Hillary's DNC declines Sanders' request for more debates

[cali]

Sorry, I'm having trouble with my tablet. Read the DNC protect delicate Hillary bull here

http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/05/dnc-declines-sanders-request-for-more-debates/

[fredamae]

1. What, pray tell, could

the DNC be so afraid of?
The Optics here say the DNC can't win on the merits of their Own policies, Goals and Intent...so they FEAR their base?

This is a Great idea....the More debates the Better for voters.

What is the DNC trying to keep hidden from it's own base?

[yeoman6987]

61. 6 is enough

Especially with the small amount of participants we have.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. +1 ...

How many more debates are sought?

[fredamae]

77. In my dreams?

One for every major issue we face:
Wall Street/Banking Corruption and Legislative Influence
Climate Change/Global Warming/Alternative Energy
TPA/TPP/TITP/TATP
Civil Rights
Criminal Justice/Police Reform/WoD's
Health Care
Income Inequality
Corp Control
Womens Reproductive Rights
Marriage Equality
Wars
Voting Rights
Money in Politics
Corporate Food/Water Controls
Gerrymandering
Etc, Etc, Etc
All just my humble opinion and yes...a girl can dream.

[yeoman6987]

87. That would not work

For example, woman's reproductive rights. How can you have an hour on this when both candidates agree with every detail of it?

[fredamae]

114. How about

giving us the plan(s) each has to fix/improve it..not just tell us what is Wrong....we know whats wrong.....we Know what we need...
I want to hear their Feasible Plans of Action and how "we" can help them help us.

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. Or, in fact, ...

the differences between the candidates on just about any one of these topics wouldn't fill a 15 minute slot.

[hifiguy]

152. I think that the one on the too-big-to-fail institutions

and the influence of money in politics would he highly illuminating indeed. Poles apart.

[1StrongBlackMan]

183. No ...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wall-street-hillary-clinton-2016-bernie-sanders-118759.html

At best, a matter of degree ... poles apart would be the republican candidate.

[MADem]

244. Oh, stop making sense! nt

[yeoman6987]

95. Well the number is all over the board.

Six is way more then enough. Hillary is an expert at debates. Her debate with lazio was brilliant. She has way more experience with debates then Bernie by far.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

184. How many shots was Floyd Mayweather supposed to give Manny Pacquiao?/NT

[1StrongBlackMan]

188. That all depends ...

On who you ask ... Ask a Manny fan and (Before the fight), one would have been enough ... now, after the fight ... At least 23 more.

[fredamae]

67. Respectfully...I disagee

"we" have Too many issues and problems facing us...6-12 hours of debate between even Two candidates isn't nearly enough, imo to delve into these Multiple and Various Big issues/problems this country faces.

[George II]

99. Debates rarely are "debates", they are simply rehearsed policy statements, and rehashed...

...policy statements at that. No blockbusters occur during debates, and other than seeing how the candidates inter-react (which generally is unimportant) no new information comes out of them.

In fact, candidates rarely address the specifics of the questions anyway, they wander off in the direction they want to talk about, not the actual issue under "debate".

[fredamae]

109. We need to change that, obviously

We already have open, unscreened, audience participation-Bernie is already doing it.

Change: If not now, When? If not us, Who? If not here, Where?
I refuse to accept the meme: "It'll never change, it is the way it is, nothing you can do about it".
"We" collectively underestimate our own collective power, imo.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. And there is a good reason for that ...

giving specifics to any plan only does one thing ... gives those looking to grouse, something to grouse about, should you fail in any part of your plan.

And in a primary debate, it merely gives your general election opponent months to prepare a rebuttal to your plan. So while it might be "satisfying" to the fans, it would be myopic, in the extreme, in terms of a campaign.

[George II]

174. Very true - personally I see very little if any value to debates. Like I said....

.....the candidates, ALL of them (to those who'll say "Bernie isn't like that&quot basically use a debate as a soap box and speak on what THEY want to speak, within the parameters of the general subject of the question.

Other than a few "gotcha" moments (i.e., "Please proceed governor"....PRICELESS) I've never gotten much out of debates on any level.

[1StrongBlackMan]

185. Nor do/have I ...

But then, much of this "More debates" chatter comes from the same place as the Foundation-gate stuff and the email-gate stuff, and the Benghazi-gate stuff.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Does anyone really believe ...

anyone on DU's position on the candidates will change after 1 or 1,000,000 debates? Or, what about any of the 10s of folks that might catch 7th (or 70th) debate, after having missed the first 6 (63)?

I think folks are being BettyEllened, here.

[fredamae]

130. How can we know unless we try? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. Compare the viewer numbers for American Idol (or a similarly vacuous reality show) ...

to that of political shows ... let alone debates.

The only folks that watch debates are political activists ... and most political activists are decided on a candidate, long before the debates.

[fredamae]

147. You make a good point

I don't watch those programs...I forget about them and the Huge audiences they have. I hear about the comparisons in viewership's relative to Football/Sports etc to issues that matter. It'sa real head scratcher.

[Bluenorthwest]

173. You are wildly incorrect about that. The last Romney/Obama debate drew over 67 million viewers

American Idol's highest numbers ever were 37 million and currently their high marks are around 8 million if they are lucky. Bush/Kerry debate got 62.5 million, Obama/McCain 52.4 million, these are astronomical numbers. Only the Superbowl is bigger, last Superbowl had 114 million people watching, more than Romney/Obama and Idol's best combined.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/obama-mitt-romney-presidential-debate-ratings-record-376575

[1StrongBlackMan]

186. Yes ... That was meant to be hyberbolic. ...

Do you think anyone was (more than a few were) swayed by the debates?

[gollygee]

222. How do primary debates do?

I like watching the dem vs. rep debates, but I don't generally watch the primary debates or hear people talking about it.

[MADem]

245. Primary debates are very different from general election ones.

Obama - Romney was a general election contest.

Apples and oranges.

[George II]

175. It's not like the debates next year are the first in history. There were TWENTY SIX in 2007/2008...

.....and the polls hardly changed at all.

[fredamae]

207. I'm not really asking

for more of the status quo "canned corporate" performances.............I'm talking about more, serious, smaller..... town hall style forums with real, open...spontaneous more in-depth debates/discussion about the real issues...
Something different.
I want "us" to be allowed to participate more.
Audience participation shouldn't be "pre-screened"...instead randomly draw names/numbers whatever.....

If these things can happen at a smaller informal level with out lawmakers then......what's wrong with asking the same from those who seek to be POTUS?

[okasha]

157. It's pretty basic.

Bernie and his team want more free air time. He's not going to have the funds to buy the kind of exposure a national candidate needs. That's why he's been running from one talking head interview to the other.

[George II]

176. That's why every election (primary or general) the underdog wants more...

....look at it this way. If a candidate has a comfortable lead, even after several debates, why would he/she want or need more exposure.

It's like "taking a knee" in football - the QB doesn't want to take a chance on fumbling the ball. But the defense (underdog) is charging the line anyway!

[okasha]

180. Sure.

Particularly if the underdog can't realistically compete in resources.

[Sheepshank]

209. Gee...why didn't I see that...of course it makes some sense.

The Pro Bernie crowd is not crowing that extra debates would be good for Bernie, they flip it all around that Hillary is avoiding unlimited debate for some nepharious reason, or that she's afraid, or that she is a bad debater, or that she is hiding behind controlled messaging. :rolleyes:

[okasha]

229. Exactly.

I think the public will be interested for perhaps four, after which the audience will fall off rapidly.

[OilemFirchen]

2. "Hillary's DNC"?

Is this a swipe at Sanders because he's not a registered Democrat?

[cali]

4. no, it's stating the obvious: the DNC is functionally an arm of her campaign

in much the same way as if she were a sitting president.

[OilemFirchen]

7. It's not O'Malley's DNC?

Did he forget to pay his dues?

[jeff47]

14. Well, DNC implemented a new policy to hurt O'Malley

So it sure doesn't look like O'Malley's DNC.

[cali]

16. let's not play this stupid little game

It's one of the worst kept secrets in DC that this is how the DNC is operating

[MohRokTah]

126. Sorry, but you started the stupid little game with your title.

The DNC is not owned by anybody. If you don't like who is currently running the DNC, you should have damned well got involved with your local party about ten years ago to drive the direction of the party to where it is today.

[KingCharlemagne]

19. Boyd Brown, a DNC member and O'Malley supporter, called Sanders

'crazy' a couple days ago, as quoted in a major newspaper report.

So far, there have been no direct consequences for Brown's shite. The DNC are a bunch of tools.

You can contact there here to register your displeasure (or approbation, as the case may be):

http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact-the-democrats

[TheNutcracker]

226. Yes I called and still waiting for my apology as I'm a card carrying member too

[Segami]

40. Yup....sure is!

They sure are impartial.............

A high-ranking official in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is reportedly violating the party's own rules by fundraising for Hillary Clinton before she has been officially selected as the Democratic presidential candidate for 2016.

DNC finance chairman Henry R. Muñoz III, who bundled significant contributions to President Obama's campaign in 2012, reportedly helped organize a fundraiser for Clinton in Texas, even though DNC rules require that Muñoz and his fellow staffers "maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

A representative for Muñoz denied any wrongdoing, stating "he has not donated to any campaign personally, made any endorsement or co-hosted any event as the primary process plays out." Bonnie Kristian

http://theweek.com/speedreads/558748/dnc-staffer-reportedly-breaks-party-rules-fundraise-clinton

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

251. Hillary's scared to debate Bernie, as she should be. Plain and simple.

[bettyellen]

6. "Delicate Hillary", lol. I gotta laugh at the venom.

[sabrina 1]

9. Are you opposed to debates?

[bettyellen]

18. I'm opposed to lifting descriptors from MRA pigs to describe our candidates.

But it looks like that's too high of a standard around here. Fucking hate primary season at DU. Delicate in this case is pretty ironic though.

[cali]

68. sorry, I didn't lift a thing. the DNC is shielding her.

[mylye2222]

81. She is the Party's (edited) Estabishment candidate for sure.

[Jack Rabbit]

106. No, she's the party establishment's candidate

The party is the rank-and-file voters. The party establishment no longer represents rank-and-file voters.

[mylye2222]

110. In fact I miss stated. When I say the Party I meant Dem powerstructures.

[bettyellen]

205. Because she's such a "delicate flower"... Yeah. It's just funny when you see those words to describe

Clinton- no matter how you feel about her.
Delicate? Nope.
And this is not defending her- just noting the language employed, which is pretty damned funny.

[tularetom]

228. Yeah, if she was such a "delicate flower" she could not have stood up to that sniper fire in Bosnia

Oh wait.

I forgot, she "misspoke" about that.

[bettyellen]

250. Delicate flower= war hawk, too. It's a pretty stupid inept word to use on Hillary I'd say!

[Comrade Grumpy]

78. "Delicate" is on the bad word list now?

[George II]

177. Its not a bad word, but used in that context its offensive and bordering on sexist.

[bettyellen]

201. It's the same sneering accusations that sexist jerks and their enablers use against women...

Somehow the same women are delicate flowers and harpies at the same time. You gotta just shake your head and laugh. No.

[sabrina 1]

164. Politics is tough. If your candidate does things that make it hard for you to defend, it's even

tougher, I know, been there many times. Then I decided that I did not need to defend any politician. It was a freeing moment after years of fighting and arguing in defense of the politicians I supported.

I learned that it's better to admit when they let you down, which doesn't mean you can't still support them, if overall they do represent you on the issues.

But trying to defend eg, Bill Clinton's 'Welfare Reform Bill' was pretty futile, though I tried hard to believe that he meant it when he said 'it would be fixed'.

Right now the candidate I support makes it a lot easier to defend him due to his long record on the issues of importance to Democrats. Eg, he supported Gay Marriage back when DOMA was a popular piece of legislation among Dems and Repubs. He voted against it. That says to me that he showed foresight and good judgement, qualities that are very necessary in a leader.

He voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, votes that literally INVITED and GOT accusations of Treason. But again, his foresight shown in the reasons he gave for those votes, proved to be correct. Again demonstrating two very important qualities necessary in a good leader.

I'm sure I will disagree with him along the way, and if I do, I will NOT try to do what I used to do in the past, I will simply admit that I don't agree with him but his overall record leaves a lot of room for some disagreement, and that is the best I can hope for in any candidate.

[TeeYiYi]

256. Good post, sabrina 1...

re: "I'm sure I will disagree with him along the way, and if I do, I will NOT try to do what I used to do in the past, I will simply admit that I don't agree with him but his overall record leaves a lot of room for some disagreement, and that is the best I can hope for in any candidate."

TYY

[MADem]

246. +1. Fair point. nt

[Sheepshank]

32. so how many debates are planned?

how many debates do you think is enough?

we could have 100 debates and it would serve no purpose. Between the debates and the campaign ads, I'm pretty sure we'll all get a good idea of each candidates platform.

[jeff47]

39. Really? Go ahead and contrast Clinton's and Sanders's position on Western water law.

That's vitally important to a small number of states. It will not be discussed in any national debate.

There are many issues that are of vital importance to voters in some states. Up until this year, those entities could run their own debates to discuss these issues that will get zero coverage in national debates. It would be the candidate's decision as to whether or not they attended. Both Obama and Clinton skipped some of these debates in 2008.

6 debates from the DNC is fine. The brand-new exclusivity clause is not.

[Sheepshank]

42. we need to hear every single freaking opinion via a debate?

your attempt to portray that all campaign platforms are ONLY publisized via a debate is plain wrong.

[jeff47]

47. Campaign platforms lack depth. Debate is where candidates must supply that depth.

Because they can be challenged on the details their platform papers gloss over.

Since Western water law, or midwest farming policy, or some other regional policy is not likely to be important to all voters, it is extremely important to allow local entities to set up their own debates on those policies.

Up until this year, they could. And each candidate got to decide if it was an important enough issue to show up for that debate.

This year, the DNC changed the rules.

[Sheepshank]

50. nope...I simply don't agree that regional single issues must be hammered out via debate

I.just.don't.agree.

[jeff47]

53. You also think Romney was the Republican nominee in 2008.

(Post #35)

Your apparently poor attention span should not restrict what others are allowed to do.

Why does the DNC need to force people to do what you want? If those regional debates are actually so unimportant, the candidates will not show up.

[Sheepshank]

63. so I didn't pay close attention to the year, I assumed.....

if there were any comparisons it would have been with the most recent POTUS elections. So it appears there is attempt to cherry pick which elections we are comparing?

So how many debates did Obama and Hillary have in the Primaries leading up to the Dem Nomination? How many did the Republican have? 26?

The number is ridiculous and to attempt to protray that as the norm simply doesn't make sense. Again, SINGLE ISSUE, REGIONAL issues do not need to have a debate to have the candidate platformm be known.

Why does the DNC need to force people to do what you want

as it turns out I'm not forceing the DNC to do anything. bwah haah aah haaa.

You are not going to get me to change my mind, simply because you are trying to cherry pick one more idiotic item with which to beat up a Dem Candidate.

[jeff47]

84. No, we're comparing the primaries where there was no incumbent Democrat.

Because that is the relevant comparison to today. Do you think Obama debated himself in 2012?

So how many debates did Obama and Hillary have in the Primaries leading up to the Dem Nomination? How many did the Republican have? 26?

Both parties had roughly the same number of debates in 2008.

The RNC added an exclusivity clause this year in an attempt to avoid the implosions of 2008. The DNC added an exclusivity clause this year because....um....because....um....reasons.

The number is ridiculous and to attempt to protray that as the norm simply doesn't make sense.

It is the norm. The DNC is trying to change the norm.

Again, SINGLE ISSUE, REGIONAL issues do not need to have a debate to have the candidate platformm be known

Ok, list the differences between each candidate's policy on western water law, midwest farming policy and gulf fishing policy versus northeastern fishing policy. Be sure to get down into the really gory details that show actual contrasts.

Or people who give a damn about those policies could set up a debate on those policies. And if those policies are as unimportant as you claim, the candidates will not show up for that debate.

What, besides your attention span, is the problem with this system?

You are not going to get me to change my mind, simply because you are trying to cherry pick one more idiotic item with which to beat up a Dem Candidate.

Yeah, how DARE we want to hear details about what a candidate before coronating...er...electing them.

[Sheepshank]

119. I think the term is "impotent rage"

And I hope you are not feeling that in any way, because it's very frustrating.

There are many platform issues not even seeing the light of day yet. I'm sure many issues will never get addressed. But no doubt, we will also hear issues that never in crossed our minds in the up coming months.

I will tend to focus on the issues that are important to me. I don't even know if either candidate has addressed the water issues that has to be so very concerning to you. I probably won't even bother looking it up. But I'm sure that for voters with Single Issue Regional concerns, they will be laser focused on those platform issues. They don't need a debate to hear the stance of any candidate...there will be regional ads and commercial and information gathered by local candidates and local campaign offices. Or don't you think the people in those areas are capable of gathering the information that is important to them?

Your last line of sarcasm is also hyperbolic. Not once did I ever mention that persons are not deserving of answers to their questions...not once. But as with any fringe, fundy type supporter, you are playing it by the book....make up shit, and use it to create some manfuctured outrage.

[jeff47]

134. The water issues don't concern me. I don't live in states governed by them.

It's an example of something that is extremely important to only a part of the electorate.

Your last line of sarcasm is also hyperbolic. Not once did I ever mention that persons are not deserving of answers to their questions...not once.

Actually, you did over and over again by claiming policy positions on their web sites were sufficient. No policy paper is complete. It will gloss over things that make the candidate look bad. Debates allow other candidates to poke at those unpleasant parts of their policy instead of letting the candidate leave questions unanswered.

Again, what is the problem with the old system? Why does the DNC need to change it by fiat, over the objections of all but one candidate?

[Sheepshank]

144. nope...still you persist in stating things I never said

actually looking stuff up on the candidates web site isn't such a terible idea, but I had not mentioned that as a source for information. There are stump speeches, ads and info disseminated by local party affiliates....you forgot those examples I actually DID give out. We should add rally's.

I don't know why the DNC or how DNC comes up with policy changes. I certainly don't presume to read minds and decide why they come up with any policy. I suppose if I thought is was of great concern I'd look it up. But I certainly won't go around making up shit like "Hillary's DNC". Do you have any solid and honest information on their policy making? I'm not interested in conjecture.

[jeff47]

151. And you persist in ignoring the most important question.

There are stump speeches, ads and info disseminated by local party affiliates....you forgot those examples I actually DID give out. We should add rally's.

Those are time-limited, and absolutely suck at revealing the details of a candidate's positions.

Also, every single one of those also allow the candidate to gloss over questions and details that are unfavorable. Demonstrating they are inferior to debates.

I don't know why the DNC or how DNC comes up with policy changes. I certainly don't presume to read minds and decide why they come up with any policy.

You realize you just dismantled your own argument for why debates are not needed, right?

There is no documentation for why the DNC changed policy. They've refused to explain it. And since we have no place to ask questions about it, we will not receive any answers.

Kinda like how policy papers, speeches and ads are not sufficient.

So once again, what was wrong with the old system? Why do we need the exclusivity clause?

[Sheepshank]

163. Seriously, you are not convincing me one bit.

Rehearsed panned responses to the controlled debates we have, are of no use either...given your speculation that all rehearsed information sucks. What we have see happen in debates are candidate with poorly chosen words that may not really reflect their opinions accurately & have those words used against them as a bludgeon until election day. Obama and his 52 states comes to mind.

And I really do wish you would quit making up shit, when it comes to my statements:

your own argument for why debates are not needed,

Honeslty, you are dribbling with so much contempt right now, yu can't even argue with the facts laid out to you...I have not onse said we should not have ANY debates. I happen to think 6 is fine. 30 is too much, 26 is too much.

Kinda like how policy papers, speeches and ads are not sufficient

. as for methods of disseminating candidates platforms....any ONE manner of dissemination is inadequate to publisize a reange of issues. Again, I did not advocate for that. I thinks there are many points and methods for promoting and disseminating candidtate info....and all have their place.

So once again, what was wrong with the old system? Why do we need the exclusivity clause?

You actually c&p my response to this question into your post above. I don't know why. Do you? Do you have firm and honest information, that does not include biased speculation? Remember, I did ask you that question in return.

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

187. Zero credibility is what you have earned.

Nothing you have said makes any sense, and you're just speaking babble as if you think Hillary is #1 and Must be defended to the death. In other words, you're just showing your true bias, and you have to agree with DNC 100% because they're the Party.

They aren't. Not even close.

[Sheepshank]

196. so here comes Flash to save the day?

Are you a Bernie Supporter? Your insults seems to be in perfect strategy with your ilk...and it's actually not working for you very well. Perhpas if you got a few more posts under your belt you'd see the pattern too.

[jeff47]

199. I really don't care if I convince you.

You can't manage to keep primary versus general elections straight, and you can't keep who ran in what election straight. I really don't care about convincing you.

There are other people who read this board. I'd like them to see just how bad your argument is.

What we have see happen in debates are candidate with poorly chosen words that may not really reflect their opinions accurately & have those words used against them as a bludgeon until election day

One of the benefits of not only watching one or two national debates is you actually get to hear a lot of responses to a lot of questions. Especially debates where the questions do not come from beltway journalists.

Honeslty, you are dribbling with so much contempt right now, yu can't even argue with the facts laid out to you...I have not onse said we should not have ANY debates

Need a mirror?

I happen to think 6 is fine. 30 is too much, 26 is too much.

Now all you have to do is explain why everyone must follow your (and the DNC's) decision. If people who are not the DNC want to set up a debate, why can't they? If candidates want to attend that debate, why can't they?

as for methods of disseminating candidates platforms....any ONE manner of dissemination is inadequate to publisize a reange of issues. Again, I did not advocate for that. I thinks there are many points and methods for promoting and disseminating candidtate info....and all have their place.

What you're not getting is it isn't about disseminating their statements. It's about challenging their statements. "You said you want _____ in your stump speeches. But why did you do _______ while in office?"

The stenographers that make up the media will do fine disseminating what a candidate says. What people seeking more debates is opportunities to challenge what a candidate says.

We're voting. We're not watching a movie. We do not just have to accept what is handed to us from on high.

So once again, what was wrong with the old system? Why do we need the exclusivity clause?

You actually c&p my response to this question into your post above. I don't know why.

No, you've yet to answer why you think the old system is wrong. At least beyond "I won't watch them".

You aren't the DNC. You are not supposed to read their minds. You are arguing the old system is bad. Why do you think it is bad? What is so terrible about having debates that you do not watch?

As for why the DNC did it, they refuse to say. As a result, there is nothing but speculation. And that speculation will naturally be driven by the lack of any reason to do it besides the benefit to the one well-known candidate.

[Sheepshank]

202. so if you don't care about convincing me, why do persist in lengthy responses?

don't you find it an utter waste of time?

[jeff47]

203. Already covered. Try reading the post. (nt)

[hedda_foil]

255. Talk about thread jacking.

Wow, you're really, really good at it. You're "reasoning" could use some work, but it's a rough topic.

In total, I give you a 7.0 using the old Olympic scoring system for ice dancing.

[George II]

100. No, I think it's a swipe at Clinton, implying that she controls the DNC, which is offensive.

[2banon]

113. why would that be offensive?

I don't understand why Clinton supporters object to learning/knowing/understanding that the DNC is a functionary of the Clinton political machine. Mystifying.

[Beaverhausen]

3. How many debates do you think there should be?

I think 6 is a good number.

[cali]

5. 10-12. there were 26 in 2008

[Sheepshank]

35. we all got to see 26 debates between Obama and Romney?

I don't think so.

you are implying that we should all be witnessing Hillary participating in 26 debates with Bernie?

[jeff47]

52. :facepalm:

Romney was 2012. McCain was 2008.

And there were 26 debates during the Democratic primary. Making the Republican irrelevant. Both Obama and Clinton skipped some of those debates.

[cali]

71. you don't know enough to discuss this.

[Sheepshank]

74. cherry picking which election you want to use?

Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

you attempt to mislead with cherry picked info. I know enough to see that.

[magical thyme]

98. how did Cali attempt to mislead? She clearly stated 2008, which was

the last time we didn't have an incumbant running for president.

2012 was not an appropriate year for comparison because nobody was going to primary Obama.

but keep digging. you'll get to China sooner or later.

[Sheepshank]

122. oh, bull

debates are debates and while Obama may have been an incumbant...his opponents were not. Did they not deserve the same "voice" that is being claimed that Bernie is being denied?

[cali]

149. why no. one was in prison, Randall Terry was another. they were all the fringiest

of the fringe. I see you don't grasp he fundamentals here

[Sheepshank]

160. hey, BS Supporter, your constant insults throughout this thread really don't help BS that much nt

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

191. And by being ignorant, you're not helping Hillary's case..

Actually, you are just proving that you think the election is like American Idol or Survivor or something.

[Sheepshank]

195. REALLY? I think like that?

in what way Charlie?

Fringy Bernie supporters attack, name call and insult pretty much everyone who doesn't think like they do. Unfortunatley for that small belligerent crowd, there are a few others that have finally realized it's contrary to Bernie's own Campaign strategy and have taken a step back from that tactic. Haven't you figured that out yet, sweetie?

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

189. The prisoner, I believe, is

Keith Russell Judd

[magical thyme]

159. his opponents in the GOP held 20 debates starting in 5/2011 and continuing

through February 2012.

[Sheepshank]

161. how utterly useless was all of that? n/t

[magical thyme]

171. it drove out the riff-raff one by one, and left them with Romney and whazzizzname.

I'd say that was very useful.

[LondonReign2]

168. That has never stopped them before

[pnwmom]

242. Why does Bernie need more than 6 to lay out his platform and distinguish

himself from the other candidates?

The general public doesn't have much of an attention span for politics. We'll be lucky to have decent ratings for just a few. The more we have, the more the public would lose interest.

[jwirr]

8. I would like to see 6 between the Democratic candidates and then add more in areas that are not so

blue - like Texas and include both parties in the debate. This was one of Bernie's suggestions on how to get the people who have stopped voting to get interested again. I agree with him.

[okasha]

236. Obviously, you're not from Texas.

Sanders can win neither the primary nor the general in Texas. His candidacy in the general would hand the state over to the Republicans and make his own road to the WH even steeper.

One reason I support Hillary is a strong desire--make that "survival instinct" --to get my state out of the hands of batshit crazy idiots like Rick Perry and Greg Abbott.

[jwirr]

237. Didn'r say he could. I said that I think it is a good idea that will help bring those who have long

ago dropped out of the system. That is the difference between Bernie and Hillary. Hillary is all about winning any way she can. Bernie even in this campaign is working to repair the damage that has been done to our country.

[okasha]

238. That needs one-on-one door-knocking retail politics.

And that, in turn, only benefits candidates who have visibility and an established/ natural constituancy.

I hate to say this, and it is not meant to insult either you or your candidate, but the only thing that would help Sanders in Texas is Republican suppression of the vote.

[jwirr]

239. Again you have totally missed to point - it is not about winning in Texas - it is about encouaging

people to get involved. Building a Democratic base for the future. It is about the general election.

[okasha]

243. No, I didn't miss the point, and I'm talking about both

the primary and the general.

Sanders has no present constituency in Texas other than well-educated, already liberal, affluent white males in metropolitan areas. They'll vote in both. The Senator doesn't need to worry about them. They're in his pocket already.

Debates, on the other hand, will not turn out more Hispanic, African American, women or LGBT voters. They will not bring Republican women across the line to vote Democratic.They're going to look at the candidates and ask the question most voters will ask: "What has this person actually done that demonstrates s/he has my interests at heart?"

If the answer to that question is "Vote on some bills and introduce some others he couldn't get passed--"

Kiss it goodbye right there.

[jeff47]

11. From the DNC? 6 is fine. The problem is the exclusivity clause.

There were 26 debates in 2008 because a lot of local entities set up their own debates to focus on local issues. For example, the details of farm policy are a lot more important to Iowa than the nation as a whole. So it gets little attention in a national debate but is critically important to Iowa voters.

The DNC does not have to get involved in any of these debates. The candidates can decide to attend or not attend. Obama and Clinton both missed some of those 26 debates in 2008.

There is zero logical reason for the DNC to have the exclusivity clause. It only serves to benefit one candidate.

[Scuba]

26. Bingo!

[azmom]

73. Have they even tried to give a reason for the exclusivity clause?

[jeff47]

91. Not one that stands up to any scrutiny. They've said 6 is enough. (nt)

[azmom]

97. Yeah, that doesn't adress it. It smells bad.

[6chars]

80. what is the exclusivity clause? nt

[jeff47]

86. If you show up to a debate run by anyone else, you can't be in the DNC debates.

This is a brand-new policy for this year.

Since the DNC debates are the national debates, and will get the most media coverage, no candidate can afford to miss them. So effectively the DNC has banned all debates not run by the DNC.

[George II]

116. Is this documented anywhere? Know where I can go to read up on that? Thanks.

[jeff47]

120. Google gives you lots of results.

Here's the top one: http://time.com/3847335/democratic-presidential-debates-exclusive/

[azmom]

92. Candidates who appear in any debate outside of those six will be barred from attending a sanctioned

Debate

[6chars]

111. Ah, like a non-compete clause

for debaters

[George II]

104. What is this "exclusivity clause"? Not familiar with that, but if it refers to debates between....

....Democrats, what's wrong with that?

[jeff47]

115. Read the post above yours.

but if it refers to debates between Democrats, what's wrong with that?

It doesn't. It means if you want to attend the DNC debates, you can not attend a debate not run by the DNC. It has nothing to do with Republicans.

Since the DNC debates are the national debates, no candidate can afford to be blocked from the DNC debates. So the exclusivity clause forbids the candidates from attending a debate set up by a regional or local group to debate issues critical to that region.

For example, if you don't live in CA, CO, NV or AZ, you probably don't care about Western water law. If you do live in those states, Western water law determines if anything comes out of your faucet. With the massive drought, it might be kinda important to those voters for the candidates to talk about it. So they might want to set up a debate to discuss it. Under the new DNC rules, no candidate can attend that debate.

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

193. And the blatant display of bias with the DNC

give the People a different choice - and that leads to Bernie. No amount of money will change the minds of the people, because once they learn and embrace Bernie, the M$M will be 99.9% ineffective and any propaganda or negative ads will be deemed ineffective and debunked.

[questionseverything]

212. please explain the exclusivity clause

is the dnc saying if a candidate debates in a non approved debate they can not go to the approved debate?

[jeff47]

213. Please read the many other replies already present that explain it. (nt)

[questionseverything]

215. so yes is the answer

this is really anti American......it borders on a first amendment violation

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

65. Minimum, 25.

Maximum - a debate every 3 days until election time.

And issues that are key for the region or the state involved will be discussed and examined closely, townhall style, with people asking direct questions, and not handpicked ones.

[Beaverhausen]

221. Do you seriously think most voters would watch that many debates?

And have you seen these debates? They really don't tell us much more than what we already know about the candidates. Short answers, very little follow-up.

[Snotcicles]

10. DLC/DNC. nt

[JEB]

12. We should follow the TTP model

and keep their positions secret until after the primary. Then you can either vote for the Democratic candidate or not.

Sarcasm.

[hughee99]

29. You say it's sarcasm, but you know candidates have said things you know

they don't believe and wouldn't act upon if elected. This sort of is the current system already.

[JEB]

34. Certainly feels like some are trying to hide

their selling out to corporate power (same as TPP).

Edit to add....
The exclusivity BS is also like the all or nothing nature of the TPP negotiation.

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. Post a link proof that it is "Hillary's DNC."

Otherwise, the title of your OP makes a false claim, because the article makes no such statement.

[jeff47]

15. You mean like the new exclusivity clause the DNC inserted into debates?

Which benefits Clinton and harms every other candidate.

Yeah, no evidence of bias there.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. Post a linke to something with her name on it showing that

she owns the DNC. Otherwise, the title makes a false claim.

Does that Exlcusivity Clause have her name in it? If it doesn't, those claimes are interpreting something that isin't there.

[jeff47]

22. Hey! Where'd those goalposts go?!

I could've sworn they were right here. Must've been the wind that moved them.

One does not have to have literal ownership of an organization in order to have unfair influence over it. The DNC is supposed to be impartial until the general election. Implementing a brand-new policy that specifically benefits one candidate is not impartial.

[Agnosticsherbet]

24. If if is "Hillary's DNC" then we need proof not goal posts.

Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Otherwise it is a false statement.

This isn't football.

[jeff47]

27. No, what we need is reading comprehension.

Here, I'll just quote my last post. Maybe you'll read it this time.

One does not have to have literal ownership of an organization in order to have unfair influence over it. The DNC is supposed to be impartial until the general election. Implementing a brand-new policy that specifically benefits one candidate is not impartial.

[Agnosticsherbet]

169. Prove she is part of the decision or

The title is false statement.

The readin comprehension argument is jsut another attempt to get around proving a statement.

[jeff47]

190. So the party just happened to make a decision that benefits her

and she just happened to make the first statement about it from candidates. And the people making the decision just happened to have already endorsed her. And just happen to refuse to discuss the issue with any other candidate.

It's all just a big, gigantic pile of coincidence that it all works towards Clinton's benefit.

I wanna take the DNC leadership to go play craps. With that luck, they'd break the casino.

[Agnosticsherbet]

224. The Democratic and Republican parties are both limiting the number of debates this election.

Is Secretary of State Clinton running the Republican Party, also? Give me proof of that.

Along with zero factual evidence that Clinton owns the DNC or was involved in the decision, there is zero evidence that fewer debates benefits her.

So, there are two items in this false string of conjecture which have zero evidence to back them up.

There were 26 Democratic Party Debates in the 2008 election cycle. Obama took a lead early and kept throughout the debates. In 2/3rds of them Hillary was very much the underdog.

So 26 debates did not fix an underdog status.

There were 15 in 2004.

In 2000, I can only find 5 primary debates. This seems to be the model they are following now.

The evidence shows that overtime, both parties tended to increase the number of primary debates through 2008. The Republicans cut that number of debates in 2012, and again for the 2016 cycle.

The Republicans are planning 12, which is reduced from their 2012 cycle.

The parties reflect each other, when increasing or decreasing the number of debates.

The DNC appears to be following their 2000 model for primary debates, from what I can find.

Again, the OP's title has no fact to back it up, and it does not appear in the link in the OP, so it is not another deceptive title by the media. It is an opinion based on zero facts.

[jeff47]

234. Yes, and the RNC can articulate the reason why. The DNC can't.

That's kinda an important difference.

Along with zero factual evidence that Clinton owns the DNC or was involved in the decision

You are not a moron. The people reading your posts are not morons. Continuing to demand documented proof of ownership is an obvious deflection that no one is falling for.

So why do you keep going back to it? Gotta distract from the fact that this decision shows bias somehow.

The parties reflect each other, when increasing or decreasing the number of debates.

So you are now claiming the RNC owns the DNC? I DEMAND PROOF! YOUR FAILURE TO PRODUCE THAT PROOF MEANS YOU ARE LYING!

[heaven05]

51. 0 merit

you have tried to obfuscate the truth of the matter. Doesn't fool people who think.

[cali]

155. beyond lame

[Dawgs]

17. Really? No one can be that naive. n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. A personal attack instead of proof.

I accept that you can not prove the claim.

[cali]

21. you mean aside from structuring the debates so that they benefit no one but

HRC? Or this?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html

Or that numerous DNC members including the chair have come out in support of her?

Please.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. I mean prove that she she is running the DNC

Otherwise the claim is absolutely false.

Extraordinary claims require proof.

I keep seeing people make this same ridiculous claim, but no one has shown that Clinton has any say in scheduling the debates.

There are many valid criticism of Secretary of State Clinton. It is unnecessary to make up false claims.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

36. Stupid, childish game playing. Just stop. nt

[MohRokTah]

128. the game playing was the title of the OP. eom

[ChisolmTrailDem]

140. So, you disagree that the DNC is all-in for Hillary? For the record,

i don't know enough to know one way or the other. So, please explain how the DNC is not all-in for Hillary and teach me a little something.

Thanks in advance.

[MohRokTah]

143. Yes

[ChisolmTrailDem]

153. "Yes" is not an explanation as to why the DNC is not in Hillary's pocket. Thanks for nothing. nt

[cali]

37. I didn't say that

I said the DNC is operating as if she is an incumbent president. This isn't an extraordinary claim. It's certainly not a lie.

[Chan790]

49. I would assert the claim proven at this point.

No further proof necessary...it's been shown demonstrably-true.

[2banon]

102. You actually think these are "Extraordinary claims" ?

and I don't recall reading anywhere that Hillary was personally "running" the DNC.

Why should she? She has an army of functionaries managing it quite well for her.

I don't understand why you take objection with the obvious? Presumably you're a fan of hers and intend to support her campaign? One would think a fan would take comfort and delight in knowing the party machine is completely operating on her behalf?

[DURHAM D]

28. Its Obama's DNC.

Petition him.

[cali]

72. they're sharing it.

[MohRokTah]

129. Prove it.

[NCjack]

30. Maybe this decision will backfire when Sanders takes the lead and

HRC wants more debates.

[Jumpin Jack Flash]

208. After the first debate, when Bernie crosses that line between Clinton and himself, and never

relinquish that lead.. Then the exclusivity kicks in, and Clinton is now limited to 5 more debates on convincing people otherwise.

[Oilwellian]

249. LOL...I like the way you think. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

31. The other candidates should boycott the DNC debates

Leave HRC standing by her lonesome. Six debates, and you can only participate if you don't participate in other, unsanctioned debates. It's bullshit.

[cali]

38. I suspect she'd be fine with that. she has the biggest shiniest Wurlitzer

that corporate money can buy.

[BeyondGeography]

45. The whole thing is stupid beyond words

Four debates in "early primary states" plus two others somewhere else. One each in IA, NH, NV and SC. That's going to piss a lot of people off. There'll be one DMR debate in Iowa and that's it? No radio debate (one of my faves). High-handed nonsense that will backfire.

[heaven05]

41. no surprise

they would like to limit the exposure of Bernie Sanders in mainstream media. period.

[yeoman6987]

79. He has been on so many news programs the last few months

Hillary has not. Bernie is getting more exposure from the media then Hillary right now.

[heaven05]

138. yes

but where debates are concerned, 'real' policy questions may be asked requiring reality based succinct and truth based answers. That's why Bernie frightens the hell out of the DNC, Hillary and the rest.

[cantbeserious]

43. One Wonders Why - What Does HRC Have To Hide

eom

[cantbeserious]

82. You May Be Right

eom

[MohRokTah]

131. Vince Foster??????

Really?

Wow, never would have thought that of you.

[Nye Bevan]

146. Wow. Bit of a harsh jury hide there IMO.

Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 02:27 PM - Edit history (2)

i thought the sarcasm was obvious even before I added the "sarcasm" smilie. I don't even know what "Bilderberg" is except that it's something I hear the conspiracy loons mutter about from time to time.

[sharp_stick]

137. Jeez

I'm not sure if it's enough

[HereSince1628]

231. IMO, the other candidates

The more exposure an unknown gets, the more known that person becomes.

It's also a fact that Clinton's strength in debates is her ability as a political technician rather than charisma. Comparison to how other candidates relate to audiences is risky for her. She got dinged in the media in 2008 for her tone as she became strident. I think that was somewhat unfair and sexist, but it's the way she was taken by many. Fewer debates, fewer opportunities for such interpretations.

Clearly the more debates, the wider the audience that gets to know Sanders. I don't know Sanders very well, but he seems affable and disarming, if not charming, and like all the new comers to Dem primary season he's got the appeal of novelty. He's pretty out-front about his socialist bent, which is easier to dismiss as wacky leftism in the short run, and harder as his point of view gets a chance to be matched to popular opinion.

[stonecutter357]

44. I can't believe tom quotes this crap on his show

[cali]

76. did he? good.

[7962]

46. Hillary would love NO debates if she could pull it off.

She's not a great speaker and is subject to foot-in-mouth whenever she doesnt have a script

[Sheepshank]

56. has she said that? I think your *opinion* is false

while no one is the orator that Obama is, bother Hillary and Bernie have their problems, yet neither is backing away from the debate. Granted Bernie is pushing for even more debates, but that doesn't have anything to with Hillary not wanting any debates. You are clearly entitled to your opinion as am I, and I just don't agree with the made up shit.

[7962]

179. Her reluctance to have any uncontrolled events is enough proof

I dont need to "make up shit", she proves it often enough herself. Her audiences are always hand picked. Reporters questions are pre approved.
But She leads everyone in every poll, so why take the chance? I dont really blame her either. Shes in front.

[Kingofalldems]

48. Link doesn't say anything about Hillary's DNC.

[cali]

57. the DNC is operating as if she's an incumbent president

It's in you face obvious, and the coy denials are pathetic

[BeanMusical]

85. +1

[mylye2222]

107. +2

[MohRokTah]

133. No, it's not.

Simply saying it is so does not make it so.

[Nye Bevan]

54. A basic rule of politics is that the outsider always wants more debates than the frontrunner.

Sanders needs Hillary to screw up, and there is more chance of that in 100 debates than in 10.

[jalan48]

55. We need more scripted rallies with freshly scrubbed high school kids beaming out at us.

[jeff47]

59. Just make sure you bus in enough minorities to get the optics right. (nt)

[jalan48]

62. Definately! Young kids always play well on TV. So idealistic!

They can give the career politicians an "idealism" contact high.

[still_one]

60. Six debates should be enough. Really does anyone really believe that after 6 debates those

Who watch them won't know where they stand on the issues

[cali]

66. bullshit

[still_one]

198. most people won't watch even 6 debates

[jeff47]

69. Yes. Please explain every candidate's position on Western water law.

Be sure to contrast the lowest-level details about the differences in their policies.

6 debates is plenty for national issues. It's nowhere near enough for issues that are vitally important regionally or within some states.

Before this year, entities in those states could set up their own debates. Candidates would decide to attend or skip those debates. As a result, there were 26 debates in the Democratic primary in 2008. Neither Obama nor Clinton attended all 26.

This year, the DNC added an exclusivity clause. They've yet to provide any rational explanation behind adding it. But an exclusivity clause does benefit one candidate, while harming the other candidates.

[still_one]

200. Who cares. I know the main points where the candidates stand on the issues

And the minutiae is meaningless

Only the political junkies looking for a gotcha and hanging on every word would view a debate a month

[jeff47]

210. "the minutiae" defines whether or not you have drinking water.

Or if you live on the gulf coast, whether you have a job as a fisherman. Or many other critical details.

Again, you do not have to watch every debate. What is bad about a group organizing a debate you do not watch?

[still_one]

216. And you think people don't know where the candidates positions are? Those

That do will vote accordingly and those that don't won't watch the debates regardless

and those whose jobs depend on such policy or other interests such as abortion rights or healthcare, etc. who ignore such things will get results expected

Walker and Brownback as examples keep getting elected, and there is no doubt where they stand on the issues. No debate will change that, because their actions have spoken louder than words

[jeff47]

232. Yes. They get zero coverage because they are not national issues.

And minutia make an enormous difference.

AZ got approval to build an aqueduct just North of California's already-existing aqueduct. Before this, Los Angeles got most of its water from the Colorado river. After, it could no longer do so. That no only required large changes to the other two aqueducts that served Los Angeles, it also required large changes to the water treatment plants in Los Angeles - there was different stuff in the water that needed to be treated. It's also a major reason why LA is in a lot more trouble from the drought.

Coverage outside of Los Angeles and Phoenix? Zero. But extremely important. If the drought continues, CA will have to decide between keeping Los Angeles alive, or feeding the country. Because they both tap the same water now.

and those whose jobs depend on such policy or other interests such as abortion rights or healthcare, etc. who ignore such things will get results expected

That's the point of allowing more debates. To cover more issues. Candidates can decide if they want to show up for that "water law" debate, or they can do the math and realize AZ, CA, CO and NV aren't going to swing the primary and stay away.

The DNC's new rules don't let that happen. And the DNC can't supply a reason why it's better.

Walker and Brownback as examples keep getting elected, and there is no doubt where they stand on the issues. No debate will change that, because their actions have spoken louder than words

Actually, yes there is doubt among Republicans about the nuances of their positions. But since we're talking about debates between Democrats, contrasting Republicans with Democrats is irrelevant.

[stevenleser]

93. Exactly. Most people won't watch more than two or three. And, chances are...

...long before the debates even begin, people will figure out where the candidates stand. They will know most of the issues and where the candidates come down on them.

You don't even need six debates. That's more than enough for all of the folks to be heard.

[still_one]

204. I agree. There is no one that follows politics that doesn't know where the candidates stand on the

Don't might watch just a couple if that many

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. But more ...

does anyone really believe anyone on DU's position on the candidates will change after 1 or 1,000,000 debates? Or, any of the 10s of folks that might catch 7th (or 70th) debate, after having missed the first 6 (63)?

I think folks are being BettyEllened, here.

[mylye2222]

75. K&R.

Thanks for exposure Cali.

Yep. Anything to get sure Mrs Clinton will get her coronation-like nomination.

[Sancho]

88. Sanders has no business making a request of the DNC - he does not have a "D" beside his name!!

Personally, I think he needs to be in LOTS of debates, so the weaknesses in some of his campaign can be revealed.

But until he serves in public office as a real Democrat, he's has no say.

[cali]

108. sorry. you'll have to take that up with the DNC

They've said he is a legitimate candidate for the democratic nomination for president. Obviously, as such he had every right. Duh.

And you should be on your knees grateful that he's running in the democratic primary. If he ran as an independent in the general, hillary wouldn't have a prayer.

[Sancho]

132. I wish he would run as an independent except for one reason....

Just like Nader, as an independent he might cost a real Democrat a close election.

He's either not a real Democrat, or he's a coward and afraid to call himself a Democrat.

Either way, the problems with his positions and campaign will eventually surface. Probably before the debates even begin.

[TheKentuckian]

223. What problems do you have with his positions? Why would he be "afraid" to be a Democrat?

[Sancho]

225. I have a lot of problems with some of Bernie's positions...

I'm sure they will surface when someone really goes after him...

He protected gun manufacturers from liability. That's insane to me to protect ANY product from liability.
He doesn't agree with me on some of the actions of Israel.
I think he's way too focused on economics, but the big elephant in the room is immigration.
I really don't like his Robin Hood tax - I don't want any tax on retirement funds of unions and state employees (which will be passed on to the workers and give states another license to steal). Better to close loopholes and change capital gains.
He says he wants to cut back the military, but supported the F35 mess. He had an obvious chance to speak out and didn't.

That's a short list.

All of the above are NOT progressive stands to me. I think he's probably too much of a loner to go with any party where he may not "agree" with every position, but I can't read minds. He's had plenty of opportunity to become a Democrat.

At any rate, Bernie has always been interesting and I've listened for years on Thom Hartmann. He's a good advocate for economic reform, but so are lots of others. Four years of tuition is a good idea, but I'd rather see universal daycare and preschool first. In other words, he's good where he has experience, but not so strong across lots of issues.

[TheKentuckian]

227. Why should I be able to sue Snapple because someone smashes a bottle over my head?

Who is that you are voting for that agrees with you on Israel?

Too focused on economics in the most heavily capitalist nation with corporations capturing even the government, people are struggling, too many have been sunk maybe forever, and we have a gilded age level wealth disparity in the shadow of the economy being ravaged and almost all the gains since went straight to the top? Your mileage may vary but I consider the position pretty much insane. I don't want to downplay immigration because I too believe it is important but the impact of the economy trumps it easily, those immigrants will need to eat, have shelter, and build a future too. I don't see how just pumping more labor into the mix under the current paradigm is really helping the vast majority of people.

Last two are where reasonable people can disagree, particularly the F35 where I agree but it is jobs for his state and contrary to some accusations I don't demand absolute perfection and his OVERALL positions in this arena and about any you can name are top notch.

[Sancho]

230. Ok..this thread may not be the place to argue all the details...but....

I don't think ANY corporation should ever be singled out as immune from liability. It's enough of a problem to sue tobacco companies, auto companies, and you name it. We can predict one thing: lawsuits will usually result in products being safer, marketed more carefully, and used more appropriately. At this end of this email, I'll post my standard gun control proposal.

Yes, Bernie is too focused on economics. I've answered why in other threads. In short, the keys to a better "economy" are not regulations on banks, higher taxes, and a higher minimum wage. Those are great, but won't be very effective in the long term.

The keys are a path to citizenship for 15+ million immigrants (all underground now so they are not paying now);
Fair (and transparent) pay for women or any protected group who is discriminated against;
Child care, preschool, and excellent public education (no charters or vouchers or privatization);
Union participation and collective bargaining;
Courts and judges who are fair.

Those ideas will lead to Democratic wins at the polls, social and economic justice, and better lives. All could be achieved and none are contrary to the GOP roadblocks to "not raise taxes"; so even the GOP is divided on these important issues.

Bank regulations are virtually impossible to get passed, won't matter anyway because of the loopholes, and won't do a damn thing for social justice. You can attack Wall Street forever, but most retirement funds, international partners (China, Europe), and corporations don't want to dismantle Wall Street. Closing loopholes and better enforcement - yes. Put the CEO of the top 5 banks in jail (like was done with Enron officials), and NOTHING will happen. They will be replaced with new clones.

-----------added as promised------------

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[MohRokTah]

192. This is pretty much true for the reasons you gave.

Bernie Sanders has never really been involved in internal Democratic politics, thus he's never been one to build the necessary networking within the national party to be fully accepted.

Liberal Democrats who want Bernie to win are simply going to have to accept that fact. O'Malley has a much more mature network of friendships and relationships within the national party than Bernie will ever be capable of building between now and the convention.

It is a simple fact of party politics and an outsider is never going to have those sorts of relationships.

[Sancho]

217. You are right...Martin O'Malley will probably be a good debate opponent too....

His experience makes him a better Democratic candidate.

It's hard to see someone with years as an independent want to dictate to the party at the last minute. Charlie Crist here in Florida also suffered from some voters who really didn't buy his "conversion".

I know Charlie and voted for him for Governor, but he would have gotten much better support if he had won a seat in the US House as a Democrat or something before going in as a Democratic Governor. I think he could have easily done that in St. Pete.

[MohRokTah]

219. Lincoln Chaffee will have issues, too. eom

[Sancho]

220. Yep...I get some of the repubs running away from the Tea Party, but they need to pay their dues.

They have to do the work of the DNC: raising funds, helping local candidates, working as a team. Can you really trust someone who recently switched or never participated.

The President has to cooperate and collaborate with their party in Congress. Can Bernie do it? Even wanting to change the debate schedule is dissonance. Maybe Bernie needs to make sure he is prepared for the debate instead of changing the rules. He's the outsider wanting into the game.

[MADem]

247. Salient analysis! Well done! nt

[George II]

89. Every four years the underdog wants more debates than scheduled..it's almost a given...

There were a LOT of debates back in the 2008 campaign, and I recall that people got sick of them and complained that there were just too many and they were getting out of hand.

There already are six scheduled, what would be accomplished by having more?

As a matter of fact, in this day and age, what's the point of debates anyway? Anyone interested in the positions of the candidates on all the important issues can get them in minutes.

In my mind, debates are simply "beauty contests", an opportunity for candidates to bluster and attempt to look good. I don't think many debates in history have affected many voters' opinions (Nixon/JFK notwithstanding!)

[mcar]

103. That's quite true George

But because "delicate" Hillary is running, it is now a major scandal!!!

[jeff47]

112. More debates allows state/regional issues to be debated.

No one is asking for the DNC to set up more debates. 6 is plenty for the DNC. What people object to is the brand-new exclusivity clause.

If you don't live in CA, CO, NV or AZ, you probably don't give a shit about Western water law. If you live in those states, Western water law determines whether or not anything comes out of your faucet.

If you don't live in the gulf states or the Northeast coast, you probably don't give a shit about fishing policy and the difference in regulation between those regions. If you do, then those issues are incredibly important.

Before this year, other groups could set up debates to talk about these kinds of issues. Candidates could individually decide to attend or skip the debate, based on how important they thought the issue was. In 2008, there were 26 debates. No candidate attended all of them. And no one watched/listened to all of them. Instead, they watched/listened to the ones that went into a lot of detail about the positions that are very important to them.

The new DNC rules put an end to this. They've yet to articulate a rational reason why it must be stopped. But fewer debates does benefit one candidate, and harm every other candidate.

[2banon]

172. I've never heard or read a single complaint about too many debates.. EVER.

Not. Ever. In. My. Entire. Life Time.

I'm 65 Years old, been through quite a number of election cycles, and your's is the first time I've ever heard that sentiment stated.

[peacebird]

90. The same 'impartial' DNC that called Bernie crazy? Wheree the finance chair is breaking the rules to

raise $$$ for Hillary?

You can't mean, gasp! The DNClinton? Color me suprised, NOT.

[mylye2222]

101. That same DNClinton YES.

That very same one who didnt gave any party support to Kerry in 2004, particulary over Ohio fraud recount. That same DNClinton who would have imposed Hillary in 2008 if Obama wouldnt have showed up....

[BeanMusical]

94. Kick and R

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

96. One a week..

There are too many issues on the agenda. Events change daily, weekly is not a stretch. Co'mon even the MSM has weekly shows and takes on what's going on. They don't have to be a very long debate. Maybe an hour at the most.

CONVINCE US whose right.

Or, subtitle, "What you afraid of?"

Bet Bernie would be solid and on point every week.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. 6 debates is enough

Plus I think fewer debates actually helps Bernie.

It's like college basketball. We see more upsets when there's only a single game rather than a 7-game series.

Bernie can make a huge splash right away and it's possible that Hillary may never recover.

I hope they all do well!

We've got great candidates so far.

[Omaha Steve]

118. Why are DUers saying there are only TWO candidates?

There are 5-6 that have held an office of at least a Governor level. A few others are just not worth talking about.

[Gamecock Lefty]

121. Debates x Infinity Wouldn't Satisfy BS Supporters!

Hillary could agree to 10 more debates and the BS supporters on DU would yell, "why not 20, Hillary - what are you scared of?"

The fact is Hillary and BS are not that far off from each other’s support of the issues. I think it just pisses off BS supporters that Hillary is more popular.

[Sheepshank]

123. BS supporters lol...took me a second n/t

[Nye Bevan]

148. LOL.

I'm guessing "BS supporters" is not his preferred terminology.

[MohRokTah]

125. Um, nobody owns the DNC.

And there were only 6 debates in the 2008 primary, so what's your beef?

[cali]

139. oh please. just how long have you been following politics?

And no one said she owns it. I said the DNC is operating as if she is an incumbent president. And there was no exclusionary clause in 2008, allowing 20 other debates. But thanks for that disingenuous response

[MohRokTah]

142. I've been following politics for over 4 decades

You are being hyperbolic and dishonest.

You are just plain wrong. The DNC is the DNC. If you didn't like it, you should have got involved with your local party about a decade ago and altered the course of who comprises the DNC.

I know I did and I'm fucking happy as shit about the DNC today.

[cali]

154. no, you are being the latter.

Of course, you're happy with the DNC. Centrist corporate dems are.

[Sheepshank]

158. and you go from post to post to post insulting people

...fwiw it's not the messaging, its the tactic that has you losing Bernies cause on his behalf. Not sure if he would thank you for that.

[cali]

162. lol. it's silly season. Bernie is doing quite well.

And hey,unless others, I don't lie.

[Sheepshank]

165. I think the term is "Despite your insulting efforts" Bernie is doing quite well

out in the big world, outside of DU, your efforts would come across as less than stellar.

[MohRokTah]

194. And so you resort to what is a personal attack.

Droll.

[MohRokTah]

197. BTW, if Bernie Sanders had spent over three decades bulding relationships within the Democratic...

Party, like Hillary Clinton did, he wouldn't be at such a disadvantage with internal Democratic Party politics like he is today.

[Chathamization]

166. True, people have the ability to direct who's in the DNC but almost always ignore it

Everyone I know outside of a tiny cadre of activists ignores party elections (most elections in general are ignored, but especially party elections). I'm not particularly happy with our state party here or the direction of the DNC at the moment, but it's what people voted for. The vast, vast majority voting "I don't care enough to pay attention, so even if I'm one of the few who bother to vote I'm just going to either ignore or flick a random lever when I get to the state committee candidates."

[jeff47]

211. There were 26 debates in the 2008 primary. Only 6 were DNC sponsored.

What is the benefit of the DNC effectively banning non-DNC debates?

[C Moon]

135. The GOP did way too many last primary. It was mind numbing—but, so were the candidates.

Initially (because of the last GOP primary), I was thinking more would NOT be a better thing to have more; but seeing that Bernie and Hilliary are probably going to have some awesome debates, maybe a few more would be a good thing.

It doesn't matter now, I guess.

[kracer20]

145. Do You Have Recurring Donations?

If you have recurring donations to the DNC, I'd suggest canceling them and notifying the DNC as to why. Make a point of letting them know you are moving your donations directly to your candidate of choice.

[hifiguy]

150. Everyone who is surprised by this stand on your head...

nt

[awoke_in_2003]

156. Instead of increasing the number of debates

We need to improve the quality of the debates. They are nothing but campaign speeches anymore. Bring back the League of Women Voters to run them again and get rid of the media hacks.

[horseshoecrab]

233. Yes! The League of Women Voters

Absolutely agree with you awoke_in_2003!

[StevieM]

167. Barack Obama is the sitting Democratic president. It's his DNC....not Hillary's. (eom)

[Buns_of_Fire]

170. Six is probably enough.

The exclusionary rule is stupid.

And the requirement that everyone not named "Clinton" must wear a paper bag over their heads during all debates is just plain weird.

(I tossed in that last one. Could you tell? )

[DonCoquixote]

178. Hillary needs to stop listening to her friends and staff

that will love her to DEATH like they did in 2008.

If Hillary is the candidate many think she is, she has nothing to fear from Bernie, indeed, more debates equals more publicity, which equals more chances to LOOK GOOD. Hiding makes you look like you have something to hide.

[bluestateguy]

181. The candidate who is behind in the polls always demands more and more and more debates

Ever notice that?

[MisterP]

182. Coronil noted that Carlos Andres Perez won Venezuela twice by promising the moon and stars

and then power-walking away before any specifics could be demanded

this backfired when he won in 1989 by condemning the IMF: now, oil wasn't able to drive the economy at the moment and of course he had neither spine nor any actual economic plan, so he just unleashed the army on the starving masses (this made the military's tremendous amount of reformers VERY mad and they tried to put him in the ground twice)

[Gothmog]

206. The RNC determined that too many debates hurt their candidate in 2012

The RNC adopted rules limiting the debates to 9 and impose the exclusivity clause on their candidates. The DNC adopted similar rules in part to try to keep the nomination process orderly. I think that six debates are plenty given the number of candidats.

As to Sanders concept of having pre-nomination debates with GOP candidates, that was never going to happen. The RNC rules would stop this and no GOP candidate would want to be give credibility to the eventual democratic nominee.

I am looking forward to watching the RNC and Fox News cause hard feelings among the second tier GOP candidates and I really feel that we need to keep the Democratic debates on a sane footing.

[Jefferson23]

214. If you're not confidant, this is how you react. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

218. Yes, because there are only so many times you can say "I want to empower communities & families"

before people start to figure out that it doesn't actually mean anything.

[AtomicKitten]

235. The DNC has lost all legitimacy with this. They don't even bother with the pretense of fairness.

[LWolf]

240. Of course they do. nt

[pnwmom]

241. Why can't he make his case in 6 debates?

That sounds like plenty to me. All four candidates will get plenty of time to set out their policies.

[MADem]

248. +1. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

252. The DNC needs to stop shielding Hillary. Certainly she's strong enough to stand on her own without protective cover.

[mylye2222]

253. Yes but you know

They certainly want to make sure she will be the First.

[pnwmom]

254. Certainly Bernie's case is strong enough that he can make it in 6 debates.

The American public has a short attention span. Six debates will be plenty.