Sanders campaign cool to O’Malley’s more aggressive approach to forcing more debates.WaPo

[elleng]

The campaign of presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley has made several unsuccessful overtures to rival Bernie Sanders’s camp in recent weeks to jointly buck the Democratic National Committee’s schedule of six debates.

In private conversations, confirmed by aides to both candidates, O’Malley representatives have suggested that both Sanders and O’Malley agree to accept invitations to debates not sanctioned by the DNC in a bid to open up the process, which O’Malley last week characterized as being “rigged” to limit the exposure of front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The DNC has threatened to exclude candidates from its debates if they take part in a non-sanctioned gathering. But aides to O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, say they are skeptical of the threat, particularly if Sanders and O’Malley stand up together against the DNC.

Though Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has been vocal about wanting more debates, aides say his campaign is more reticent to cross the DNC, reasoning that a chance to appear with O'Malley and other lower-polling Democrats is not worth the risk of losing his shots on stage with Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/03/sanders-campaign-cool-to-omalleys-more-aggressive-approach-to-forcing-more-debates/

No surprise.

[Ed Suspicious]

1. Sanders and O'Malley's participation in debates mean very little to the DNC. Bernie and O'Malley

would make a strong point with their supporters but it would be gone in a news cycle and then they would miss the actual democratic party debates. I appreciate what Martin is trying to do, and the threat is helpful, but I think in this case Team Bernie is making a smart choice.

[elleng]

4. Bernie's serving his interest,

tactically smart, but doesn't help We the People to examine our options.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Sanders is already beating Hillary in NH and Iowa

And the DNC would love nothing more, than to have an excuse ANY excuse
to exclude Bernie from the meager 6 debates that will be most widely televised.

I'm personally torn on this, because I totally agree with Martin and Bernie,
that the debates are rigged to protect Hillary, but still, as a Bernie supporter
I can also understand him not wanting to shoot himself in the foot over it.

[elleng]

3. I understand what Bernie's doing,

predicted/suspected it, doing what's in HIS interest, but as for We the People, it doesn't serve us well.

[99th_Monkey]

5. It wouldn't help We the People to elect Hillary Clinton, instead of Bernie.

I get that O'Malley's perhaps got the most to lose, with so few debates,
but this hurts Bernie too. I'm on record with posts and OPs here applauding
O'Malley for his outspokenness on the debate issue. I actually think
-- short of totally going outside the DNC -- O'Malley and Sanders should
do a joint presser on this issue, to publicly shame DWS into releasing
them from the sorry-ass exclusionary rule that she put in place.

But what would be gained by a debate between only Bernie and O'Malley?
They agree pretty much on most issues, and the M$M would probably
relegate it to minimal coverage at best. It simply wouldn't be much of
a debate without Hillary involved, who's got huge differences in issues
with both Bernie and Martin.

The cost/benefit tradeoffs here, in the over-all, for We the People, to
me suggests Bernie & O'Malley should do EVERYTHING (just short of
having separate debates) they can together to make a very loud public
case for dropping the exclusionary rule.

[elleng]

6. Yes they should do what they can

together to make a very loud public case for dropping the exclusionary rule.

[Andy823]

7. Here is my view

Someone else in another thread said that O'Malley and Bernie need to work out a debate with the League of Women voters. Get them to sponsor the debate and invite everyone of the candidates to come. I think they "ALL" would show up, and if that were so the DNC would have to ban all of them, and that isn't going to happen.

There are ways to do this, but it will take both of them stand their ground and speak up. I won't work if Bernie caves on this issue. He started the ball rolling, he just can't drop it now at forget about it. To hell with the aides talking to one another, let Bernie and O'Malley talk it out between them. I bet they could figure it out.

[Raine1967]

8. I find this all very interesting.

Back in May he was pretty voiceful about not just wanting more debates, but wanting to include republicans in those debates.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/sanders-wants-to-debate-republicans-118460

“We need a lot more debates in this campaign,” Sanders said. “I hope very much that we can begin with the Democratic candidate debates as early as July and have some Republicans in those debates as well.”

The Democratic National Committee earlier this month announced that it will hold six sanctioned debates beginning this fall. The Republican National Committee, dealing with a significantly larger 2016 GOP field without a clear front-runner, has scheduled at least nine debates, the first in early August.

During a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” chat a couple weeks ago, Sanders suggested that he wasn’t entirely satisfied with the DNC schedule. “I don’t think six debates are enough and we will be interacting with the DNC to try to create a situation where we have as many debates as possible,” he wrote.

Insiders say that the DNC debate schedule was something of a compromise between the Clinton camp and the challengers’ campaigns, which wanted more debates.

Now, what I am curious about is two-fold; What compromise did the Clinton camp make and why is Sanders backing down from his initial issues?

It all seems very strange to me. I could actually live with 6 debates if they weren't so horribly timed. I could live with the amount of debates if all the candidates agreed about it but it really does seem as though very few compromises could have been made.

Bernie Sanders was among the first to call for more debates, and as of now, he seems to be just fine with not bucking the DNC.

He was ready to debate republicans before he even got the nomination and now he's just kinda going along to get along it seems. I really thought that Sanders would be the barn burner about this issue.

Either way, I am really looking forward to a debate.

[Raine1967]

9. I know I am responding to my own post, but if one reads the link I posted:

and goes to a link in that article, people should recall that the debates were set up before all of our candidates even declared.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/dnc-2016-primary-debates-117641

In order to crack down on other, unsanctioned debates, candidates will have to agree to an exclusivity clause and won’t be eligible to participate in the DNC-backed debates if they appear elsewhere. So far, only independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has joined Clinton in the Democratic field, though former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb are considering running.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will each host a primary debate, the DNC said. Details haven’t yet been set for the six debates, though the DNC says it will seek “diversity of media outlets, moderators and formats.”

So, you see I really do have a problem with DWS, and I am really sorry to have to say that.

[elleng]

10. crack down on other, unsanctioned debates!!!

I'm with you.

Had the thought earlier: The world sees the CLOWNS often, LOTS of them, via media outlets' viewing today's early polling, and the ELECTORATE, imagine THAT, will select which among them it wants, and DNC via DWS((hrc)) doesn't PERMIT the world to see the Democratic field until ? later on a few occasions so the DEM electorate is inhibited from selecting IT's choice. WTF kind of GAME is THIS???