tear him down, denigrate him and his supporters, and spread right-wing lies about him, then maybe all your "I like Sanders" fig-leafing will gain some small amount of meaning.

[DanTex]

35. An odd statement, given that all you know me by are my words.

Of course I like Sanders, he's a great voice and stands for a lot of great things. I don't think he's a viable presidential candidate, but that also goes for many other people that I like.

Liking someone and not thinking the Democratic party should nominate them for president are not inconsistent positions. Do you disagree?

[Scootaloo]

37. ...yeah, the adage doesn't work too well in a medium like this, I suppose

The point being that "I like Sanders" is rather undermined by your non-stop anti-Sanders posts. What you display is literal hatred towards him and anyone who supports him, and it's only when you're called on this hate that you sniffle and say "But i like bernie!"

[DanTex]

38. I display hatred? By continually saying I like him and posting an OP that says that Hillary

supporters should be happy he's doing so well? What?

My objection to Sanders being the nominee is that he can't win. That doesn't mean I hate him. Is this so complicated?

[Hortensis]

42. Bouncy, bouncy.

[redstateblues]

53. The Bernistas hate DanTex because

they can't punch holes in his posts. I've never seen him express hate like the Berners do for Hillary. He always gets swarmed when he makes sense. It's crazy. Keep it up DanTex.

[Hortensis]

80. Hi, RSB. Dan Tex is someone I look for when reading. Yes, keep it up.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. I like Hillary. She would make a great political science professor. I just think she can't win the

general election.

[Hortensis]

40. It seems to expand to fill empty time.

[oasis]

12. 2004 DNC Chair, Terry McAuiffe scheduled 6 debates. He recently said

it was fine then, and it's fine now.

As for me, I didn't complain then, I'm not complaining now.

[TM99]

17. Those were officially sanctioned debates.

There were nine others that were held. There was no exclusivity clause. It is not comparable.

[HooptieWagon]

23. And Dems lost to an unpopular moron.

[oasis]

49. John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Edwards,

Dennis Kuchinich, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Al Sharpton, Bob Graham and Carol Mosely Braun.

You're right, no comparison.

[TM99]

78. Nice deflection.

How about you address the real issue?

Nah, that ain't going to happen.

[Chan790]

36. Irony is...

Hillary disagrees with her supporters and thinks more debates would be a good thing. The rest of the DNC leadership doesn't agree with them either...and that's the actual "establishment" of the party. This isn't Hillary supporters supporting Hillary, it's Hillary supporters supporting DWS...and I don't know why anybody would support DWS because she's fucking awful at her job and consistently makes shoot the Democratic party in the face decisions.

It's a real "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" moment.

[Scuba]

41. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[Uncle Joe]

43. Apparently at least some of Hillary's supporters believe that she's wrong on this issue or

they don't believe that she's being truthful about more debates being a good thing.

[brooklynite]

66. Can I suggest that there's a difference between...

...not feeling that more debates are needed and believing there SHOULD NOT be more debates?

[Ed Suspicious]

77. It pretty much functions the same way. Either way we end up with a limited, untimely debate

schedule.

[Mnpaul]

7. Two vice-chairs of the DNC disagree

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

[Metric System]

18. I remember the debates from summer 2007 and how little attention people were paying to them. We

also had more candidates that cycle. Yes, the GOP have already had two debates, but look at how many candidates are running on that side.

[morningfog]

19. This Talking Point brought to you by Terry McAullife.

[Hoyt]

20. If we have more debates, folks will then complain they are held by MSM and

questions were designed to make Sanders look bad.

I don't think more debates will help us win the GE.

[treestar]

29. so very true

it's the usual never-satisfied bunch who would not be satisfied with exactly what they demand.

[Lucky Luciano]

24. It's not that people wanting more debates expect all people to watch all debates.

If all people watched all six debates, then six would probably be enough.

Since it is hard for all people to watch all debates, having more debates increases the probability significantly that all people get to watch at least one debate and that is a big difference. Couple that with the fact that among those six debates, the timing is often chosen so that the probability is lower for non political junkies to be watching.

It does seem well calculated.

[virtualobserver]

26. the outrage is the exclusivity clause and the iron fisted control

from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 2 of the 5 vice chairs of the DNC are in disagreement with her.



Nancy Pelosi said that we should have more.

there are party leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire who have wanted debates.

The only thing that is silly is that Hillary supporters are making excuses for Hillary's 2008 co-chair who obviously still works for her campaign.

[treestar]

28. True. The Rs have so many contenders

they couldn't have them all at once and had the kiddie table debate. This time, we just don't need a lot. In 2008 we had a lot of contenders. But this is to 2008.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Silly if you support Hillary Clinton, for sure.

[CentralMass]

31. It's clear that the party wants to limit debate

[bigwillq]

32. I agree (nt)

[Scuba]

39. The number of debates doesn't bother me. The timing does, a lot.

To dismiss this concern as "silly" does not reflect well on you.

[NCTraveler]

46. Overall I agree.

I would like to have seen one debate at this point. Campaigns are well established.

[RBInMaine]

47. Spot on correct. I've been saying several of the same things. It's a bunch of nonsense.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

48. As a Sanders supporter, I agree that we don't need more debates

First, Sanders has done a really good job at differentiating himself without a single debate.

Second, Hillary is great at the canned answer, the "say what they wanna hear without saying anything of substance" type of answer, and I'm fairly certain that's what we're gonna get from her in the debates.

Third, social media negates the advantages Hillary has with her billionaire Super PACs, so I'm not sure that Bernie actually needs the exposure.

[MindfulOne]

50. Really? Silly? No. This is a form of voter disenfranchisement, plain and simple

Listen.

Many voters won't have access to the Internet or to Cable TV service or necessarily have the free time from work or child care to watch even one debate if only six are offered.

What's more, due to the ridiculous way debates are controlled, half of them might be bogus, staged, use preprogrammed questions, or otherwise SUCK, so having more debates provides greater chances for more people to see some genuine debating.

So, the people who probably have the least access to media are going to be prevented from access to some of the most important activities in the process.

Nope, sorry, you're flat out wrong.

[leftofcool]

67. Debates= bogus, staged, pre-programmed?

And yet you want more of these same debates?

[jberryhill]

51. Yep

[HassleCat]

52. More might be better

The Republicans seem to be getting all the attention with their debates. The Democrats might benefit by staging some kind of "not a debate but close, type of event. A debate or something similar right now would give the party and the candidates some visibility. Obviously, this benefits Sanders more than Clinton, but it shows Clinton is willing to come out in the open and discuss the issues face to face with her opponent.

[orpupilofnature57]

55. This is a form of the esoteric way Hillary and her henchman operate, and is a Republican tactic, not

Democratic, forthcoming or transparent .If I were her I'd want as many chances as possible to explain the many variances in what she says and what she does .

[Historic NY]

58. There were 8 debates for Gore & Bradley....

more were offered but they declined.

[brooklynite]

71. Gore was the "establishment" candidate and Bradley was the renegade...

how did that work out?

[brooklynite]

59. I've noticed that Bernie Sanders isn't nearly as "outraged" as his supporters here...

Sanders could have called out DWS at the DNC meeting like Martin O'Malley did...but he didn't.

He could have agreed with O'Malley to join up for an "unsanctioned" debate...but he didn't.

I think some of his supporters want the debates to start because they're fantasizing that he'll "take on" Clinton personally, even though he's said he won't go negative.

[TheFarS1de]

64. He does'nt have to go negative .

He just has to show how out of touch HC policies are on the Stage . When side by side the majority will see who is actually running for them and not the vested interests .

[leftofcool]

68. Bernie is running on only one thing. Economics and how to get rid of a million billionaires

The one trick pony show won't work in a debate. Wait until he is faced with some real issues like women's rights. Maybe he will just say what he said at Liberty University............."we have to agree to disagree on pro-choice"

[TheFarS1de]

73. Of course .

There are just so many millionaire's and billionaire's out there that they will obviously out vote the general population . Try focusing on the votes and forget about the money , nearly everyone else has , it's all been taken Maybe if we roll over we can go back to the days of serfs and just bend the knee whenever a financial better deigns to pass us by .

Like why even bother voting , lets just ask the wealthy what we want . Seems to be the current meme in the political circles .

[dsc]

60. I wouldn't have a problem with more debates

but the irony is that Bernie is unlikely to be helped by debates and could well be hurt by them. O'Malley has gotten pretty much nowhere, and the lack of debates is killing him. Bernie has all of the anti Hillary vote plus his vote right now. If O'Malley were to have a good debate performance and impress he would likely take some from Hillary but also a bunch of the anti Hillary vote which Sanders now has a monopoly on. Unless Hillary did horribly and she didn't in any of the debates in 2008, then O'Malley has the most to gain from debates.

[Aerows]

70. It really is.

Why would the Democratic party be idle while the Republican party has time to vituperate that Obama is responsible for everything, while our Democratic candidates haven't been able to say a word because of the exclusionary clause!

[JI7]

72. i think there should be earlier debates, but the whole thing about Hillary being the reason for

limiting it is stupid as the debates helped her most of all during the last election .

[840high]

74. How did that turn out for her?

[JI7]

75. she was able to keep it competitive longer than she would have without the debates

but it also shows the debates are not the deciding thing as Obama didn't really win there in the primary.

[Ed Suspicious]

79. She isn't trying to gain ground on anyone, she's fighting to stop losing ground. I do not believe

that she wants more debates this election.