Debate KABUKI Signals Hillary Clinton Iowa FREE FALL

[Segami]

Okay, I gotta’ warn you, I may swear a lot in this diary. I’m gonna’ try not to, but I’m not making any promises. This whole New Hampshire debate charade between DWS and the Clinton campaign is friggin’ (nice job, Bob!) hilarious! I mean, it is side-splittingly funny! I haven’t stopped laughing all night! Suddenly, out of nowhere, an unsanctioned debate pops up right on the eve of the New Hampshire primary? (This right after an out-of-the-blue sanctioned forum last night.) Really? And DWS really puts her foot down and shouts, “Absolutely not!” And the Clinton camp immediately acquiesces to the debate and shouts, “We’re in!”

Really? Who couldn’t have predicted this? (I did. Numerous times in the Rec list diary on the debate, and was chastised for my observations by some Clinton folks.) Fuck (damn it!), we did not just fall off the turnip truck, Hillary! This kabuki between DWS and Clinton signals only one thing: Complete fucking desperation on the part the Clinton campaign. I predict right now that their internals in Iowa are in complete free fall. Total collapse. This stupid, transparent stunt has Bill’s reactionary flop-sweat panic all over it. And I am abso-fuckng-lutely loving it! Why should Sanders do her a favor and debate her before New Hampshire? He has zero incentive to bail her out. Sanders’ numbers are on the rise in New Hampshire. He slingshots with momentum out of wins in Iowa and New Hampshire into her firewalls of Nevada and South Carolina. (I suspect those numbers are sinking for her, too. How else to explain this inane stunt today?)

Another bungled Hillary Clinton campaign. Losing the first two states to a Democratic socialist? That has to be galling. And no one on her team saw it coming. You know why Clinton and her team of geniuses are worried? Here’s why:

Even though the Clinton team has sought to convey that it has built a national operation, the campaign has invested much of its resources in the Feb. 1 caucuses in Iowa, hoping that a victory there could marginalize Mr. Sanders and set Mrs. Clinton on the path to the nomination. As much as 90 percent of the campaign’s resources are now split between Iowa and the Brooklyn headquarters...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/hillary-clinton-readies-for-a-long-slog-against-bernie-sanders.html?_r=1

Oh my god, this is high comedy. And it’s all the indication we need of what a pathetic general election candidate she’d be. We have been continuously told by the important people that we must nominate Hillary or risk a crushing defeat in November. Tell you what, I think our biggest risk of a crushing defeat in November is nominating Hillary. I have been writing a few diaries the last few weeks about her flailing and floundering effort:

- About her choice of King Sleazeball, David Brock to be her designated hit man.

- Her decision in the last two years to take millions in speaking fees from the financial and pharma industries and her inability to defend her actions, especially about her three Goldman Sachs speeches.

- About the campaign’s misjudgments and misallocation of resources and putting all their eggs in the Iowa basket.

- Her decision to hold a big ticket fundraiser just days before the Iowa caucus hosted by an investment firm that may be facing federal scrutiny for its shady practices.

- The miscalculations made by her campaign that have brought her to a point where she is being seriously challenged by a 74-year-old, self-described Democratic socialist from a tiny state, including her campaign’s decision to limit debates:

Oh, and about making sure Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the DNC limited debates, and, thus, limited exposure for Hillary’s opponents? (And, yes, the Clinton team pressed DWS and the DNC to limit debates.) That plan has backfired, too:

cont'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/27/1475637/-Debate-kabuki-signals-Clinton-Iowa-free-fall

[Punkingal]

1. K&R

[arlington.mass]

78. Boom - another $20

Every time they pull this crap I make another donation to Bernie

She is imploding and this is going to get ugly

[restorefreedom]

2. dws screwed herself

if she capitulates to Hillarys demand for more debates, the collusion will be out for all to see. if she doesn't do it, she risks pissing off her boss and any rewards she has been promised to rig the nomination.

i predict the debate will turn into another "forum" unsanctioned but with some or all participating. unless bernie decides to focus on campaigning. he is under no obligation to participate in any unsanctioned event and after what the clinton campaign and the dnc has done to him, has no reason to help either of them.

[kenfrequed]

25. Exactly +1

Yes!

DWS needs to admit her bias and/or trash these stupid rules.

[restorefreedom]

28. wouldn't that be nice. if she does though, she will make herself AND clinton look horrible

i doubt either of them could recover at this point.

i am sure the dnc heads are working overtime to figure out a face saving way out of this...

good luck, losers!

[mhatrw]

81. LOL at anyone who believes Clinton and DWS did not plan this whole charade together.

Here's why!

[restorefreedom]

83. it does make sense...collusion is their middle name. nt

[CoffeeCat]

89. Two fools who didn't think things through

I am very unimpressed.

[mindwalker_i]

3. It seems to me that another debate would be good for Bernie

Every time people hear him, they like him. So it seems like a bad idea on the Clinton side to give him more exposure, but they're probably a bit panicked and not planning wisely.

[Helen Borg]

20. Not if it is an abush...

...

[mindwalker_i]

36. As in, say, the moderators will ask highly leading questions?

That doesn't seem to have worked terribly well so far, so I wonder what Hillary and her stooges could do as an ambush. Gang up and all call him a socialist?

[rhett o rick]

85. I believe that Sen Sanders can handle an "ambush". nm

[roguevalley]

30. bernie said he likes debates because they show the differences for people. I think bernie is metal

through and through, iron. He is thriving on the push back. Go, Bernie.

[Plucketeer]

41. If I were Bernie..

I'd make a point of saying this in front of a camera: "What? The RULES have changed in the MIDDLE of the game? DWS adamantly and repeatedly rebuffed any requests for MORE debates on better dates. Now, at HER behest, more debates are proposed? Thanks, but me and my people have work to do."

[99th_Monkey]

55. I like it! Be careful what you ask for DWS. No more debates? Fine.

Now that both CNN and MSNBC have pulled out their long knives and are attacking Bernie
with "bigger government!!!" "More Taxes!!!" every 20 minutes on "live news" .. no wonder
Bernie is thinking twice about participating in another sudden out-of-nowhere, last-minute
M$M-owned 'debate' with stacked questions and immoderate 'moderators' out for Bernie's
blood.

[bvar22]

61. Great Idea...another "debate".

This time with DWS, Bill Clinton, and James Carville as moderators.
(This panel is not much worse than the last one)

[99th_Monkey]

66. I'd actually be in fovor of more, provided they were organized & moderated by League of women

voters, and CARRIED by a TV network with high viewership, or as many as wanted to carry
it live, the more the better.

Now THIS ^ is what Bernie should be asking for, when he talks with DWS and the other
candidates, and if these folks WON"T agree to such a format, why not?

[bvar22]

69. The last real, impartial debate I saw was hosted by the League of Women Voters.

In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because
the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."

Today's "debates" are campaign shams designed for the rubes.

[99th_Monkey]

72. Wow! Thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea the League pulled out of doing debates like that

I still don't understand though, why the League doesn't just say "hey, here are the rules. Take them
or don't participate, period" .. Nor do I understand why there couldn't be some participation by
campaign reps,, but only to advise and make suggestions, and get clear and on the same page about
how the event is structured and how it will go, but the League has final veto. Take it or leave it.

I know this is much easier to say, than to do. Damn, can you imagine how vicious the pressures on
the League must have been, to force them into reluctantly coming to their 1987 decision?

[99th_Monkey]

73. Do you think real debates like we used to have are impossible now? Is it a lost cause? n/t

[magical thyme]

79. it's a trap and Bernie is smart not to walk into it. Note that DWS has said NO

Hillary has said YES, but how many scheduled events has she not shown up for at the last minute?

What do you think would happen if Bernie and MOM showed up to this debate and Hillary didn't? DWS would block them from the remaining debates and Hillary would have the floor to herself.

Bernie didn't say NO to debating, either. He said any time, any place -- for *Sanctioned* debates and with a schedule.

[jillan]

4. I have to ask a question concerning the General election - correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't really follow Hillary as closely as I follow Bernie so I could be wrong.

In the fall Hillary was going after Trump because he is a misogynistic pig. I applauded her for that.
Then Trump was all over the airwaves saying if Hillary plays the woman card with me I will attack Bill Clinton's sexual activities.

Did Hillary stop going after him on women's issues because of this? I know she still talks about women's healthcare, wages & mentions that the repugs want to take that away from women. But I don't hear her going after him with the same vigor she did before he started threatening her with attacks on Bill.
And if she did stop - omg! That would really say a lot.

I hope I am wrong. If she is the nominee I want a nominee that will not back down no matter what is thrown at them.

[karynnj]

17. Good question, like you, I do think I have heard little from her on Trump's sexism since then

It is true that issues - especially character one likes that - do tend to have ebs and falls - so it might simply be that now is not the time. I think the big difference is that she changed her focus from Trump to Sanders. This makes sense as she obviously did not see him as a threat in the fall -- where he clearly is now.

I do agree that the collapse of that attack might be taken by any Republican nominee to mean that it can be repeated in the fall to defuse the "war on women" reality of the Republicans. The scary thing is that it seemed to work even for the three times married Trump, who was very publicly with his second wife when he was still married to the first one. (I hope - that this was a coincidence as she shifted from targeting Trump to Sanders.)

For lack of any way to measure the strength of the Trump attacks on Bill, I looked at pollingreport.com. Here are the Bill Clinton numbers. http://pollingreport.com/clinton1.htm I would suggest that they are far too noisy to say that there was any impact. I would also note that his favorable number - 53 - even though less than the last time - is higher than his wife's and even higher than Obama's - though given past trends for Presidents, it is normal to improve over time when not President.

[Duval]

42. People do not know the damage Bill Clinton did to the country, thanks to our RW Media.

Not reinstating Glass-Steagall, giving us NAFTA, CAFTA, free trade with China, to name a few.

[bvar22]

76. I will change my strong negative opinion of Bill Clinton...

...just as soon as I get my new, high paying NAFTA job.

[green917]

39. it's all about numbers

When secretary clinton bashed the Donald for his sexist remarks, she was still on track as the anointed one with a very confortable lead over all her challengers and she had the Capitol to take a swipe at the other side because she wasn't facing any real challenge on our side of the aisle. As the metrics have changed and bernie has gained a ton of momentum, the clinton campaign is in defense mode. They see 2008 happening all over again as a very real possibility (let's hope so) and therefore, she has had to concentrate on defending herself against senator sanders.

[tex-wyo-dem]

43. Interesting question, jillan...

I too noticed that Hillary's pointed attacks on Trump seemed to cease after Trump attacked Bill on his sexual activities. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Hillary campaign considers Bill a powerful weapon for her campaign, and Trump effectively neutralized that weapon by turning the attention away from what Bill was saying about Hillary and onto his sex issues. May be why we haven't heard from Bill lately.

[snagglepuss]

45. Great question and one that deserves it's own thread. nt

[jeff47]

60. I think it's coincidence.

Clinton was attacking Trump because she was polling well in the primary. She was attempting to move on to the general election, a common strategy for frontrunners that have a significant lead. It's an attempt to portray the other primary candidates as insignificant.

Then her numbers went south. Now, ignoring the primary would not have the same effect. So she stopped the attacks on Trump to focus on the primary.

[Segami]

5. August 2015- "..Lobbying by the campaigns..

"....has been intense, with Clinton’s campaign wanting fewer than six debates, while the staffs of Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders asking for more than that.

- So this cycle, determined to put a lid on the process, Democrats took an idea from the Republicans, who had announced there would be penalties on their candidates if they went outside the Republican National Committee’s sanctioned debates. If Sanders or O’Malley tries to test the DNC, they would risk getting aced out of the other debates. Ditto for a media outlet that tried to mount something separate on the side, as they would risk losing Hillary Clinton as a contender.

One thing is sure, Clinton is going to follow the rules; she won’t do more than the six debates. And the networks understand the DNC has control of the process because Hillary is on board with the plan and she’s not going to show up for any debates that are not sanctioned...."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/03/dems-to-set-debate-schedule-this-week.html

[A Simple Game]

23. Wouldn't it get interesting if Hillary was the only one to show up? n/t

[mindwalker_i]

38. This really bothers me

It's kind of "privatizing" the election and campaigns, so the DNC is almost like a company "selling" the candidates and expecting us to but their chosen product. Hillary fits into this model extremely well, but it's not what most people want. It's also not good for the country to make voters into "consumers" of a product.

[Duval]

44. Exactly!

[Fuddnik]

59. Clinton Incorporated.

[farleftlib]

6. It all reeks of desperation

Bernie is playing it smart about the unsanctioned debate. You've summed it up very well and it paints a very descriptive picture of the depths to which the DNC and their minions will sink.

[MissDeeds]

24. Speaking of desperation...

I checked out weather.com this morning to see if we are in for a snowstorm next week and up popped Bill Clinton telling me why I should vote for Hillary. An ad on the weather site. Holy hell.

I couldn't hit "skip ad" fast enough.

[floriduck]

37. It's owned by NBC

and Comcast so it fits. This is part of their full frontal assault on Bernie. But they are rapidly burning their bridges. Their campaign is one of the most destructive in the Dem party I can remember in my 66 years.

[freedom fighter jh]

92. Try weather.gov

That's the National Weather Service. I think weather.com must get its info from the government, because so much of it comes from NASA satellites.

An informal, non-scientific comparison of the sites (the weather I think we're going to get based on what I've seen on weather.gov v. the weather my friends think we're going to get based on what they've seen on weather.com) shows weather.gov getting it right much more often than weather.com.

[MissDeeds]

96. Thanks so much for the info

I've noticed weather.com isn't always so accurate. I live in the midwest and it seems we're always getting hit by something, and things can change pretty quickly. Thanksgiving before noon I was cooking with the windows open, and by 7:00 we had freezing drizzle.

Tornado season is always a lot of fun too.

[freedom fighter jh]

97. You're welcome.

I hope it helps.

[CharlotteVale]

7. K&R

[SoapBox]

8. I...

Fucking agree with your OP!

And I do swear...well online...or in my car...or when I break off a toenail on something left laying around the house.

[dorkzilla]

16. Jurare, ergo sum

I swear, therefore I am.

If I’m breathing, I’m fucking swearing. Except when I’m not.

[nikto]

65. Swearing is just so fucking improper, isn't it?

I hate that shit.

[dorkzilla]

68. It really depends on a lot of shit...

If you’re in mixed fucking company then keep your fucking mouth shut. But if you’re with all your asshole friends (lets face it our friends are assholes. GOOD assholes but yeah...) then let it motherfucking roll.

But if you’re like, oh I don’t know, at fucking work, you’re probably best off to not talk about shit that would offend people.

[Le Taz Hot]

95. LOL!

I am SOOOOO stealing that!

[Fuddnik]

9. She took very careful aim at her foot.......

[Segami]

10. Yes and DWS asked Hillary which one....

[pa28]

11. They've engineered a face saving way for DWS to allow more debates.

Bernie isn't going to make it that easy for her after the ridiculous hard line she's taken on the debate schedule. Fun to watch them squirm.

[WillyT]

12. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Divernan]

13. "Bill's flop sweat panic" Totally!

Also agree with the "Clinton's internals in total free fall" comment.

[retrowire]

14. i see it this way

In the beginning, Bernie and O'Malley both called for more debates.

The DNC shut them up by coming up with the rule that if they joined an any unsanctioned debates then they would be disqualified from further sanctioned debates.

So they followed the rules.

Now there's an unsanctioned debate that Hillary wants to go for. (remember Hillary's position before? "I'm okay with whatever the DNC approves of&quot

Bernie's playing by the rules this whole time and NOW Hillary wants to rebel against the DNC. lol

[Segami]

18. The Daily Beast wrote back in August...

"...One thing is sure, Clinton is going to follow the rules; she won’t do more than the six debates. And the networks understand the DNC has control of the process because Hillary is on board with the plan and she’s not going to show up for any debates that are not sanctioned...."

[zazen]

15. maybe the Clintons don't want her either but she's controlling Florida

Imagine if they wanted to replace DWS too, but DWS didn't want to go.

Imagine if for some reason Obama was sticking DWS with them instead of firing her.

Just think through that scenario. They're stuck with her.

[libdem4life]

51. DWS now has a Primary opponent. Maybe she can lose both of her jobs...and we get

Bernie elected. That's a three-fer.

At least Hillary has a rich Foundation to rely on, albeit less influence for funding. Just think, they can get salaries for the Clinton parents off their personal interest and tidy Director's Salaries for all three of them from Foundation money.

Maybe they can hire DWS somewhere in there. I'm going to bet she knows a few tidbits of info...not that, oh well.

[Jeff Murdoch]

19. I always thought that the point of the outside

debates was for voting blocks within the party would have the candidates focus on the issues of that particular group, and how their broader policies affect those issues.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. 90 percent of the campaign’s resources???

I bet a LOT of that actually went into salaries for party celebrities (each demanding six or seven figures) and for polling firms.

[frylock]

88. Five star hotels and fancy business jets..

swimming pools, movie stars.

[Matariki]

22. “Like I said, I have a party to run.”

She's an arrogant idiot. Can't wait to see her replaced by someone competent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/democratic-primary-debates-six-debbie-wasserman-schultz-2016-213489

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz dug in Thursday and said her party would stick to the six currently scheduled Democratic primary debates, one day after two vice chairs from within her organization broke ranks and called such a strict limit a “mistake.”
“We’re going to have six debates,” Wasserman Schultz told reporters flatly at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. “Period.”

Wasserman Schultz has come under fire for the limited schedule, with Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley leading the charge. O’Malley has said the limits are “rigged” and “ridiculous,” and devoted much of his speech to the DNC last month in Minneapolis to ripping the rules.

But the statement late Wednesday from two DNC vice chairs, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and R.T. Rybak, was notable because it came from within the party’s own power structure. “By limiting Democratic debates to just six, more people will feel excluded from our political process, rather than included,” Gabbard and Rybak wrote in a post on Facebook.

More at the link

[Indepatriot]

26. Is that a Mic Drop I just heard?...

[jmondine]

27. Don't count your chickens until the eggs are in one basket.

Or something like that.

[JudyM]

29. Sadly ironic that the Big $ Hillary hopes will keep her afloat is actually sinking her. Nt

[dorkzilla]

31. The hardest part of Clinton’s support for me to grasp

This woman has SO MUCH BAGGAGE, and her supporters seem to ignore the fact that if she won (she won’t) the next four years would be one fucking stupid Benghazi-style investigation after another, whether real or ginned up, because she tries to paint herself as a public servant rather than the pandering bought-and-paid-for politician she is, with her only agenda being self-enrichment. And they will come to rue the day they voted for her.

History will not be kind to Hillary, especially as time goes on and people who feared rather than admired her are allowed to speak freely.

[ish of the hammer]

32. Clinton has so many positions she can have a debate with herself !

it won't need an ok from DWS.

[Segami]

33. LOL!...Yes, but...

one of those 'positions' might not reach the network minimum threshold of 5% polling support.....she will have to leave the debate....

[RiverLover]

40. LOL!! Thread WIN!

Very true, she could!

[snagglepuss]

47. DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

[cascadiance]

52. And if one Hillary was pro H-1B Visas vs. the other against it, BOTH would lose...

The one siding with expansion of H-1B visa would lose to Americans for being a consistent corporatist, and the one that switches to be against H-1B would be shot down by Americans for yet again changing her mind on it and waiting to the last minute (like she's done with TPP and Keystone) to shift gears to adjust to polls.

That she would lose Americans no matter which side she takes, if this issue gets any kind of publicity that it deserves, SHE LOSES! And I think that is why Republicans like Trump and Cruz are now taking sides against H-1B. To sound populist compared to her. And if Bloomberg were to get in the race with Clinton in it, she's split votes with Bloomberg (since Bloomberg right at the start of his campaign as announced his desire to remove restrictions on H-1B Visas altogether) and give the election to either Trump or Cruz.

[CharlotteVale]

54. ROFL, every time I see that pantsuits graphic I'll think of a whole stage of Hillaries

debating with herself. She has at least that many different positions.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Great diary!

No way should Bernie help HRH. She didn't want any more debates when she thought she was inevitable. Now that she's losing, it's a keen idea. NO.

PEA
LOVE
BERNIE

[PatrynXX]

35. So she's out of the rest of the debates then?

as Bernie said no.

[Duval]

46. K&R! Thanks, again, Segami!

[vkkv]

48. That "H->" would EVEN hire David Brock is sickening.

[abelenkpe]

49. I thought the purpose of Bernie running was to pull Hillary to the left

but in each debate she appears to run to the right of Bernie. Usually candidates appeal to their base until they have the nomination and then move to the center. I don't think another debate will help.

[Fumesucker]

56. She tried going to Bernie's left, it wasn't a credible position for her

It was only a few months ago she was pleading guilty to being "kind of moderate and center".

[Go Vols]

50. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

53. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[ChiciB1]

57. Thank You, Love Your Post... You ALWAYS Seems

to dig into REALITY and EXPOSE it!!!

[Ferd Berfel]

58. HEre's the free fall

LOL! Hillary Goes Bowling - http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511076581

And only 150 people showed up

then this:

[Segami]

62. Now thats a beautiful site!

As for the 150 people who showed up to Hillary's Bowling rally (lol), I would check those numbers once again....they could be inflated!...

Judging from the pics, those standing around mostly look like staff members off to the side.

[Ferd Berfel]

63. well, the janitor and shoe sprayer had to be there

so they dont' count

[cui bono]

74. That is so amazing!

But don't forget, Clinton LIKES small, intimate crowds. Don't have time to find that post, surely it was in the Hillary group, that tried to say big crowds bad, small crowds good. Would love to see that and the one parodying it from Bernie supporters again.

.

[Ferd Berfel]

80. her small crowds usually mean BIG donars purchasing access

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

64. haha K&R!

nt

[nikto]

67. True Love

[ieoeja]

70. It's a trap! Everyone promised to withdraw from Michigan. And not compaign in Florida.

After getting Obama and Edwards to do those things, she turned around and did not. That did not, however, work out the way she planned as the DNC initially refused to accept delegates from those two states.

Would it surprise anyone if she got Bernie to show up for the unsanctioned debate without showing up herself. DWS could then punish Bernie in some fashion.

In other words, do the exact same thing she did in 2008, but with a ringer at the DNC this time.

[m-lekktor]

71. I love this thread !!! nt

[Enthusiast]

75. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[rhett o rick]

86. Jiminy Christmas, I am number 203, that's hundreds.

[Enthusiast]

91. Yay!

[pangaia]

77. Even if, heaven forbid, she DOES win,

it certainly will be in large VERY LARGE, part to just the issues that Bernie is fighting against and not her 'brilliant campaign team.'

[mhatrw]

82. Why the bizarre "disagreement" between Clinton and her loyal toady, DWS?

Here's why!

[gordyfl]

84. I Didn't Know...

She said "absolutely" not.

No debate. Now Hillary can say she was willing. Bernie refused.

Many voters won't know the full story.

Advantage: Hillary.

[chervilant]

87. This:

Losing the first two states to a Democratic socialist? That has to be galling.

(I just can't stop laughing!)

[Betty Karlson]

90. My sentiments exactly. Thanks for posting this. eom

[freedom fighter jh]

93. What if Bernie were to negotiate about this?

At the start of primary season, Bernie wanted debates between the parties starting right away. That all went away with the DNC's fiat that participation in any non-approved debate would mean no more participation in a DNC debate.

What if Bernie were to propose to Hillary that he will participate in more debates among the three Dem candidates if she can prevail on DWS to allow debates between Dems and Reps?

A debate or two between Bernie and a Republican would put to rest the idea that Bernie can't stand up against a Republican. But I'm not sure Trump would take the bait.

[raouldukelives]

94. K&R If only they were as serious about beating the republicans.

As they are at joining them.