Progressive Groups Release Letter Urging DNC Chair to Host Additional Presidential Debates

[Cheese Sandwich]

http://front.moveon.org/dnc-debate-letter

September 21 2015

Several progressive groups representing more than 10 million Americans released a letter on Monday urging Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to increase the opportunities for Democratic candidates to participate in prime time debates to counterbalance the endless free media Republican candidates have enjoyed with their frequent, high-profile, televised debates.

The letter is being released by MoveOn.org Political Action and is signed by DailyKos, CREDO Action, and Democrats.com
...

“It’s crucial that Democratic candidates have ample opportunities to engage with each other and voters on issues like economic inequality, climate change, and the movement for Black lives—none of which are getting significant airtime in the Republican debates” said Justin Krebs, campaign director for MoveOn.org Political Action, which represents the collective will of MoveOn’s more than 8 million members at the ballot box by helping to elect progressive candidates. “We need robust debates and a challenging Democratic primary to ensure these issues are central to the national dialogue and ensure a strong Democratic party and nominee.”

Read the full text of the letter here:

To: Representative Wasserman Schultz, Chair, Democratic National Committee

Dear Representative Wasserman Schultz,

The undersigned organizations, on behalf of millions of members around the country, ask you to increase the number of Democratic presidential primary debates in advance of the Iowa caucus, to schedule the current and additional debates during weekday primetime hours, to lift the sanction on participation in debates by candidates not sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, and to double the number of debates throughout the primary schedule—for the sake of our national dialogue, the Democratic party, and the strength of the eventual Democratic nominee in the general election.

Our democracy relies on a vibrant exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, right now, our nation’s political media coverage is dominated by Republican rhetoric reflective of views from the extreme right of our political spectrum, because only the GOP has yet held presidential primary debates.

Republicans are hosting a full schedule of debates, introducing the American public to the Republican candidates and giving conservative ideas endless free media. The GOP debates on August 6 and September 16 combined attracted tens of millions of viewers and dominated news coverage and analysis.

By comparison, due to the lack of Democratic debates, the Democratic candidates seem virtually silent to many Americans. Voters are getting far more exposure to fringe Republican ideas than to Democratic candidates’ proposals that include expanding debt-free college for, ensuring equal pay for equal work, ending the epidemic of incarceration, securing full legal equality for all Americans, and tackling climate change.

An insufficient number of primary debates also poses a substantial threat to the general election prospects of the eventual Democratic nominee. The Democratic nominee will face an aggressive challenge from the Republican party and well-funded right-wing Super PACs. The Democratic party should field a nominee who is battle-tested and in fighting shape in time for the general election. Primary debates are great preparation for debating and campaigning during the general election campaign. All candidates will emerge stronger from the experience of being tested in primary debates; just six debates—many of them on weekends and holidays—is not enough.

Our democracy needs more debates, starting sooner, and a full schedule of televised opportunities to hear from Democratic presidential candidates before the Iowa caucus. In 2007-2008, there were 26 Democratic primary debates. This year, the DNC has scheduled only six, and only four are before the first caucus.

All of the leading Democratic candidates—Secretary Clinton, Governor O’Malley, and Senator Sanders—have said directly or through their spokespeople that they are open to more debates. Please listen to the public, to members of the Democratic party, to DNC Vice Chairs Gabbard and Rybak, and to the candidates who seek the Democratic nomination.

Every day that passes, Republicans are defining the terms of national discourse, and Democratic candidates—and the progressive ideas they stand for—are losing out.

Sincerely,
MoveOn.org Political Action
Daily Kos
CREDO Action
Democrats.com

http://front.moveon.org/dnc-debate-letter

[elleng]

1. Good luck with that.

[yeoman6987]

30. I'll say. GOP have six as well. I guess 2 is frequent now

The democratic candidates will be all over the news in October and November.

[swilton]

2. Why should DWS

care about what progressives think?

[99th_Monkey]

3. OMG!! Yes! DNC needs to be publicly shamed

More debates!!!!

[AtomicKitten]

4. Camp Weathervane wanted only 4 debates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251611077

[jeff47]

5. And they're getting only 4 debates.

The last two are not yet scheduled, for some odd reason.

They also can't happen before IA, and are very unlikely before NH. It is possible to squeeze in one between NH and NV, but it would be really hard. They can't fit at all between NV and SC. And there's no way in hell there will be a debate between SC and Super Tuesday.

At which point, the nominee will likely be obvious, and they can cancel the last two debates.

[AtomicKitten]

8. If they intend to hold the party hostage, the blowback will be brutal.

Hillary will not be president.

[jeff47]

9. Probably also not a good idea to cancel the Univision debate

But that's what they've set up.

[AtomicKitten]

14. It's not really scheduled. The timeframe is vague on the last two debates.

February or March, 2016
Univision Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Miami, Florida
Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
Candidates: TBD

February or March, 2016
PBS Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: PBS
Candidates: TBD

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/

[frylock]

19. Team Clinton is confident that they're going to have it wrapped up by 3/1..

seen several posts here stating as much.

[Maedhros]

6. As if Progressives matter to the DNC.

We're all "retards" from the "professional Left" that need to "eat our peas."

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Cheese Sandwich.

[restorefreedom]

10. this wont move dws

but it will continue to highlight the draconian tactics they're using to protect somebody who is so weak she can't even debate people within her own party. People won't forget this, not in the primaries, and not in the general. Not that the generals a concern because Hillary won't be the nominee.

[rhett o rick]

11. Sen Sanders and O'Malley should tell the DNC to go to hell and set up their own

debates with the League of Women Voters. Let Clinton debate with herself.

[askew]

12. Unfortunately, Bernie won't debate without Hillary as he's said more than once.

[rhett o rick]

13. And it looks like she won't debate anyone. The Democratic Party is not very democratic.

Frack the DNC and DWS and the Oligarchy that controls them.

[ColesCountyDem]

17. The menu's changed to pizza.

[restorefreedom]

18. i will put this on every debate thread

blatantly and shamelessly rigging the system to benefit a weak candidate who probably can't win a general is going to piss off a lot of voters, especially progressives and supporters of the other candidates. Many of these people, in the unlikely event that clinton becomes the nominee, will decide to stay home, vote for somebody else, or write in their preferred candidates name in the general. I don't want to hear any bitching about how it is "our fault" if Hillary would lose the general. We are not under any obligation to support a candidate who gets the nomination through trickery, deceit, undemocratic thievery and cheating. If she gets the nom and loses the general, it's completely on HER and Debbie.

[Aerows]

20. I've never understood the mentality

behind the idea that if a politician loses an election, it's the fault of the voters.

If McDonald's decides to raise the price on Big Macs to $30 a piece, and Big Mac sales plummet, it isn't because everyone has suddenly stopped liking hamburgers or gone vegetarian.

[restorefreedom]

21. agreed. it is up to them

to earn each vote.

[99Forever]

22. Exactly correct Aerows.

It is NEVER the "fault" of the voters. It is ALWAYS the fault of the politician and those that put them up as candidates. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS.

No candidate owns anyone's vote, ever, including Third Way, Corporate, Warmongering, arrogant, tone deaf, inevitable ones.

[MisterP]

23. they think she'll handily carry VT: they've checked out

[restorefreedom]

24. they.ve gone to the moon it seems. nt

[840high]

29. Absolutely.

[blackspade]

25. DWS won't give a shit.

[Cheese Sandwich]

26. I wouldn't be surprised to see them add a couple debates

And then act like they bent over backwards to accommodate us. Like they did us a big favor by bumping it from 6 to 8 debates.

[blackspade]

27. I'll be surprised to be honest.

I seriously doubt that they will get rid of that fucking exclusivity clause either.

[RufusTFirefly]

28. Oh cool. And when they finally raise the total by one or two ...

... we can claim victory.

Not.

The entire system is rigged. Don't let the nutty gaggle of Republicans distract you from that fact.