Did You Guys Catch The "Exclusivity Clause" For The 2016 Democratic Debates ???

[WillyT]

Curious Timing, No ???

Any candidate who decides to participate in the debate process must agree to do so exclusively, making them ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups. If candidates deviate from this rule, they lose the ability to take part in any remaining debates hosted by the Democratic Party.

A senior adviser to one 2016 campaign told The Huffington Post that the exclusivity clause came as a "complete shock." Officials from the DNC, the adviser said, had assured all likely Democratic presidential campaigns when negotiations over the debate schedule began months ago that no such clause would be used. The adviser further argued that holding only six debates would be disadvantageous to candidates who have relatively low name-recognition across the country.

DNC Communications Director Mo Elleithee confirmed that the clause wasn't a part of the early negotiation process, but maintained that all options were left on the table. He further argued that voters would ultimately be best served by a controlled debate schedule.

And...

Responding to the announcement on Twitter, Clinton suggested that she was on board with the DNC plan.

"While GOP debates the same failed policies, Democrats will debate how to help families get ahead. Looking forward to a real conversation," she said.

O'Malley's camp, however, took issue with the DNC's new exclusivity rule.

"If Governor O'Malley decides to run, we will expect a full, robust, and inclusive set of debates -- both nationally and in early primary and caucus states. This has been customary in previous primary seasons. In a year as critical as 2016, exclusivity does no one any favors," said Lis Smith, the governor's spokeswoman.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/democrats-presidential-debates_n_7214218.html

[elleng]

1. Nothing like 'monopoly.'

HAPPY to see Governor O'Malley's statement.

[Andy823]

8. So am I

Maybe the other candidates will also support more debates and pressure a change. States should be able to have their own debates and invite the candidates to join in.

[WillyT]

18. Me Too !!!

[delrem]

2. As if $2B isn't enough.

[WillyT]

20. The Goal... 2.5 Billion $$$... And Yeah... You'd Think That Would Be More Than Enough

[hootinholler]

3. I hate giving clicks to HufPo

That said, I wonder which candidate benefits the most from this?

Someone is concerned, very concerned about how the field is shaping up.

[arcane1]

7. Hint: "disadvantageous to candidates who have relatively low name-recognition"

Therefore, the advantage would go to the candidate(s) with the highest name-recognition.

Imagine that.

I would be interested in hearing the opinions of the highest name-recognition candidate(s) regarding this new turn.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. She has Spoken:

Responding to the announcement on Twitter, Clinton suggested that she was on board with the DNC plan.

[arcane1]

52. I'm glad I was sitting down when I read this unexpected news.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. Yes, I really should have broken it more gently.

[Hissyspit]

180. LOL

[JDPriestly]

95. I think a few people will understand why I won't vote for her.

I will vote for all other Democrats on the ticket, but not her. This is just typical. This kind of conduct will cause her to lose. It is very petty.

[merrily]

101. Or, the DNC was on board with her plan. Either way...

[MissDeeds]

40. Yep

Sounds more like a DLC ploy than a DNC strategy. Someone is indeed worried.

Reminds me of duck, appears calm on the surface but paddling like hell in the water.

[Agschmid]

63. I don't agree that this benefits one candidate.

They are all running for the Democratic Primary... what other debates do you expect them to take part in?

[Jim Lane]

103. Of course it does.

In the past, debates have been sponsored by various media outlets. Although not sponsored by the Democratic Party, they were debates for the Democratic candidates.

In the 2008 cycle, there were 26 debates among the Democrats, although not every candidate participated in every one.

It's pretty elementary politics that debates help the candidates who are less well known, by giving them more exposure, and the candidates who are trailing in the polls, because a debate is an opportunity to shake up a race. Therefore, to put a constraint on the debate calendar that cuts debates from 26 to 6 would certainly benefit one particular candidate, at least in the current situation where one candidate has much greater name recognition and is far ahead in the polls.

This has the potential to be a real fiasco. Clinton agrees to the six-debate schedule. O'Malley and Sanders don't; they refuse to sign the pledge demanded by the DNC. There are six officially sanctioned Party debates at which Clinton appears and is given an opportunity to spread her message, but from which O'Malley and Sanders are excluded. (Maybe Chafee and/or Webb appears, maybe not.) A TV network hosts a debate and invites all the candidates, but Clinton refuses to appear, piously citing her commitment to the Democratic Party's exclusivity clause. Therefore, she never appears on the same stage with O'Malley or Sanders, but preserves her deniability, by saying that she showed up for all the official debates and it wasn't her decision that O'Malley and Sanders wouldn't be invited.

The whole thing stinks.

[Thespian2]

172. Good!!!

I think you explained the stinking mess very well indeed.

[rhett o rick]

105. I am hoping that someone other than corp-media gets to put on a debate. Maybe Democracy Now

or the BBC. The DNC has a bias for the corporate candidate, IMO. They want to have as few debates as possible. They wouldn't have any and let Clinton waltz into the general if they had their way.

[AtomicKitten]

123. Racked your brain and can't think if a single reason

.... why this benefits one candidate over the others? Really? That's disturbing. Have you forgotten stuff Hillary did like suing to suppress the black vote at a Nevada casino circa the 2008 campaign? Debbie W-S is DNC chair and a Clintonite. The by-any-means-necessary Clinton campaign has begun.

[christx30]

161. Well, if you're a person with good ideas,

but not part of the Clinton family that's been in Democratic politics since the time of Moses, you're trying to get your name out where ever you can. You're going to want to be at as many debates and events as you can.
If you're part of the Clinton Empire, you're not going to need that kind of exposure. Everyone in the US knows about the Clintons, and your candidacy is all but assured.

[sulphurdunn]

181. Who knows? What business

is that of the Democratic Party? What benefit is there to the party in censoring other debates? How would that benefit democracy?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

190. I know. They think I'm clicking for side boob pics.

[Bjorn Against]

4. This is absolute bullshit and needs to be challenged

I see absolutely no valid reason for this, the public deserves to hear from the candidates and if the candidates want to debate they should be able to do so.

[WillyT]

17. Agreed !!!

[Enthusiast]

132. Challenged! I agree.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Not very democratic.

[okaawhatever]

6. I don't think there's anything curious about the timing. The GOP post mortem for the 2012

election said they needed fewer debates with more control over each one. The GOP said that the debates made each candidate have to go further right than the next guy and then they weren't electible in the general. The consensus was that you couldn't have a primary season that made the candidates unelectible in the general. I think the Dems need to caution themselves against that as well.

[cui bono]

9. Oh please.

You are right about one thing:

The GOP said that the debates made each candidate have to go further right than the next guy
<snip>
the Dems need to caution themselves against that as well.

But it's not because of debates. It will be because of the lack of them. Dems are becoming more and more like the GOP every damn day. Sickening.

[okaawhatever]

10. Oh, so you support going so far left you're unelectable in the general? Great idea. Can't think of a

better way to get right wing policies passed (you know once the Democratic nominee loses the election).

[cui bono]

12. No, I support going left enough to get the people excited about voting again.

I support going left enough to become the real Democratic Party again. I support going left enough to get back to real Democratic principles and ideals. And that is left enough for most of this country when you ask them what is important to them.

I support going left enough so that we can have some real change in this country. Enough of the corporatist bs. The people don't want it. They want real change this time, not lip service.

We have been passing moderate Republican policy, and some not so moderate, for the last 6 years. Time to pass some old school Democratic policy.

Why do you support stifling Democratic voices?

[WillyT]

15. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[AikidoSoul]

174. Exactly what I've been thinking. This "contract" is dangerous BS

[hootinholler]

57. Wait, are you really saying

That we have to move our positions right to keep right wing policies from being implemented?

That's the DLC third way.

How has that worked out for people so far?

[okaawhatever]

58. No, what I'm saying is to adopt policies that are popular with the majority of the voting

Democrats. Any policy, no matter how noble or good, that causes a candidate to lose an election isn't worth pursuing. Policies of the runner-up in the Presidential race don't get implemented.

The GOP catered to their rabid ultra right base and look what it did for them. I'm also not saying where the Democratic party needs to go, I'm only telling you what cost the GOP the election (per their post mortem).

[cui bono]

182. Sanders supporters are not the "rabid ultra left base".

Sanders supporters want what the majority of Democratic voters want. Sanders fights for what the majority of Democratic voters want.

Contrary to the contrived wisdom of the cognoscenti, the American majority is amazingly progressive ... and pissed off.

How progressive? It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives&quot .

60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right direction.


Americans might not call themselves progressive -- but there they are. On the populist, pocketbook issues that are rooted in our nation's core values of fairness and justice, there's a progressive super-majority. It flourishes in red states as well as blue, cutting through the establishment's false dichotomy of liberal/ conservative.

It's also a pissed-off super-majority, for its views are treated with infuriating disdain by the whole political system -- including corporatized Democrats who minimize and trivialize the grassroots populist fervor. By routinely dismissing the boldly progressive views of the people as unworthy of consideration, much less action, the political elites are coldly dismissing the people themselves and saying, "You don't matter."
http://www.alternet.org/story/29788/what_i_want_for_christmas

This meme that people are attempting to have take hold, that Bernie is so far left he can't possibly get the votes is completely wrong. It is being used to justify getting behind a centrist candidate and it's not a good excuse. I don't know if Hillary supporters are actually scared of losing or if they just say they are to keep the party in the centrist slot, leaving the left empty, but either way it's just not accurate and it's a terrible way to behave in a democracy.

Democracies are supposed to be about the people exercising their choice of what they WANT, not what they think other people might want. The people want what Bernie Sanders is fighting for. Period. And if you're going to give up before you begin then perhaps a dictatorship suits you better. Fear is not conducive to a healthy and robust democracy.

And your analogy is dimply false. The "rabid ultra left base" is never heard from at all. Period. Even just the far left doesn't get heard from.

[Andy823]

11. Well,

If the clown "bus" gets many more, I here there could be close to 20 who run, the republicans won't have anything to worry about since by the time they let everyone speak, the debate will be over! I watched a debate last year where the governor of Idaho brought in some "clowns" who pretty much stole the show with their insanity. The governor, republican, was able to avoid the democratic challenger because the who clowns took up most of the time. The same thing will happen in the 2016 debates. The real idiots, like Cruz, will steal the show and make the others, like Bush seem sane by comparison. The real nuts will dominate the debate an allow Bush to sit back and enjoy the show without having to "real" debate about anything.

[Sheepshank]

147. according to TRMS....

300+ have declared their candidacy for POTUS.

We just never hear from a majority of them.

[WillyT]

13. The Timing... Who Knows... The Amount Of Debates And The Number Of Candidates...

The Republicans in 2012 had far too many candidates and far too many debates... true.

Yet so far... the Democrats seem to have the opposite problem...

6 debates MIGHT be about right... but right now... we only have two candidates. Hopefully more will join in.

And if a couple of Dem Candidates held an impromptu debate... at say... The Iowa Caucus...

It should NOT be held against them... It should be encouraged.

[GoneFishin]

39. I don't think the timing and number of debates is the only important point. The participants

must agree to ground rules, and those ground rules are often crafted to cover asses, which can constrain the vigor of the discussion of critical topics.

[jeff47]

30. The Republicans want to limit debates because they need to limit exposure

Their candidates are insane, and more exposure means more people find out all of their candidates are insane.

The DNC wants to limit exposure to our candidates because.......?

[Volaris]

79. because read that sentence about name recognition again, that's why..

That said, I WILL support the Party nominee.

[2banon]

50. ,

[Agschmid]

64. Me too.

There were WAY to many debates especially on the GOP side last time, I even got bored watching the train wrecks.

[Marr]

89. Come off it. It's very obvious what this is.

The party establishment knows that Hillary is not going to look good, or even much like a Democrat, if she has to actually debate an old school liberal very often, in debates where the party establishment can't filter the questions and content for her.

They want to make sure no one hears what Sanders, O'Malley, (or any other eventual candidates) have to say, and how they really compare to Madame DLC.

[winter is coming]

141. Yeah, I guess they realize she's not up to the challenge. n/t

[pnwmom]

110. Now someone's finally making sense. Six debates is plenty. No sane voter

is going to watch dozens of debates.

[jeff47]

137. Did you watch all 26 Democratic debates in 2008?

Just because there is a debate does not mean it goes on national TV. In many cases, debates were organized by a particular media outlet in a state to focus on that state's issues. They didn't get put on national TV.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

159. exactly, Rachel Maddow covered this in great detail last evening. nt

[panader0]

14. "exclusivity does no one any favors"

I don't understand why exclusivity would matter.

[WillyT]

16. If A "Non-Sanctioned" Debate Were To Erupt During The Campaig Trail...

It Might Get Someone Kicked Off The Main Stage.

[panader0]

19. I get that.

But as you said, all debate should be encouraged, "sanctioned" or not.
Who should have the authority to sanction? Sanction and sanctify have the same root.
No boundaries.

[WillyT]

22. Totally Agree...

[jeff47]

26. The DNC would have the authority to refuse to let a candidate into a DNC debate

And since the DNC debates are the ones that are going to get national coverage, that might be kinda a big deal.

[GoneFishin]

49. The participants negotiate the terms of the Dem debates. This can mean limiting certain types

of exchanges and certain topics. Allowing other rogue debates means that they will lose exclusive control over how some of the debates are run. So some "out-of-bounds" discussions will occur and they might lose control over their messaging.

For candidates like Bernie who will speak candidly about any policy issue this is not a problem. But if your strategy is to be non-committal and vague and allow the audience to hear what they want to hear, then open and thorough discussions with multiple rebuttals is disadvantageous.

[Agschmid]

65. Do you mean a conversation between candidates...

Because clearly that's a stretch.

[aspirant]

160. How many organized conversations

between candidates do you purpose + the 6 DNC"s?

[Agschmid]

165. Oh hey!

It was odd while you were gone!

[aspirant]

167. Odd or even,which is better?

[jeff47]

24. Well, let's say the Des Moines Register wants to hold a debate

tailored to Iowa. That exclusivity agreement means they can't - losing a presence in national debates would be too costly for candidates to participate in the Register's debate.

Limiting debates is a way for the party to avoid exposing their candidates to the public. The Republicans think this is a good idea because their candidates are insane, and more exposure hurts.

You're free to come up with your own thoughts for why the DNC wants to avoid more exposure for our candidates.

[WillyT]

28. Great Point !!!

[panader0]

31. I can't understand why the DNC would want sanctions

The more debates, the more exposure, the better. No boundaries. Is the DNC scared of something?

[jeff47]

32. Well, scared of something is the only reason I can think of. (nt)

[winter is coming]

140. You'd almost think they were trying to limit the amount of time candidates spend together

in the public eye, comparing and contrasting their positions. Isn't that the point of the primary process: to sort out which candidate best represents what we'd like to see in a President?

[arcane1]

157. The DNC doesn't want exposure given to lesser-known candidates

or else they might become better-known.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Who would want to limit the venues, voices, and opportunities for questions & substantive discussion?

SURELY not any of our fine announced cadidates. It seems almost inevitable that our people would want as much participation as possible.

Right?

[WillyT]

23. One Would Think...

[hay rick]

76. Right.

But not really, really far right. Let's shine a light on lesser known candidates- but not uncontrollably bright light.

[Exilednight]

25. The only way to get around it it is to stay away from

"Sanctioned" debates and only participate in u sanctioned debates and leave the front runner standing on stage by herself.

[WillyT]

27. Interesting... And Diabolical...

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Interesting idea.

Wonder if the LWV would like to get back n the game?

[woo me with science]

60. This is exactly what should happen. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

69. I think it is time to shake the two parties up by hosting web debates that the two parties

have no control over. That is the way it will happen in the future. Why not now? Cable tv is dying and so will traditional tv debates.

[dreamnightwind]

113. Excellent idea

[druidity33]

173. Over 40% of this country

has no high-speed internet. Many of my neighbors have roof antennas to get broadcast TV. I think Web debates are a good idea, but we're not there yet...

[Renew Deal]

133. Or for everyone to participate in te same unsanctioned debate

[bunnies]

156. This was my first thought as well.

To hell with their bullshit.

[Jim Lane]

179. Unfortunately, that would play right into their hands.

It would turn into a nationally televised Hillary Clinton press conference. If Clinton were upbraided for not debating, she'd respond that she attended all the DNC debates and it's not her fault if no one else was invited (because no one else would sign the exclusivity agreement, a/k/a gag order).

There might be some slight blowback against Clinton for not debating, but that's a kind of "inside baseball" issue that doesn't have mass appeal. I'm sure that Clinton would rate this slight loss of support as being much less of a concern than the dangers of what could come from a full debate schedule, in terms of letting Democratic voters get to know her opponents. That was the alternative she wanted and managed to get away with in her 2006 re-election campaign, when she refused to debate the Democrat who was challenging her from the left in the Democratic primary.

OTOH, signing the gag order is a bad idea, too.

The most obvious solution is to make this not stick, but I don't know what the prospects of that are. Presumably, there are intense tactical discussions going on in the Sanders campaign and in the O'Malley/Webb/Chafee incipient campaigns. I hope those people are also talking to each other with a view to presenting a united front.

[MisterP]

29. guess the party's doubling down on acting like the MPAA?

[Gothmog]

33. The RNC has a similar clause

It makes sense for the Democratic contests given the low number of candidates

[jeff47]

34. Because we want fewer people to hear about our candidates? (nt)

[SusanCalvin]

36. Explain, please?

I mean, I know that something needs to be done about cases like Kesha Rogers, but is that relevant here?

[Gothmog]

42. The RNC revised its rules so that candidates have to participate only in RNC sanctioned debates

If a candidate appears in a non-sanctioned debate, they are excluded from all other debates. With 22 potential nominees, this rule has some bite. In the DNC case, we can use a reasonable cut off with Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley without ruffling any feathers

[SusanCalvin]

45. But with few

Why any cutoff at all? Plus, cutoff isn't the issue, per this post - exclusivity is.

And the question is not whether the rule has bite, it's whether it should be a rule at all, and why.

Edited to add that these are questions - I'd really like to know if there's a good rationale. My knee-jerk reaction is bs.

[SusanCalvin]

35. What a bunch of bull

What are they afraid of? Oh wait.......

And, yeah, I mean "they." A party that would do this does not speak for me. So KNOCK IT OFF, because I am a Democrat. Give me back my party.

[jeff47]

37. Pfft. You'd just vote wrong.

Now, go line up behind Humphrey.

[hootinholler]

59. OMG!

Humphrey!

[SusanCalvin]

175. Sorry, I just now got it.

I'm old and slow....

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. Any word on who's writing the questions? LOL. n/t

[whereisjustice]

46. Written exactly like a corporate non-compete agreement. Oh wait...

[MissDeeds]

47. Ouch

Good one!

[WillyT]

54. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[liberal_at_heart]

70. exactly!

[stillwaiting]

135. So true. Such controlling obnoxiousness. nt

[7962]

48. What BS. What are they scared of?

Debate anywhere hosted by anyone. And I'd like to see them WITHOUT audiences too. They just use up time. Lets HEAR the candidates.

[msanthrope]

51. You wanna run as a Democrat, you play by their sandbox rules.

Jeebus......you really have to wonder just who these guys think they are playing with.

[jeff47]

138. And when the DNC tries to add rules that obviously favor one candidate? (nt)

[jberryhill]

53. This avoids the "so and so didn't show up" posturing

[lovemydog]

55. Yes I did and I wonder what is going on with that.

[WillyT]

62. Didn't Mean To Take Over Your Post... Anger Got The Better Of Me...

[lovemydog]

66. Not at all WillyT. This deserves its own thread.

I'm confused and angry about it as well.

The only cure for democracy is more democracy.

[WillyT]

67. Word...

[lovemydog]

71. I just looked up that quote.

I think you'll also get a kick out of its origin. The last sentence made me laugh.

New York Governor Al Smith (1873-1944) said in 1923: “If there are any ills that democracy is suffering from today, they can only be cured by more democracy.” The quote was part of a policy that gave more home-rule to New York City and less power to the state government at Albany. The political quotation has been much-repeated over the years. Some have disputed the quotation, stating that if democracy is corrupt, then “more democracy” won’t be an improvement.

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_cure_for_the_ills_of_democracy_is_more_democracy_al_smith

[liberal_at_heart]

106. It's a good quote. We do need more democracy. We need politicians who represent the people,

not the 1%. They won't do it voluntarily. They get too much money out of it to give it up voluntarily. We have to make ourselves be heard. I've heard many on here say we need to be fighting at the local level, and I agree. But hey. Bernie has come along at a great time. No harm in working at the local level and at the national level especially with great people like Bernie.

[lovemydog]

116. Most definitely liberal_at_heart.

Great point. I talked with a friend on the phone in Philly the other day who said he and his wife and their teenage kids are enthused that Bernie is running. Younger people are responding well to him and his message. I can understand why. It feels like breathing fresh air. You keep wanting more. We must tear down this wall between the bought off politicians who keep representing only the 1% and the rest of us in the large majority. We have the votes, all across the country.

[liberal_at_heart]

68. and yet some DUers will claim it is the voters fault for staying home.

We have a corrupt two party political system and lots of Americans can't stand the thought of voting. They know it is rigged against them.

[liberal_at_heart]

77. I was excited about watching the debates for once until now. Now they can forget it.

I already know I'm voting for Bernie. Screw watching the debates.

[liberal_at_heart]

82. The 1% will not give up their power without a fight that is for sure.

[jtuck004]

163. There were more slaves on plantations than owners, yet they stay enslaved for decades.

"I saved a thousand slaves. I could have saved a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves".

Harriet Tubman

Most likely what would happen today is that they will kill anyone that tries to "help" them against the 1%.

[dreamnightwind]

119. This pic nails it

[liberal_at_heart]

122. yes it does.

[Marr]

104. This is the kind of thing that would convince me not to vote for the "nominee". /nt

[delrem]

72. So, the arguments in favor of this so far appear to be:

1. The Republicans do it, so it must be a good thing.
2. The Democratic Party needs to control, and stop, any possible movement to the left.

gotcha.

[whatchamacallit]

108. I know

I barely recognize "democrats" anymore.

[RoccoR5955]

73. That's the DNC for you

doing whatever they can to make sure that DINOs win!

[liberal_at_heart]

75. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

[Bugenhagen]

85. So they have ever done

the debate rules are run by the party organization to exclude "outsiders" and anyone the party organization decrees doesn't have a chance to win. That pretty much keeps wallstreeters in the winner's circle.

[Historic NY]

78. For all the whining is its the Democrats that are hosting the debates...

if your pulling in third parties then it isn't the Democratic party. If a candidate wants to run on a third party perhaps he or she should be. And no its not curious timing, its more like sensible scheduling. There were 27 debates in 2007-08, so far only three people have stepped into the breech.

[liberal_at_heart]

80. and isn't it lovely how the party gets to control the process.

Bernie could have run as an Independent, but he didn't want to hurt the party so he is running as a Democrat and this is the thanks he gets. It's no wonder 40% of Americans don't vote. The two party system is all about holding onto their power. That's all the two parties care about and that is why so many people don't vote. Bernie may not win the primary and I'm okay with that although I will not be voting for Hillary even if she wins the primary. But if Bernie or O'Malley is shut out of the debates I swear to God I will become part of that 40%. I am sick of it. I am done. The whole damn thing is sick, twisted, and corrupt.

[Historic NY]

83. Sorry perhaps he should run as an independant if he feels so strongly...

he doesn't get to set or change the party process. It won't work.

[liberal_at_heart]

87. He was trying not to hurt the party by pulling votes away from the party but if this is the way the

party is going to treat him I do think he should run as an Independent, and maybe just maybe some of those 40%ers who hate the political system we have will finally have someone to vote for. I don't really identify as a Democrat anymore. I have been hoping against hope that the party would start electing more people like Warren and Bernie but maybe it really is time for me to move on and just join a third party. It's either that or become part of the 40%. I'm almost to that point but this fight is too important. I would join a third party before I would just give up and not vote.

[Historic NY]

90. Well no independent has garnered more than 6.6 % of the popular vote...

see John B Anderson...it probably hurt Carter and gave Reagan the advantage along with his
Iranian hijinks. The decision was made well in advance of his decision to enter the race. It was completly overboard in 08 it was like reruns in real time over and over.

[liberal_at_heart]

91. You know what? The 40% that don't vote don't care that you think they gave the election to the

Republicans. All they know is that they get screwed either way. That is why they don't vote. So telling me voting third party means that a Republican will win means nothing to me. I know either way my family gets screwed.

[Historic NY]

94. I know that why this palce has disolved into KOAS..

because people like you rather see a Republican in the WH....have a nice life.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[liberal_at_heart]

98. welcome to my ignore list.

[Historic NY]

100. funny.......

[Ms. Toad]

114. It isn't debates hosted by third political parties (i.e. the Green party),

It is any debate which is not hosted by the Democratic party.

Like, for example, the City Club of Cleveland (which has enough stature to have been asked by President Obama to host him recently). I don't know that they would host a primary debate - but they did host gubernatorial debates which the front runner refused to attend. This clause gives people who believe themselves to be front runners cover when they deem themselves too good to debate the riff-raff.

[SusanCalvin]

177. Bingo

That's the most plausible explanation I've heard.

[jeff47]

139. Boy, you did a great job torching that strawman!!!

The issue isn't third party candidates in DNC sanctioned debates.

The problem is not allowing Democratic candidates to participate in anyone else's debates. Let's say the Concord Monitor in NH wants to set up a debate among the Democratic candidates to focus on NH-centric issues. In 2008 and 2012, they could. And Democratic candidates could attend that debate.

With these new rules, Democratic candidates can't attend that debate. They'd lose too much by being excluded from the DNC debates.

The RNC wants to limit exposure to their candidates because their candidates are insane. More exposure hurts them.

We don't have that problem. So why is it a good idea to limit exposure to our candidates?

[Historic NY]

186. Really look at the list of debates from 2008.......

it was almost night after night the SSDD each member came out from each corner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

It was like wishing for a train wreck.......

Strawman...........GTFFH.

[jeff47]

188. Yes, strawman.

Let's see, you failed to explain why limiting exposure to our candidates is good.

And now you're claiming that 26 events over a year equal "night after night". Oh my, how horrible that 7% of the days in a year had a debate!! To the fainting couches!!

Stop shoveling the bullshit, and people will stop calling you on shoveling bullshit.

Why is it good to limit exposure to our candidates?

[Marr]

84. Every other candidate should attend third party debates then. Let Hillary do a sad little monologue

at the DNC events, while everyone else points it out that the sell-out party establishment is trying to cram Hillary down the party's throat.

They're going to do everything they can to simply coronate Hillary. I think it's going to be even uglier than her 2008 run.

[liberal_at_heart]

88. yep. A coronation is what the party wants.

[dreamnightwind]

125. The DNC would love that

They'll get people like Webb and God knows who else to join in and act like there's a choice, 3 or 4 people debating their microscopic differences with pretty much exactly the same world views and policies. People like Sanders will never be heard by most voters. That would suit them just fine, it's called business as usual.

I hear you though, this really sucks. Campaigns are often won and lost on things like this, also on the terms of discussion in the debates. I'm so sick and tired of having no candidate represent my views, and it's been like that most of my long life as I watched the country I love slide into an abyss.

[jeff47]

142. Well, we're back to 1960s-like riots in cities. It's time to repeat the 1968 convention. (nt)

[JDPriestly]

93. That clause is just disgusting.

[DJ13]

96. must agree to do so exclusiveley, making them ineligible to participate in any debates organized by

I would be for that if it included speaking in front of financial institutions (*cough* Hillary Goldman Clinton Sachs *cough*) as well.

[liberal_at_heart]

97. That should be part of a no lobbying law anyway let alone for debates.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

99. I think that's the Nader Rule

[jeff47]

143. Nope. Nader was already excluded by not running for the Democratic nomination. (nt)

[merrily]

102. Super delegates, coronation attempts, disadvantaging candidates with lower name recognition,

manipulating debate schedules to advantage one Democrat over the others.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you......the Democratic Party.

golf clap

[phleshdef]

107. It should be no different than 2008 (or Republicans in 2012) IMO.

[pnwmom]

109. How many non-crazy people are going to watch more than 6 primary debates anyway?

People here forget how completely unrepresentative DU is of anything.

Yes, we have plenty of people here crazy enough to watch a couple dozen primary debates among a handful of candidates.

We'll be lucky if most normal people -- normal as in not us -- even watch 3 debates before making up their minds.

[CanadaexPat]

127. Or, only have the opportunity to watch one or two

With a lot of debates odds are greater someone turning in the TV and clicking around will see one. I doubt it's appointment TV for most but if they come across it some might watch.

[winter is coming]

145. Or, only be interested in seeing them a few weeks before your state's primary.

I wasn't aware we had a problem with the way the debates were set up in 2008, so I don't see why this change is either necessary or beneficial to anyone except Hillary. The proposed set-up will heavily favor whoever's in the lead before the debates begin.

Kind of sad that the DNC thinks our candidates are too fragile to withstand a lengthy debate season.

[jeff47]

144. Why would I watch an Iowa-centered debate?

I don't live there, and my issues are very different than Iowa's. Yet for people in Iowa, that debate could be very helpful in learning about the candidates before they vote.

And golly, those Iowans get to establish the narrative as to who is doing well before I get a chance to vote.

There were 26 debates in the 2008 election. No one at DU watched all 26. They watched the debates that covered issues they cared about.

Why is it good to limit exposure to our candidates?

[pnwmom]

111. Maybe, if O'Malley's worried he's an unknown, he should get the hell into the race

instead of sitting on the sidelines saying maybe he'll run and maybe he won't.

The longer he runs, the more time he has to build a higher profile.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Democracy. The will of The People.

[liberal_at_heart]

115. It's more like the will of the media conglomerate and party leaders. I am so tired of

cable tv. It's on it's way out anyway, thank goodness. Pretty soon we will be watching debates on social media. Then maybe we will see some democracy.

[G_j]

117. Posted

http://www.alternet.org/story/9890/protesters_beaten_as_nader_tries_to_enter_debate

Protesters Beaten as Nader Tries to Enter Debate
After a sympathetic college student gave him a valid ticket to Tuesday's presidential debate, Ralph Nader tried to enter the audience only to be muscled away at the door. Meanwhile, 5,000 protesters demanded that Nader be admitted to the debate until they were attacked by a police horse charge, replete with chemical spray and beatings, which resulted in numerous injuries and arrests.

-------------

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/17/green-party-candidates-arrested-debate/jbkerY8MqWe6cIiUDm8OcP/story.html

Green Party candidates arrested at debate



Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, left, and vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala sat at the entrance to Hofstra University after being informed they wouldn't be able to enter and participate in the presidential debate.

ASSOCIATED PRESS OCTOBER 17, 2012
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Police say the Green Party candidates for president and vice president have been arrested at the second presidential debate.

[liberal_at_heart]

118. The media may not get away with not reporting these protests this time around. The young

generation shows us everything now with social media.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. I voted for her in 2012

And, she's running for the nomination again in 2016.

[liberal_at_heart]

121. Thanks. I didn't know that. I almost voted for her in the last Presidential general election.

[G_j]

124. She is very good

an inspiration.

[Maedhros]

164. I did as well.[n/t]

[cantbeserious]

128. So - Will We See Hillary Debate Herself - That Should Prove Amusing

eom

[woo me with science]

129. Huge K&R. Corrupt.

[99Forever]

130. Typical neolibs trying to control access to information.

When your policies suck, you make sure that the smallest amount of possible voters have alternative views and candidates presented to them. Sunlight is the enemy.

[Enthusiast]

131. THIS SUCKS! Of course Hillary is on board with the DNC plan.

[stillwaiting]

134. What top-down, authoritarian, managed bullshit. Freedom!

Wouldn't want any debates that weren't managed and controlled by Party leaders now would we?

Wall Street would be quite upset no doubt.

[Buns_of_Fire]

136. Rule 22: Ms. Clinton's podium must be at least three feet taller than the other podiums,

with appropriate risers installed to raise the candidate to appropriate height.

Rule 22(a): Ms. Clinton's podium must be properly adorned with red, white, and blue bunting. All other candidates will not be allowed any adornment.

Rule 31: Proper attire is required to participate. Female candidates may wear business-appropriate pantsuits. Male candidates must wear clown suits (clown nose optional).

Rule 37: Only female candidates with last names ending in the letter "C" will be provided microphones.

I miss the debates held by the League of Women Voters.

[jeff47]

149. Some more

First, you've got a typo in rule 37 - beginning in the letter "C".

Rule 38: All male candidates must speak while drinking a glass of water or eating heavily-salted potato chips. A gently-trinkling fountain will be provided to refill all candidate's glasses.
Rule 39: There will be no bathroom breaks.

Rule 42: Discussion of Ms. Clinton's clothing, hairstyle, makeup or other dumb superficial traits is horribly sexist and will not be allowed.
Rule 43: All candidates must discuss Mr. Sander's hair in every debate.

Rule 47: Speaking time during the debate will be determined by the candidate's standing in the polls. The polls that were taken in January. Of 2013.

[frylock]

170. Flames added electronically by channel

[librechik]

146. FoxNews grabbed the exclusive broadcas rights (to BOTH party's debates) last time--has that changed?

PBS had to ask permission and pay to run clips of the debates. Our elections are a fucking joke.

[JEB]

148. Debate organized br corporate butt sniffers.

Democrats should be able to do better and face all competition fair and square.

[Beowulf42]

150. DNC =

Once again the DNC works against the best interests of the Democratic Party and the American people. I don't donate any money to the DNC. I select individual candidates and support them. We have been betrayed before by the corporatists and somehow we have to take control of the party for its own sake.

[mother earth]

151. O'Malley is right, plain & simple. K & R nt

[chknltl]

152. KnR nt

[Left coast liberal]

153. "Controlled debates"...yeah, controlled by the DNC

Not good...

[tularetom]

154. This stinks to high heaven

Why not just restrict the debates to those candidates who have previously entered a Democratic primary? Or those who poll over 50% in preference polls? Or those who have previously resided in the White House?

Of course Clinton was "on board" with the DNC proposal, her people probably suggested (or dictated) it to the DNC in the first place.

O'Malley's spokeswoman is wrong however. Exclusivity does one candidate a favor. And I think we all know which one.

[fadedrose]

155. The operative word here is "controlled" nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

158. i think both parties made the exclusivity announcements, as per the Rachel Maddow from last night

[valerief]

162. Third-Wayers keeping the republic Republican. nt

[BeanMusical]

166. Yup, very true.

[ieoeja]

168. O'Malley, Sanders, Webb and Chafee should contact the League of Women Voters.

They should agree to abide by LoWV rules for debates and get them back into the game. We had real debates when the LoWV ran them.

If Hillary doesn't like it, let her enter all 6 DNC debates by herself. Their debates are just a series of mini campaign speeches anyway.

[closeupready]

169. It's now a Chicago-style machine, angling to gloss over weaknesses

in Hillary's inability to connect with voters, and her lack of empathy.

[DebJ]

171. Good grief. Talk about restricting freedom of speech. This is ridiculous.

And I don't think 6 debates is enough. Need more like 10-12. I remember how after prior debates
one gaffe would swing the polls. We need enough debates to offset temporary swings, to give
voters enough time.

[orpupilofnature57]

176. And who would this help ???

Jeb Bush .

[aintitfunny]

178. Of course Clinton is on board with the DNC plan

We should withhold donations to the DNC, it is absurd, O'Malley's right.

[NorthCarolina]

183. Let the DLC play their games. They will just grease the skids for Bernie

by pissing off just enough Democrats for him to clinch the party nomination.

[blackspade]

184. WTF is the DNC up to now?

Is Wasserman-Schultz trying to help the republics again?

[L0oniX]

185. Uhm so the DNC is anti free speech? Wow.

Whodathunkit in a Democratic country that debate can be limited by a Democratic organization. Fuck the DNC ! Bunch of corporate controlled Wall Street bankster trolls.

[woo me with science]

187. Huge K&R, and see this response by Dragonfli to this issue:

It's time to call out these rigged pageants for what they are.

I would like debates held by the League of Woman Voters, those of us old enough to remember
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6629353

When that was a thing, also realize that debates can be more than the biased dog and pony show the modern debates have become (some more dog, some more pony and some just show depending on the venue).

I suggest a letter writing campaign suggesting they host a primary debate as soon as all candidates have declared, I would go further, my suggestion is to openly stick a finger in the eye of those in the DNC trying to control the the debate process in favor of the candidate they certainly appear to favor over the others. Also contact the un-anointed to agree as a group to this debate and Ms. Clinton can stand on stage by herself at Debbie's events with DWS throwing her softballs and applauding each non-answer. This would nip this nonsense in the bud (after they blatantly refuse admission to all other primary candidates).

Make this ridiculous and transparent attempt to bend the debates to favor a single candidate work against such attempts.

This would also insure a proper debate structure that may be as substantive as they once were. For those too young to know what I am talking about, debates were once actual debates, and when the LWV held them, they were quite unbiased and would include challenging and pertinent questions.

It is unlikely to happen, but would any here agree with me to try to encourage such a thing?

If so, their contact page is http://lwv.org/content/contact

The address and phone numbers:

1730 M Street NW, Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20036-4508
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

We haven't had real debates in this country since the two corporate parties seized control of them during the 1988 election, and they have been steadily tightening control ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

(more at link)

[aspirant]

189. Why not have

the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Unions have 6 debates each and invite all the candidates with the stipulation that if you don't participate the American people will know you are not supportive of these groups.