I don't think Bernie is in a good position to make demands of the DNC when it comes to the debates

[Cali_Democrat]

Some of you may have seen this news item where the DNC apparently turned down Bernie's request to have additional Democratic debates:

-------

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

-------

I don't think Bernie will have much pull in this case, at least not until he has a 'D' beside his name instead of an 'I'. A lot of folks at the DNC probably view him as an outsider using the Democratic party structure to only benefit himself.

An outsider making demands of the DNC is like going to someone else's house party and demanding they provide more beer.

He's not really in a good position to make demands until he becomes a full member of the party. That's why Hillary will have more influence within the DNC.

Just my two cents.

[hobbit709]

1. They still wouldn't give him the time of day. He's not a corporate stooge.

[randys1]

2. Oy, as a Bernie fan who would support Hillary if she is nominated, I wonder how comments

like yours helps us ultimately defeat the stupidest and meanest Americans, aka teaparty/repubs?

Because your comment implies Hillary is a corp stooge.

Now we all know she is far friendlier with Wall Street and so on, but I think we need to dial back the rhetoric about our own candidates.

[misterhighwasted]

50. Thank You.

Appreciate your post.
It is about the GOPTeaParty in the end.

[ozone_man]

118. Actually, it isn't.

They are just another side of the corporate coin. Choose your poison. Corporate Democrats like Hillary and Obama are the other side. Just when we thought they were our friends! Well, most of us did, but in the late 1990's, it became increasingly clear how it worked, how free trade and NAFTA worked, how Bill Clinton signed the Glass-Steagall bill out of existence in 2000, leading to unregulated derivatives and the 2008 subprime mortgage mess/depression that we are still trying to recover through zero interest rates and bond buying. Yes, that nice Bill Clinton.

[misterhighwasted]

125. Oh ffs. Blablabla Suggest You take a hint from Randys1 who I responded to.

If you really believe that Sec of State Hillary & Pres Obama are no different than what's riding in the clown car , you have a very closed mind.
Believe what you want.
In the end, the GOPTeaParty needs to be defeated in 2016.
I haven't heard one word from any Dem candidate that aligns their vision for America with the Clown Car.

Please don't ever talk to me again.

[Scuba]

138. ...

[RobertEarl]

119. He scares them

The gig is up with Bernie coming on talking about getting big money out of elections.

Lots of establishment Dems are in it for their own good and Bernie is a real threat to their feeding in the easy-money trough.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

3. Is Bernie running as a Democrat against the rules?

If it isn't against the rules, he should not be treated like a poor relative that has little say and given proper respect. He has been working and voting for the betterment of the American people for decades, and has supported good Democratic policies for all those years as well. Would the established Democratic Party be better with or without him in the Senate?

[leftofcool]

8. Not against the rules but he is not a Democrat.

He could have run as a Dem many times but refused yet now he wants to "run as a Democrat." He has said many times that he is not a Democrat and he has not always supported the Democratic Party on issues. He is a good man, and has been given the respect due him by the Democratic Party but he is not in a position to haggle over debates.

[cali]

77. what part of the DNC has recognized him as a legitimate candidate and welcomed

him to the race, is beyond your understanding? And by the way, Bernie has supported the dems on issues and votes MORE than the majority of dems in Congress. In the eyes of the DNC he's as much in a position to "haggle" as any other dem running.

[pnwmom]

28. He's being treated the same way as everyone else. His photo is right beside Hillary's

on the DNC page, and he'll be participating in the same debates as she and the others.

Just because he can't single-handedly change the number of debates doesn't mean he's not being respected.

[peacebird]

41. The DNC chair publicly called Bernie 'crazy', & DNC finance chair held Hillary fundraiser which is

Against their rules of "impartiality". The DNC is not impartial in this, the reason Bernie's picture is there is to try to fool people into giving them money. They saw he outraised every person running in the first three days of a campaign, they hoped to score.

[pnwmom]

59. Those actions were wrong. Thank you for being specific. n/t

[peacebird]

70. :)

[cali]

78. no, DSW did not call him crazy.

[Art_from_Ark]

133. That was Boyd Brown, a DNC member from South Carolina

"Our candidates, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, aren't a bunch of crazy people."

[peacebird]

134. My bad, DNC Boyd Brown from SC (called on of the chairs in an article, not head honcho)

Called bernie crazy

[dlwickham]

92. when did Debbie Wasserman Schultz call him crazy

[peacebird]

136. As I said above, my bad, member Boyd Brown said it She has REFUSED to come Against his commennt

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/08/dnc-member-calls-bernie-sanders-crazy-and-even-hillary-supporters-should-be-angry/

Also she refuses to say anything about Munez DNC Finnance chair) fundraising for Hillary even tho it is against their rules for impartiality.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html
"DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chair and dogged surrogate for Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, has long been viewed as on the outs with the Obama White House and closer to Clinton. A spokeswoman for the DNC declined to comment. "


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html#ixzz3celsY7ny

[BeyondGeography]

4. He should get his co-challengers to torpedo the exclusionary clause

Basically, set up a series of non-sanctioned debates by state that focus on local issues and dare the DNC to ban all of them from their six debates. The DNC doesn't want HRC standing alone on a stage, and neither does she.

[leftofcool]

10. But that would make him look like he lied and I know he will be true to his word.

[BeyondGeography]

36. He has asked for more debates and I think he's right

His point about debates promoting turnout in 2016 is a good one, imo. You can say were too many debates in 2008 (26 I think), but six is inadequate. Most people need more than one chance to take in a debate as they don't have the schedules pasted to their brains like the junkies here do. Plus they are more likely to tune into a debate in their own backyard. What happens at these debates is the candidates throw at least ten punches at the GOP for every one they throw at each other. This is good for the party overall.

[leftofcool]

42. Then he should throw caution to the wind and strike out on his own.

[cali]

79. gee.here's an idea the DNC shouldn't emulate asswipe repukes

[GummyBearz]

95. This drew an alert from... someone

I served on the jury and said to keep it... hope you don't get the 5th hide

[Thinkingabout]

5. He has said he would abide by the DNC rules running as a Democrat candidate, then this are the rules

of the DNC. Now I would not think he would flip on this and not try to follow the rules would he.

[cali]

81. you mean the brand new never done before rules to benefit Hillary

[Thinkingabout]

113. Or the DNC could become like the GOP, if Bernie can't make his points in 6 then 16 isn't going to

fulfil his need. There will not be anyone gaining on the other.

[HassleCat]

6. Yes, but

He caucuses with the Democrats and supports their legislation. In fact, he could make a case that he's a better Democrat than some Democrats. Of course, you're right about asking the DNC for something, since he's not a "real" member.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Ssdd

Bernie is more aligned politically with Democratic values then Hillary, by a country mile.

[Sheepshank]

44. but what has that to do with making demands of the DNC?

I don't understand this line of arguement.

As was pointed in another thread, and on this one, debates are free advertising...why would the DNC offer that to an I. And if they did why not to a Greenie or a Rep? There has to be a line drawn in the sand, and it's completely understandable why party affiliation should be that line. Bernie has the option of joining the party. As has been pointed out many times here on DU, Bernie supporters are voting for the man and not his party affiliation, so Bernie could switch to any party and still get their votes....if he joined the Dems, he might likley have more standing with these types of DNC requests.

[cali]

82. because they have officially welcomed him to the race as a legitimate contender. duh

[sadoldgirl]

9. The exclusion rule has been

a large and important issue as it is new. If you go by your argument
the others outside of Bernie would have no say either?

I think the voters should have been asked about this really
huge change,but then DC has stopped listening to the voters
for a very long time.

Besides I have thought for a long time that in 08 there was an agreement
between HRC and Obama about his support for a future run of hers.

After all he called her his friend and Bernie an interesting personality.
Quite a difference in attitude. And don't tell me that Obama does
not interfere in primaries, because he has done it in my state.

[leftofcool]

12. Obama will support Hillary and you may be correct about an "agreement."

[sadoldgirl]

19. Okay then

He should not support anyone but the nominated
candidate, but from his past action I don't believe
that fairness is his great strength.

[Cheese Sandwich]

11. He should be in the first 3 debates, then break the DNC rules and have his own debates on the side

Bernie should debate Rand Paul on the side, and post it online and maybe it will be on CSPAN or whatever.

If the DNC follows through with its rule and ejects Bernie from the final 3 debates then it will simply shine a spotlight on how dumb the rules are.

Bernie being kicked out will be a much bigger story than the debate itself, and will win him the support of millions who agrees the system is rigged.

[leftofcool]

13. That would cinch the primary for Hillary and make Bernie look like a liar.

He will be true to his word.

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. I say we put that to the test, and see which side voters choose

Anyhow it's not lying. The debate rules simply say that if you hold outside debates, then you can't be in any more DNC debates.

It's not a promise to do anything or not do anything. It simply says to candidates if you debate elsewhere you may not continue in the DNC debates.

The rules are rigged and the system is corrupt, everyone knows it. It's about time somebody challenges the system. Bernie can be the guy.

[leftofcool]

16. Perhaps you could email Senator Sanders and ask him to debate Rand Paul?

Rand Paul, of course, will never get near the WH but as long as Bernie gets to debate him, I guess it doesn't matter.

[MohRokTah]

23. That would be the end of his primary run.

He'd be gone within days of doing something so utterly stupid.

[leftofcool]

27. Yep!

[Cheese Sandwich]

30. No way that would make him an instant American hero

He really has nothing to lose at that point.

[MohRokTah]

31. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[Cheese Sandwich]

34. Thanks for the well thought out rebuttal

[MohRokTah]

46. There was no need to rebut.

All that was left was laughter.

[mythology]

87. To be fair

you made a statement of opinion as if it was a statement of fact without providing any supporting evidence to back up your opinion.

[AgingAmerican]

147. First they ignore him

Then they laugh at him. Then they fight him. Then he wins.

[MohRokTah]

149. Just like President Kucinich?

[AgingAmerican]

151. That was profound

nt

[MohRokTah]

152. I know.

eom

[AgingAmerican]

155. You are scared of him

All of the Hillary camp is. They don't want debates with Bernie, because his record is immutable and his message is unchallengeable.

We will see lots and lots of smiley attacks in the coming year, because there is no opposing him with facts.

[MohRokTah]

156. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Really, please stop, yer killin' me with comedy!

[leftofcool]

43. Then for his supporters sake, maybe he will do just that.

[freshwest]

175. Or it would make Rand more popular? n/t

[freshwest]

176. To the GOP? Do we need the TP vote? If he wants to talk to Rand (R-RTW, personhood) he can do it.

But Bernie has a lot to lose and isn't suicidal. His intent is to defeat the GOP, not boost them.

[Cheese Sandwich]

177. Ok I guess you didn't like that idea...

I will try to think of better ideas next time.

[freshwest]

178. Most Democrats, POC, LGBT and workers despise the Pauls. n/t

[Historic NY]

52. He is obviously counting on party finances to support his efforts...

if not then perhaps he should go the route Perot did. He is late to the party.

[Cheese Sandwich]

53. No he's running for the Democratic nomination. It's the debate rules I would say he should break.

Two different things.

Ross Perot actually ran as an independent. He did not seek the Dem. Party nomination.

[Historic NY]

68. If he runs contrary to the party debate rules then he is running as an independant....

[cali]

84. lol. bullshit

[Cheese Sandwich]

98. Sorry you misunderstand the definitions of words...

He is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party.

That is one concept.

And then there is participating in debates which is another concept.

Two concepts there. So he can run for that office without being in the debates.

[freshwest]

142. He has stated emphatically that he will not run as an Independent:

If Bernie Sanders Runs For President, It Won’t Be as an Independent: “I will not be a spoiler”

...Naturally, “Will you run for president in 2016?” was the first question DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain asked Sanders. Though not definitive, his answer was enough to leave these activists hopeful.

“I am giving very serious consideration to it, but before you make a decision of that magnitude… you have to make sure that you can do it well,” Sanders said. “So what we are doing is reaching out to folks all over this country trying to determine whether or not we can put the grassroots organization together that we need.”

Sanders knows he will have to rely on grassroots mobilization to have a fighting chance at being elected, because his campaign will take on every monied interest. “If I run, we’ll be taking on the billionaire class,” he said. “That’s Wall Street, the drug companies, the military industrial complex.”

To the dismay some idealists, Sanders rejected the idea of running for president as an independent. “No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler,” Sanders said. “I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States...”

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17572/bernie_sanders_president

to pampango:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6140372#top

This should be an operating factor in all we do at DU:

“I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States...”

I hope that no matter who gets the nomination, Democrats will remember who the real enemy is in this race, and not pretend that it's one Democrat or the other.

Or fall for the hoax that both of the parties are the same. It is necessary to increase the power of Democrats numerically in both D.C. and the states. With a Koch-backed GOP nominee elected to office in November, the GOP in the Congress has already made dire plans for the American people.

They are hinging many deadly manuevers on that possibility, and only holding back doing so because:

1) Obama won't let them on his watch.

2) They have not consolidated power in all three branches to run their goal, a one-party state.

Don't anyone fall for the idea that they will see reason or that they will not nationalize what they have built state by state.

[AgingAmerican]

148. The party is twisting the debate rules to avoid him

They are obviously scared of him, because he is right.

[okasha]

183. No.

They are simply declining to provide him with extra free air time. If he wants more exposure, his campaign can pay for it, just as other campaigns do.

[FSogol]

83. Why Rand Paul? That fool has no chance of winning anything and only

cretins think he has anything useful to contribute. Debating Trump would be more productive than debating a loser like Rand.

[Cheese Sandwich]

99. Ha yeah

Rand Paul seems like he might actually agree to do it because it is mavericky.

[FSogol]

100. Bernie would do better to take questions from college students and not waste his

time with feeble-minded libertarian grifters.

[freshwest]

143. Agreed. We need to engage all sides. nt

[freshwest]

179. Much better.

[freshwest]

174. Which campaign did that in 2012 after being shut down in 2008? n/t

[Kalidurga]

15. Demands? It sounded more like he was spit-balling an idea and a good one...

Than roaring in and making demands. But, your language I guess. And I don't care. They can go for it and give people a real chance to see what each candidates visions are or they can decline and look like they are afraid of giving Bernie a platform to reveal his vision for this country.

[Nye Bevan]

17. It makes you wonder why he is running as a Democrat

given that he's not a member of that party and doesn't like its debate rules. Why not run as an independent or on the line of some other party whose rules are more to his liking?

[leftofcool]

22. I think he should do just that and stay out of the Party.

[orpupilofnature57]

35. I bet you do .

[cascadiance]

66. So, you would rather have a Republican win and just have the satisfaction

of blaming him for splitting the vote like Nader partially did (Gore still won without the intervention of the Supreme Court), and either way the corporatist backers would be happy.

No, Bernie knows that he can't win on his own, and his backers DON'T want corporatist government, whether it is one lead by Republicans or corporatist factions of the Democrats. THAT is why he's running as a Democrat.

[cali]

89. ding ding ding.disgusting, isn't it?

[cali]

88. not very smart of you.

[AgingAmerican]

150. That is because he is right on every issue

And debating him is obvious suicide. That's why they have altered the debate rules trying to muzzle him. They want fewer people exposed to his message.

[Cheese Sandwich]

26. It's the only way to have a chance of actually winning

As a third party or independent candidate he would maybe just get a tiny vote, and at worst could end up as a "spoiler" and throwing the election to the gop.

[yeoman6987]

85. I thought Senator Sanders was a strong candidate

But he can't win as an independent but can win as a democratic nominee only? Doesn't make sense. Either he is strong or he is not.

[cascadiance]

93. Same thing would happen if Hillary Clinton ran as an independent too...

It is not so much of either of them being strong or weak. But they will split the votes from Democrats if they both run against Republicans at the same time.

If you really want candidates running this way, then why don't you advocate instant runoff voting, so that there won't be any penalty for third parties to run in the race in terms of a minority backed Republican winning on "split votes"? It would be the solution, but corporate democrats don't want that in place either. It keeps corporate lobbyists from having control of the *TWO* party system where they buy off both sides! With instant runoff voting, it would be a lot harder for them to buy off all of the potentially valid choices in a race.

[AgingAmerican]

130. It's called the "Two Party System"

The deck is stacked so you must be in one of the two major parties to have a chance. But you already know that.

[orpupilofnature57]

38. Because the Koch brothers would swoop him up with $$$$$ or

snuff him out with $$$$$ all in the name of the Republican party . He needs the shelter of the Democratic Party, and Democrats that see things the way they really are, need him .

[Avalux]

55. No, it doesn't. He caucuses and votes with Democrats. n/t

[cali]

86. if he had run as an indie hill wouldn't have a snowball's chance.

[LuvLoogie]

128. Because Bernies supporters are Democrats in name only?

[LordGlenconner]

167. Bernie fans covet the struggle

[tularetom]

102. The debate rules were adopted after (and probably because) he announced his candidacy

You make it sound like he just barged in and demanded the rules be changed.

What does Ms Clinton fear about debates?

[TM99]

127. Yes, I agree.

The most important aspect of being a member of the Democratic Party is agreeing with the DNC on their new limited debate ruling.

[Jim Lane]

184. You wouldn't wonder that if you had actually read anything about this issue.

At the time Sanders declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, there was no six-debate limit and no gag order directing candidates to refuse all other debates, on pain of being excluded from the officially approved ones.

What you call "its {i.e., the Democratic Party's} debate rules" were not then rules and have never been rules. It's an innovation that some people have started pushing. I hope the plan will fall apart.

[still_one]

18. More debates are meaningless. In fact I would argue most people who watch any debates

already know where the candidates stand on the issues. They are looking for a flub or gotcha. My side verses your side

and then the commentators put their two cents in to make it more of a reality tv show

[Enrique]

25. Bernie's trying to change that

they don't have to be as fake as they currently are. They're fake because both of the parties like it that way.

[still_one]

60. He can't force people to watch the debates, and I suspect those that do watch the debates, the

majority have their mind made up anyway

[Cali_Democrat]

65. The debates are fake?

You mean staged?

[still_one]

110. No, I just don't think in most cases they significantly change the results of an election, because

the majority of people watching the deb ate already have their mind made up, unless one side does a gotcha, which isn't necessarily the best way to make a decision about a candidate

[orpupilofnature57]

48. If you don't want to be bored with where people stand,

and how they mean to lead, and how they've led, and voted in the Senate, and who do they owe ? Meaningless Blah Blah to some, a chance to see who could and would run or ruin us, for intelligent voters .

[still_one]

62. and who do you think most voters are? Most people who watch the debates have

their minds made up, and those that don't represent a small group

[jeff47]

104. I'm sorry, where's the rule that you must be strapped to a chair and forced to watch every debate?

You don't want to watch more than 6? Then don't.

[still_one]

111. You are not understanding my comment. I am arguing that except for political junkies most people

will not even watch 6 yet alone more than 6.

[jeff47]

112. So? They aren't the DNC's debates. The DNC doesn't care if no one watches.

Again, the DNC is free to only have 6 debates. They should not force those to be the only debates. If someone else wants to set up a debate, the DNC has no reason to care.

Candidates can choose to either attend or not attend those other debates, and viewers can choose or not choose to watch.

[still_one]

114. Sure, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?

[jeff47]

116. Why does it matter?

Again, if an outside debate turns into a complete waste of time, who cares? It's an outside debate. The DNC lost nothing. The candidates either lost nothing, or were gambling that it would be worthwhile. If it turns out they got zero viewers, so what?

[still_one]

123. Isn't that a waste of the candidates time and resources that could be spent elsewhere?

I think I read today that only one person showed up to a Santorum rally in Iowa. Not sure what he thought he achieved?

[jeff47]

124. So's a speech where no one shows up.

It's up to the candidates to prioritize. If they prioritize poorly, that's their problem to solve. It's not up to the DNC to protect them from poor decisions.

If it were, the DNC would have stopped Clinton from giving "I love triangulation" speech recently.

[morningfog]

121. Of course not. That is not the point. The candidates should debate in more fora precisely because

votes do not watch all the debates.

Debates are hosted by different groups and viewed by different groups. They can also be geared around and focused on particular issues: foreign policy, education, economics, etc.

The more venues and the more subject matter and the greater diversity in each reaches wider audiences. It is understandable that Hillary and the DNC would not like greater exposure.

[Marr]

20. C'mon-- you like their position because it benefits your candidate.

Six prime time, national debates is one thing-- but voters in individual states would greatly benefit from hearing the candidates debate issues specific to their regions during the primaries. That's how it used to be done.

The exclusionary rule is pretty obviously just about keeping Hillary's competition as unknown as possible, and you can't honestly believe that's a respectable, ethical motivation.

[leftofcool]

24. I thought it was up to each candidate to make themselves known, not the DNC.

[Marr]

32. You know, playing dumb like that really isn't cute or clever. /nt

[leftofcool]

47. I don't usually respond to personal attacks but...........

if going on talk shows ranting and raving, offering free ice cream, and playing on social media doesn't get your candidate known, what do you think will?

[Marr]

57. That wasn't a personal attack.

Unless you actually don't understand what debates are, or that they're meant to give the public an understanding of who the candidates are and how they compare to one another.

Nice attempt at getting a hide though. Maybe it'll work.

[leftofcool]

63. I don't do "hides" or "reports to juries."

I have been voting since 1972 and understand debates quite well. If you want your candidate to have more debates, email him and ask that he go out on his own.

[Marr]

64. Then he'd be cut out of the big DNC debates, as per the exclusivity rule.

That's the whole point.

[jeff47]

105. It isn't. The DNC does not have to get involved with any other debates.

They can hold the 6 they want to hold. Abandon the new exclusivity rules, and other people will handle any additional debates.

[Oilwellian]

160. We could actually see Hillary begging for more debates...

if she starts trailing in the polls.

[MohRokTah]

21. He hasn't paid his dues with interparty networking, either.

You cannot expect high ranking Democrats to acquiesce to your requests when you've never done anything to network with them and build the types of relationships actual members of the party must do in order to have requests like this considered.

[orpupilofnature57]

33. They should have to Explain their reasoning on debates, and where the $$$$$$ Goes .

[MohRokTah]

45. ?????????????????????

[MFrohike]

73. Yeah

The ranking member of the Budget Committee clearly doesn't network at all, y'all. They just picked his name out of a hat!

[cali]

90. idiotic

[MFrohike]

97. Is that to me?

I'm a bit confused.

[MohRokTah]

132. Not in interparty politics he doesn't. eom

[MFrohike]

173. I love it

Nothing says authoritative like a random guy on the internet making a claim and providing no evidence.

[JeffHead]

94. He's been caucusing with the Democrats since the day he entered the house.

He is one of the founding members of the progressive caucus in the house. He is the former chairman of the Veterans Committee in the Senate and is currently the ranking member of the Senate budget committee. When he first ran for Senate in 2005 Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean endorsed him. How much more "networking within the party" do you want this man to do?

[MohRokTah]

131. That doesn't matter a whit.

He's never paid his dues forming interparty relationships. That goes well beyond anything in a simple body of Congress.

[jeff47]

106. This post is quite an achievement in cluelessness.

He's the ranking member of the budget committee. He's held several high-ranking committee assignments. They don't hand out that to a random senator. He's been doing "interparty networking" for a very long time. It doesn't require a "D" after your name.

But hey, you were arguing that NAFTA was fine because factories didn't instantly teleport to Mexico. So gotta work hard to top your previous achievements.

[freshwest]

144. You don't count his being the sole Senator in the Democratic Party's CPC as networking?

He said before he announced that he needed the organization, networking and funding of the Democratic Party to make a run. He votes with Democrats all the time in the Senate.

And the Democratic Socialists are a wing of the Democratic Party, and has been for a long time. It's why Alan Keyes and other GOP call the Democrats 'socialists' because of the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus.)

Most Democratic programs, the majority, are varieties of DS, all the way back to the New Deal.

[MohRokTah]

146. Nope.

There's nothing in his resume to set up relationships and networking within state level party organizations across the country.

So no. there is nothing there.

[freshwest]

161. True... That is why he chose to run as a Democrat and not Independent. We may be at cross purposes

on the definition of 'networking.' I think his being in the so-called 'communist' faction of the Democratic Party, the CPC, is a form of networking.

I had a link to some prominent members of the CPC, which is the largest caucus in the party, saying they welcomed his run. After all, he helps make what they want to have happen become a reality in D.C.

But no, he didn't have a state by state organization, and I don't think HRC did either before announcing. Now, if any of them are endorsed by Obama, they will inherit the OFA group that has never stopped organizing and taking action since 2008.

All the Democrats held off and didn't announce early. The GOP grifters, though, announced right away, to start getting the perks of running. Gingrich ran in 2012 to get the money to pay his debts, that had nothing to do with a run for office, AFAIK. Ready to be corrected, though.

I think Sanders' idea of having many debates is accepted in the long run. It gets people involved and thinking. The GOP does it to garner attention, why can't we?

[MohRokTah]

162. Nope, it will remain at 6.

Two many debates is a recipe for general election disaster.

And Hillary Clinton has relationships with Democratic Party officials in all 50 states. Ramping up an organization becomes a swift action with those relationships in place, not to mention the fact that it comes with a lower cost than to those campaigns without those sorts of relationships.

So not only do you have somebody capable of outraising the rest of the field combined by nearly a magnitude of order, you have a more efficient operation (read less costly) because of relationships built over the past three to four decades.

[freshwest]

164. Six seems sufficient if the moderators are good and don't try to talk over them. I felt they were

distracting and kept the voters from getting a full feeling of the issues and positions of the candidates. The GOP doesn't get those kind of interruptions, IIRC.

Also, the endorsements of state governors, etc. doesn't mean much to me. Even if Obama endorses HRC... and there is a very good chance of that... There is so much dishonest slime being tossed at Obama that I feel it will only influence certain people.

Overall, the debates may be hampered by the moderators as they keep on wanting to make a name for themselves with their billionaire owners, and not inform the voters. I've found even CSPAN's constant breaking away from coverage to blab when Obama is speaking to show their agenda is to suppress our words, and they keep on distilling everything into their soundbytes. While giving maximum time to GOP on their programs every day.

What I'm trying to say, is that the candidates themselves will have to carry the burden of expressing their visions themselves. And while six debates sounds good, we are just so overwhelmed.

Also, the idea that HRC can get a lot of funds raised that will tip things in her favor with voters, IMO, is indequate. I don't think soundbytes, pretty scenery and triumphant music (as used in the recent Sanders video) are going to move the Democratic voter.

I could be wrong about all of this, I hope I am. I also don't like the way the campaigns are being portrayed on DU or even in HRC places, about name dropping and stuff like that. Or how much money they have. It sounds too much like the media and their 'horse race' talk and doesn't move me and I believe it turns people off.

I am ready for either of these excellent individuals to win the nomination for our party. And will vote for either, not holding my nose or any of that silly rot. Those who defame the party and any of our candidates, isn't worth my time and it shows they don't take the threat of a Trifecta of GOP control seriously. So I don't take their words seriously.

Any correction by you to make me change my mind is welcome.

[Jim Lane]

185. So the merits of a new debate rule matter nothing, and all that matters is schmoozing? (n/t)

[Luminous Animal]

29. When has asking become demanding?

[Sheepshank]

37. as was pointed out earlier, more debates-free publicity

So I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask. When money is a premium, Bernie could get a lot mileage out of additional debates. But then, as you mentioned, why would the DNC provide a non DEM a platform for free publicity? It simply doesn't make sense.

There is a second thought on this request, and as another thread points out so clearly, Bernie supporters can use this denial of his request as a bludgeon against Hillary...... she is hiding, she can't debate, she only likes control speaking environments, she controls the DNC etc. So again, Bernie's request has absolutely no drawback for him.

[orpupilofnature57]

58. Exactly !! some people see it as getting to explain their postions,

other people see it as having to dance, cajole, and use casuistries to avoid their positions, and we Know who is who .

[MuseRider]

39. Something tells me he did not

demand that they accept him and that he forced his way in. Somebody had to allow it, right? He has always caucused with them. Still, they did not have to let him in but they did.

Not exactly his fault and I am as certain as can be that he never promised to put that D after his name and then not do it.

So, if they let him in under these circumstances he has exactly as much right to demand as any other candidate right?

[TheNutcracker]

40. Bernie has caucused with the democrats always! They have been able to rely on him.

[Cali_Democrat]

51. And in exchange they've given him committee assignments

He's the ranking member of the budget committee.

Overall, the Democratic party has treated him well IMO.

[cali]

91. overall Bernie has been a better dem than the majority of dems

[Cali_Democrat]

169. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Kinda like calling for someone to primary the POTUS in 2012. Stay in your lane Bernie.

[Octafish]

54. DNC proves itself un-Democratic.

Rather than limit debate, the nation needs:

More options. More opinions. More ideas. More debates. More leaders. More Democracy.

[LuvLoogie]

129. Not voting is un-democratic.

Most people don't give a shit one way or the other.

http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/

--Only 36.4% of eligible voters voted in this year’s (2014) midterm elections, down from 40.9% who voted in 2010, according to preliminary analysis by Michael McDonald at the University of Florida. The last time voter turnout was that low was 1942, when only 33.9% of voters cast ballots, according to the United States Elections Project.

That was also a year that the U.S. established the European Theater of Operations in WWII, so a large share of the voting population was a little busy doing other things.

Voter turnout in presidential elections is historically much higher than in midterms– 58.2% of eligible voters voted in 2012, and 61.6% voted in 2008, the highest turnout since 1968. In other words, turnout for Obama’s first presidential election was almost double the 2014 midterm turnout.--

[freshwest]

56. I don't care about his 'position.' He's running with DNC money. He's a member of the DemocraticCPC.

The DNC is wrong. To unify the party, we need more debates, not less. I don't want us to play the media 'horse race,' I want ideals and ideas to be discussed. If the frontrunner is not debated in this contest (more open than 2012,. when an inencumbent was the POTUS running for re-election. The less debates, the more likely the GOP will win in 2016. Let the ideas be hashed out.

[onecaliberal]

61. I don't think it is the job of the DNC to back any particular

Candidate before the primary process is over and we have a nominee. They should encourage all candidates to debate as many times as they would like. Visibility of dem policy and values is our goal, right?

[padfun]

72. I agree

The Democratic party doesn't belong to the DNC, it belongs to all of us voters. One shouldn't have to have DWS's permission to run under a party. A person should run under whatever platform they wish to.

By either party limiting participation, we get complete two party rule and the current bullshit "leaders" we have today. I've been a Dem since 1974 and think that anyone should be able to run under any party they wish. OK, I have no problem with the DNC not using their funds for it, but that is why last election is the last time I donate to the DNC, especially since they ran Republican Lite's last time.

And saying that, I think Bernie will win, but if he doesn't, I will still vote for Hillary.

[Rex]

67. The DNC should not show any favoritism imo. nt

nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

69. It has nothing to do with a 'D" beside his name. The DNC welcomed him to the primary and said it is

not necessary for him to have a "d" beside his name.

He can run in any primary and, if he wins enough delegates, he will become the Democratic nominee.

Some states, such as New Hampshire, require a candidate to be a member of the party.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party is on record stating they will make sure he is in the primary. Senator Sanders has said he will do what it takes to be in the Democratic Party Primary in all 50 states.

And as to Secretary of State Clinton influencing the number of primaries, she is not a member of the DNC, and is not involved in making those decisions.

Like the Republican party, the DNC has reduced the number of primary debates this election, though not by as many.

[jeff47]

108. The problem is the DNC hasn't bothered to explain why the rules were changed.

What was so awful about 2008 that they had to eliminate 20 debates that were not run by the DNC?

[Agnosticsherbet]

122. I do agree that their reasoning should be explained.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. In Vermont, like here in Washington, he's a (D) if he's running as one.

There's no party registration in Vermont or Washington.

[cali]

74. your 2 cents mean nothing. get a clue.

The DNC has officially welcomed him as a legitimate candidate for the democratic nomination, thus he had as much right as any other candidate. Duh.

[Cali_Democrat]

75. You seem angry.

Take a deep breath and relax.

There's more to life than constantly scolding people on an anonymous message board.

[Logical]

76. Wow, what a failed post. Projecting much? nt

[Doctor_J]

80. The DNC has already decided who the nominee will be. If Hillary doesn't want debates, there

won't be any debates.

[AtomicKitten]

96. He's running as a Democrat so as to not be a spoiler. You're welcome.

http://nhjournal.com/bernie-sanders-wont-run-for-president-just-to-be-a-spoiler/

[quickesst]

101. you can see...

...by many of the replies to your op that their are two types. Those that take any opportunity to slander Clinton, and those that, shall we say, aggressively defend something that is innocuous at best but perceive it as an attack. And all you did was point out something that should have already been brought up in the Sanders group. The subject of the op could be somewhat of a problem for Bernie among the average Democrat who is not anywhere near as involved as those here. Or it may not be a problem for him at all. But it does not warrant the vehemence displayed here. I think Bernie would agree.

[jeff47]

109. Yes, it is entirely appropriate for the party to change the rules to benefit one candidate.

And it is also entirely appropriate to not bother explaining to us lowly serfs why the rules were changed.

The 20 debates in the 2008 primary that were not sponsored by the DNC? They were bad because....reasons. They must be eliminated because....reasons.

[quickesst]

137. I suppose...

...I should have been a little more specific. I was talking about Bernie and his independent status. I can see where a lot of people who are not as politically involved as most on, say, Democratic Underground, are going to vote straight Democrat no matter what. Then there are others who are Democrats, that will ask themselves when the last time an independent won. and decide their vote won't mean anything. I simply thought the OP addressed a potential problem that might want to be discussed. especially among Bernie's supporters. I also think it was in no way, shape, or form presented in a negative manner. Thus my reply to the OP regarding some of the replies received. I stand by it. As far as the debates go? I don't care if they have 2 or 200. OP may or may not agree with me on that. I can't tell one way or the other.

[jeff47]

141. Yes, he's so independent the Democrats in the Senate put him in charge of the buget committee.

So clearly he's never, ever worked with Democrats before.

(For any pedantic readers, he's the ranking member. So the top Democrat, not the chair of the committee)

I can see where a lot of people who are not as politically involved as most on, say, Democratic Underground, are going to vote straight Democrat no matter what. Then there are others who are Democrats, that will ask themselves when the last time an independent won.

Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination. If he wins the primary, there will be a D after his name on the ballot.

I also think it was in no way, shape, or form presented in a negative manner.

Utterly ignoring how the DNC suddenly decided to restrict debates is extremely relevant to this discussion. A new rule, in secret, that one candidate wants and the others do not want, with zero explanation about why that rule was added.

Covering that up is discussing it in a negative manner. Just like saying "mistakes were made" about invading Iraq is inherently covering up the fraud behind the invasion.

[quickesst]

158. ok...

...You are determined to defend what you mistakenly perceive as an attack, and again completely miss the simple point. I just believe given the demographic I put forth before, it seems it would be better for Bernie if he put that D in front of his name before the primary. I am NOT attacking nor am I defending the debate issue. This might be my last word on this as I don't think I can find the words to explain it any simpler than I have. One more thing. The Democrats in the Senate are not the voting public.

[jeff47]

159. The D is already there.

He's running in the Democratic primary. He will be under the list of Democrats on the ballot, under the section for the Democratic nominee. Effectively, the "D" is already there.

I am NOT attacking nor am I defending the debate issue.

Why are you posting in a thread about "the debate issue" and not expecting to discuss "the debate issue"?

One more thing. The Democrats in the Senate are not the voting public.

And? The Democrats in the Senate are going to have far more of a clue about what he has or has not done for the Democratic party. It's what they do every day.

The basis of your argument is that "the voting public" is utterly unaware. Yet you are insisting they are aware of his political affiliation. And that will override his presence on the Democratic ballot under the section for Democratic nominee. On a ballot that won't list party affiliation for each candidate anyway.

So you are arguing that voters are completely uninformed, but will behave as very well informed.

[quickesst]

170. uh...

...people watch the news. That makes them not unaware, but not as aware as, say, you. And you are right. I do not care how many debates their are, but I do have the right to an opinion on the nastiness of some of the statements not warranted concerning the op. It's also a part of the subject being discussed, which, unfortunately, is still being missed as to the point of my original post. You could ask several people why they are posting on this thread if not for the simple reason that it's an excuse to to get some nasty licks in. Ok, I'm done. Thanks.

[jeff47]

171. Ah yes, time to throw out a personal attack then run away.

The perfect way to demonstrate just how sensible your position is.

[quickesst]

181. done with that post...

... with you, not so much. If you see my post as a personal attack, well I feel kind of sorry for you. If I was going to attack you personally it would probably have went something like, "You wouldn't know the point of a pin if it stuck you in the eye." But I didn't. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. That was not my intent. This may actually be my last post in this thread because I just realized there is one thing I"ll walk away from. Willful ignorance. Now you are free to find another one of those terrible anti-Bernie OPs you can misinterpret as being an attack on your guy.

[jeff47]

187. Oh no!! Not done with me?!! I'm so terrified.

This may actually be my last post in this thread

I lost track, is this your second last post or your third last post?

Now you are free to find another one of those terrible anti-Bernie OPs you can misinterpret as being an attack on your guy.

Yes, discussing the new DNC debate rules is ENTIRELY about Sanders. It has absolutely nothing to do with any other candidates, or the DNC demonstrating favoritism. It's only about one candidate and a blind, slavish devotion to that candidate. Which is why I'm have not posted about being in favor of his cross-party debate proposal. Because nothing says slavish devotion like disagreement.

And voters are simultaneously massively uninformed so they'll blindly vote based on the political affiliation on their ballots. But they'll also be massively informed, so they'll know that Sanders labels himself independent despite "Democratic" written all over the ballot. But there massively informed state will stop at not knowing he has caucused with the Democrats for decades and has been given very important committee positions.

And this thread is about DNC debate policy, except when it's only about ballot position/labels and not about DNC debate policy.

[jeff47]

103. Sanders isn't asking for a change. The DNC is.

The DNC added an exclusivity clause, which effectively bans participation in any other debates. This is brand-new for 2016.

In 2008, there were 26 Democratic debates, only 6 sponsored by the DNC. The remainder were sponsored by outside organizations, and candidates could decide to attend or skip each debate. Neither Obama nor Clinton attended all 26.

This rule has not been explained by the DNC. It is an edict handed down from on high. It also happens to benefit the candidate that all of the DNC leadership already endorsed, despite the fact that the DNC is supposed to be impartial before the general election.

[jwirr]

107. From what I read on DU he did not demand - he wrote a letter suggesting added debates.

[QC]

120. Yeah, but phrasing it that way is nowhere near as like to antagonize people. n/t

[jwirr]

140. Exactly.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. It's fairly SOP for the front runner to want fewer debates, the underdog to want more.

Every time they are on stage together is an opportunity for the underdog to pull attention away from the "inevitable" one.

That said, I think 6 debates is probably enough. I support Sanders' request for more, because more is better, but I don't suspect it will get very far.

[tritsofme]

117. To be blunt, everyone knows these debates are a formality.

A check the box sort of affair, six is more than enough.

Best case scenario they generate positive buzz and coverage going into the GE, worst case she commits some sort of "gaffe", but bottom line is they just won't be that significant as this is not a seriously contested race.

[daleanime]

126. That's strange....

same thing can be said about democratic voters.

[peacebird]

135. Links to DNC members behaving inappropriately, forgetting to pretend impartiality

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/08/dnc-member-calls-bernie-sanders-crazy-and-even-hillary-supporters-should-be-angry/


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html
DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chair and dogged surrogate for Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, has long been viewed as on the outs with the Obama White House and closer to Clinton. A spokeswoman for the DNC declined to comment.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html#ixzz3celsY7ny

[99Forever]

139. Hillary Clinton cannot debate honestly with Bernie Sanders.

It would show the world exactly what she is and would be political suicide for her.

You can run Hillary, but you can't hide.

[OilemFirchen]

145. Then six debates should be quite adequate.

He'll mop the floor with her at the first and the other five will be theater.

Right?

[99Forever]

153. She can run, but she can't hide forever.

In the meantime be sure and discuss the importance of logos and other superficial bullshit. It's all you've got.

[OilemFirchen]

154. Yeah, that's what I do.

[99Forever]

163. As far as issues important to me...

....that's precisely what Clinton does. So keep right on laughing. I'm sure her bankster pals are having a nice belly laugh at just how gullible some people are.

[NCTraveler]

157. Sanders is getting more milage out of this than if there were ten unwached debates.

He is playing politics with it and that is the smart thing for him to do. Most people think six debates is more than enough. I would be willing to bet that even at du it will be an extreme minority that tune into four or more. Six allows all Americans, regardless of work schedule, the opportunity to see two or three. I do get that standing next to Hillary for six hours isn't enough for some. Maybe they can do dinner.

[LanternWaste]

165. Seems more of a request and much less than a demand

Seems more of a request and much less than a demand. However, I do realize we need to color our language in ways to validate our biases-- it's human nature to do so. As long as we realize the wholly relevant differences between the two words, and accept that one is much less accurate than the other... at least admit to ourselves if to no one else.

e.g.,
“I asked the Democratic Party to work..."
“In my view, the candidates for president..."
"the email urged, asking potential supporters to help..."

[polichick]

166. Maybe he should just cut to the chase and put a "C" behind his name.

[Cali_Democrat]

168. Bernie Sandersc?

I don't get it.

[polichick]

172. The "C" most valued by the DNC stands for Corporatist.

[Puzzledtraveller]

182. You said it

It's amazing, the takeover is complete and many Democrats arent even aware of it.

[mmonk]

180. F*ck the DNC and f*ck the corporatocracy.

Have a nice day.

[Jim Lane]

186. This hubbub over Sanders's party affiliation is a red herring.

By your theory, the candidate with the most influence on the rules would be Martin (lifetime Democrat) O'Malley. In a close second would be Hillary (former Goldwater Girl) Clinton -- slightly behind O'Malley for that youthful indiscretion, but ahead of Lincoln (former Republican Senator) Chafee.

Back here in the real world, no, the lifetime Democrat in the race is not the one calling the shots.

BTW, "calling the shots" doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton picked up the phone and told Debbie Wasserman Schultz what to do. She didn't have to. Everyone knows that eliminating more than three-fourths of the debates (as compared with 2008) would benefit the front-runner.