Why No Scheduled Democratic Party Debates? Are They Afraid of Bernie?

[FreakinDJ]

Why No Scheduled Democratic Party Debates? Are They Afraid of Bernie? Time for Social Media to Force the Debate

Before the 2008 Presidential primaries, the Democratic Party scheduled a total of 26 debates between the candidates. The first debate, broadcast over MSNBC, was held on April 26th, 2007. It involved a total of eight candidates. Among them: then-New York senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton and her young, relatively unknown senate colleague from Illinois, whose name was Barack Obama. The stakes were high in 2008. The incumbent president, George W. Bush, could not run for a third term – so the contest was wide open.

This year, the stakes are equally high, in large part for the same reason. Yet, here we are at the end of July – and not one debate has taken place. By this time in 2007, there had already been five debates, four of which had been televised. This year, while the first GOP debate will be held on August 3rd, the first Democratic debate has yet to be scheduled. No definite dates have been announced, nor do we know which networks will be carrying them.

Sign Petition Today: To help force this debate, click and sign the petition: Initiate Immediately Democratic National Convention Debates.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/930/249/280/democratic-national-convention-debates/


https://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/why-no-scheduled-democratic-party-debates-are-they-afraid-of-bernie-time-for-social-media-to-force-the-debate/

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[raindaddy]

76. Obvious what's going on...

They're scared shitless of Bernie dismantling Hillary Clinton and exposing her self imposed limitations due to her cozy relations to Wall Street and global corporations on national TV ....

[think]

2. It's pretty obvious.....

[Thinkingabout]

3. Afraid? Who is afraid of Bernie Sanders?

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. You guys are funny. Everything ever done in the world is not about Bernie S.

Perhaps they are waiting for more people to jump in. Perhaps they want the republicans to cull their herd first.

[AlbertCat]

66. Everything ever done in the world is not about Bernie S.

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think scheduling Democratic debates before the primaries is "Everything ever done in the world".


And since it IS scheduling debates between Democratic candidates, Sanders might have something to do with it. You realize he is a candidate, yes?

Do you think it's about O'Malley, maybe?







Try to remain calm.

[Evergreen Emerald]

70. I don't think its about anybody.

I think the democrats are attempting to be thoughtful in their presentations. Let the republicans put on the show. I recall the last election the infinite number of debates became quite hysterical as the RW candidates kept sticking their foots in their mouths.

We have plenty of time before the election to see debates. I am wondering why you are in such a hurry? Are you trying to decide which candidate to choose? Or, do you want the debates for some other reason?

[AlbertCat]

71. I don't think its about anybody.

I don't either.

It's still early.


But it is a good question, why haven't they scheduled debates? They had by this time before. (As the article points out) And of course it seems inevitable that Sanders would come up in speculations.

[merrily]

94. And God forbid it should be about voters.

[Evergreen Emerald]

123. Are you suggesting that you are undecided?

How would debates help you?

[kenfrequed]

137. Bernie is part of it..

But really It is about Hillary's backers in the party not wanting anyone else to gain name recognition or force her to take solid positions. She wants her campaign to remain as amorphous as possible into the general election. She also doesn't want real competition or choices in the primary.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

138. +1 n/t

[rhett o rick]

122. I think the Party leadersip would like to see Clinton slide into the nomination w/o any pesky

debates. She might get asked about the XL Pipeline, or her close relationship with Goldman-Sachs, or fracking, or the I-War and her participation. She might be asked about the TPP. None of these things has she bothered to explain her stand.

But she shouldn't be worried because the Party leadership gets to pick the questions.

[think]

8. Welcome to DU. The DNC prefers we watch the GOP debates instead.....

They even have a nifty GOP debate watch party pack:

http://store.democrats.org/products/gop-debate-watch-party-pack

[Turchinsky]

16. Worst decision made by DWS. She should be busy scheduling all 6 debates, plus an additional 4 more.

None of us Democrats think the clown car is worth any real serious challenges. All of them have skeleton the size of Texas ready to put them down.

the extra 4 more is because once Bernie eclipses, they'll do anything to make Bernie look bad - and every single attempt will fail.

[JaneyVee]

21. The election is almost 2 years away.

[think]

23. These are the primary debates and the first caucus is in less than 6 months.

And the general election is only 15 months away. Not sure where you are coming up with this 2 years reply....

[nashville_brook]

124. +1

[merrily]

93. Which election is almost two years away?

[cascadiance]

133. The one they want to assume someone is already anointed to be in...

... and not have to wait for a democratic process to decide it, even if that's the name of the party we're in...

[merrily]

134. Iowa and NH, 5 mo.; Super Tuesday, 6 mo; General 15 mo.

And some DUers only recently stopped pretending they want Bernie to win the primary.

[DesertRat]

43. I like the GOP Bingo card

I'll have to make one for Thursday night's debate.

[rhett o rick]

121. The leadership of the Democratic Party. It's obvious. nm

[ruffburr]

5. Done now-

Sign this one too !!!! http://www.democraticunderground.com/128032078

[4139]

7. Thursday Aug. 27th, anniversary of March on Washington would be a great date

[jwirr]

54. Don't know where I read it here on DU but some group has one planned for Aug. 3.

[George II]

149. You read wrong, sorry.

[merrily]

95. There was a reason for that timing.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-death-of-emmett-till

The 2008 Democratic National Convention formally nominating Obama for the first time also took place around that date.

[Sinistrous]

9. It's obvious:

The PTBs don't want to give Sanders and O'Malley an opportunity to increase their name recognition and to provide a wider forum for their stands on the issues. That might erode support for Clinton.

[OilemFirchen]

10. Insofar as I can tell,

no one is afraid of Sanders. Not one soul.

Why would anyone fear him?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

25. You really have absolutely no inkling?

[OilemFirchen]

30. No.

That may explain why I asked.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. It's really very simple

Bernie is anti-big bank and "too big to fail". That strikes a chord with people of all political stripes. Hillary is a banker schmoozer. Bernie hates TPP and Keystone. Most Americans are against those things - but not Hillary. I could cite several other examples, but maybe this will get you thinking.
#Feel The Bern

[RufusTFirefly]

39. Careless talk like that will almost guarantee an Emmanuel Goldstein presidency

And, oh yeah, SCOTUS!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

117. You'll have to point out where I was "careless".

[RufusTFirefly]

120. I was being facetious.

I guess I should've included a sarcasm tag, but I mistakenly thought my remarks were pretty over-the-top.

Some of the folks who scold us for supporting Bernie not so subtly suggest that by doing so we'll reap the whirlwind and lead America down the road to ruin. George McGovern is routinely cited as a precedent, while the composition of the Supreme Court is frequently held up as the principal penalty.

In other words, they're attempting to use fear to frighten us from voting our conscience and in the country's best interest. You know, "if Bernie gets the nomination, we'll wind up with President Trump." That sort of thing.

[jeff47]

126. Unfortunately, it is no longer over-the-top here. (nt)

[RufusTFirefly]

130. Sadly, you're probably right.

I try to maintain a sense of humor about their rantings, but I guess I may inadvertently be supplying them with new material!

Reminds me of the Tim Robbins movie Bob Roberts, about a folk-singing right-wing Senate candidate. Robbins and his brother wrote the songs, which included ditties like "Times Are Changing Back" and "Reclaim America", but they deliberately refrained from releasing a soundtrack album out of concern that right-wingers would use the satirical songs seriously.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

153. Well, I should have looked at your profile first, that may have clued me in.

But yeah, it's always helpful to use the sarcasm tag. A Hillary supporter could say the same thing, so the tag does help.

[OilemFirchen]

42. And that causes "fear"?

Of what?

[peacebird]

45. That the more people hear his message, the more they like him. Unlike Hillary.

The longer her surrogate debbie ws can delay, the better chance they have of slowing the Berniementum.

[OilemFirchen]

50. I could not have made my query simpler.

What, in this context, would Clinton (or "debbie ws&quot be "afraid" of? Losing? It's a contest. There's always a chance of that.

Is Sanders "afraid" of being being outmaneuvered in the debates? Is he "afraid" of losing?

[OmahaGTP]

59. But, why? *answer* But, why? *answer* But, why?

You could try not being an obtuse child by asking "but, why?" to all responses. Maybe take your smug energy and transfer it into something constructive.

[OilemFirchen]

99. Or, someone could answer the question directly.

Welcome to DU, BTW.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

155. I did, you just don't want to hear it - I'm done, as the rest should be.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Why would a Democratic Senator exclude single-payer advocates from a panel on health care reform?

It's a similar dynamic.

If they were confident about the strength of their message, they wouldn't shy away from including dissenting views.

But, just as with single-payer health care (which Bernie ardently supports, by the way), the Democratic establishment fears that if Bernie gets sufficient exposure that his views and his candidacy will quickly catch on with the general public.


(BTW, for those don't recall the health care reform incident back in 2009, the Democratic Senator was Max Baucus, who was chair of the Senate Finance Committee at the time. When he refused to include a single-payer advocate on any of the panels, supporters of single-payer sat in the audience instead. One by one, they stood up to protest their exclusion. And one by one, they were led out of the committee room and arrested. More than a dozen protesters were arrested. Eventually, there was so much outrage over the spectacle of the arrests that Baucus agreed to meet privately with single-payer advocates and the sponsor of the Senate's only single-payer bil: Bernie Sanders. According to Sanders, Baucus expressed regret that he had squelched all discussion of single-payer, but by then, of course, it was too late.)

[think]

34. Great analogy... TY /nt

[OilemFirchen]

40. What does fear have to do with your example?

Why would a candidate or party "fear" the introduction of an alternative policy?

I believe the word you're seeking is "dismissive".

[RufusTFirefly]

47. Of course it's about fear

Did you ever see the movie Run Lola Run? The plot is simple. A henchman has fenced some jewels and now has to bring the cash back to his boss. But on the way home, he accidentally leaves the bag of money on a subway train. He realizes there's no way his boss is going to believe that he honestly lost the money and that if he doesn't find a way to come up with the sum in the 20 minutes before he's scheduled to meet with him, he'll be a dead man.

A single-payer system would be a huge boon for the American people in general, but it would spell financial hardship for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Any politician who depends on campaign contributions from these industries has every right to fear the consequences of introducing ideas that threaten the profits of these donors. To have to face the boss and tell him you don't have the money he's been counting on can lead to a political death sentence.

[OilemFirchen]

53. I remember that Franka Potente was hawt.

Lola's fear was palpable and understandable. She was afraid for her life.

Candidates are afraid of losing contributions? Don't be ridiculous.

[RufusTFirefly]

58. Lola didn't fear for her life. She was afraid for her boyfriend's life

And in this day and age, contributions are the very lifeblood of a politician's existence. Of course they fear losing them!

That's the problem! It's legalized extortion.
"Nice little Senate seat you've got there. It would be a pity to lose it."

Until we have public financing of elections, this will only get worse.

[OilemFirchen]

103. My mistake.

I saw the movie when it came out and have mostly forgotten the plot.

Do you think that if Single Payer became law the monied interests would stop contributing to candidates?

[RufusTFirefly]

112. You're starting to sound deliberately obtuse

(Perhaps I'm obtuse for taking so long to notice.)

To answer your question: Of course not. The monied interests that oppose Single Payer aren't the only moneyed interests. How about the defense industry, Wall Street, or media conglomerates?

As I said before, until we have publicly funded elections, politicians will continue to pull their punches on issues that could adversely affect their major donors. They fear alienating the people who finance their campaigns. In addition, many worry that they'll lose the cushy job that awaits them once they leave politics. Politicians who shill for particular industries frequently wind up with lucrative jobs in those very industries.

A classic example is former Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin, who played a key role in pushing through the Medicare prescription drug bill that was predicted to earn the U.S. pharmaceutical industry up to $200 billion. After leaving Congress, Tauzin became president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Washington lobby representing US drug manufacturers.

[OilemFirchen]

115. Obtuse?

While this isn't the first time I've asked a simple question and received no direct answer, it is the first time I've been accused of being "obtuse" for doing so. That's just weird.

During the near seven years of Obama's presidency, have the Koch Brothers withdrawn donations because the Republicans have lost most of their fights? No. They've doubled down, principally with the goal of reversing or mitigating any damage caused to them.

If the insurance and pharmaceutical industries lose their battles against Single Payer, they will continue to donate to their preferred candidates in an effort to capitalize on their loss - probably moreso than when they owned the market. Do you think they'll just take their ball and go home?

[Enthusiast]

57. +1! The economic royalists do not want to hear a single peep about single payer.

Bernie Sanders is a major pain in the ass for them.

They have hired thousands of internet sockpuppets with the mission to challenge any praise of single payer. These sockpuppets attack any and every perceived (contrived) weakness in the various single payer systems operating successfully in Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

I first encountered these obvious sockpuppets back when I first gained access to the internet in 1999. Their mission is growing ever more difficult.

There was even one DU sockpuppet that insisted without the insurance industry we would have no health care at all.

[zeemike]

78. Don't remind us of things like that

We are always to look forward never back...as soon as it is over, boom gone from memory.
Pay attention to what people say their about not what they actually do...it just confuses the issue.

[RufusTFirefly]

79. I am cursed with a decent memory and a fascination for history

Clearly I'm a "bad fit" for modern politics

[zeemike]

83. Some day they will find a cure for that affliction.

But until they do I prescribe a heavy dose of TV...reallity shows are the best bet. It will take your mind off things like that.

[RufusTFirefly]

96. I'll keep hoping...

[Babel_17]

144. Thank you for that

That was a great summary, and I'd either forgotten or never knew about that meeting with Sanders.

[Vincardog]

88. Then tell us, why don't the establishment Democratic party want as many Democratic Debates as

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Possible? Aren't we better of by MORE exposure?

Won't the American voters LOVE our POSITIONS and candidates?

[OilemFirchen]

106. You'd have to ask them.

I'm one who thinks that six debates is fine. I'm not afraid.

[Autumn]

11. The problem with having debates is a candidate might lose support when she starts talking.

[Thinkingabout]

13. While "HE" is talking.

[Autumn]

14. Bernie will handle himself quite well.

[Thinkingabout]

15. As can the other candidates.

[Autumn]

19. If you say so

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

26. Then why are you so afraid of Bernie?

[Turchinsky]

18. Clinton suffers from foot-in-mouth disease more than once....

And the worst outbreak is about to happen.

[JaneyVee]

22. lolwut?

She won the popular vote in 2008 and almost won the delegate count against Obama, who is arguably the greatest campaigner in US history.

[askew]

80. That lie will not die.

1. The popular vote was not collected in almost all caucus states because it was a delegate race not a popular vote race. So, there is no way to correctly tally the popular vote for either candidate. It especially hurts Obama because he won almost every caucus state.

2. The Obama campaign, rightly, focused on winning the delegate race not the popular vote. So, judging the candidate on a completely different metric is bullshit. It's like saying the losing Super Bowl team really won because they racked up the most yardage after the game. One, it's not true. Two, it is sore loserism to try to diminish the winner's win.

3. The popular vote myth relies on counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, which don't count because they broke the rules. All the candidates publicly stated they would not campaign in those states and that the election results don't count. And Hillary was the only candidate to not to try to remove herself from the ballots. So, adding any vote totals from those states to the vote tally for either candidate is cheating.

4. The only reason the delegate count was close was because Obama gave Hillary pity delegates from Florida and Michigan after the race was over because he is a better person than her. It's like when you make up fake points in a game to make a small child feel better about being beaten.

5. There was no mathematical way for Hillary to win after she lost 19 primaries in a row in February-March. Yet, she stayed in running an ugly race including race-baiting attacks. For her supporters to now try to pretend that it was a close race is just adding insult to injury.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Foot in mouth, would Bernie shouting "shutup" at a town hall meeting?

[MissDeeds]

64. I agree n/t

[Vincardog]

91. What? Why would speaking her positions out loud in front of people cause her to lose support?

Doesn't she have the people foremost in her thoughts?
Are not Black people and their lives the cornerstone of her campaign?

[Thinkingabout]

12. Why does the DNC have to do what the GOP does? We have planners in the DNC, we do not need to

follow the clown car. We are better than this. Thinking the DNC is afraid of Bernie Sanders is out of the question. If the DNC was so afraid of Bernie Sanders they would not have a candidate declared under a DNC candidate. Let's get real here, admit it would give more exposure of Bernie Sanders more exposure. Is it going to bring him more voters, don't know but don't continue with this "afraid" crap, it is just not true.

[jeff47]

127. The DNC is doing what the GOP does.

The GOP sharply limited debates this time around, because of all the debate implosions in the last two presidential races.

The DNC followed suit because....um....reasons. 6 is enough because...um...reasons. The exclusivity clause is critically important because...um...reasons.

[Thinkingabout]

128. Following, it is more like the GOP is following the DNC.

[jeff47]

131. Except the DNC announced their plans after the GOP did.

And unless you've discovered some exciting new physics, the one that goes second is following.

[Thinkingabout]

132. The date I saw for DNC was 5 5 2015, the earliest for the GOP was 5 20 2015

[jeff47]

136. The GOP started proposing limited debates in their 2012 post-mortem

Which was in 2013.

[whatthehey]

140. They also proposed reaching out to minorities, so wouldn't call that cast-iron resolve..

[Thinkingabout]

143. Admit the DNC put their plan out first this year and did not follow the GOP.

Both parties are always planning early and also has major elections ever two years.

[Sheepshank]

159. There seems to be an on going need to be "first" in politics, here on DU

I honestly don't understand it. Being first doesn't mean one is more correct, it doesn't mean the message is stronger, it doesn't translate to honesty, integrity and love. It doesn't mean that there is better organization, it doesn't mean the other party is disorganized.

Being first to score in basketball is of psychological advantage, but not in politics. In politics its more like the last voice heard is the one remembered.

[jeff47]

165. So you want me to call it "first" even though it was two years later.

You have an odd definition of "First".

But it fits the story you want to tell, so you're gonna stick with it no matter what. Wasn't it great when Clinton came in first in Iowa in 2008?

Both parties are always planning early and also has major elections ever two years.

Yes, presidential debate rules are very important to nail down for midterm elections.

Just lower yourself to saying "You're a poopyhead" and get it done with.

[Thinkingabout]

167. Whatever, facts are facts, it doesn't change the fact thw DNC put plan public before the GOP.

[JEB]

17. Public debates are the heart of the decision making process.

I see no legitimate reason to not have several debates.

[FreakinDJ]

20. Ya - we wouldn't want to stand for Democratic principles

Got to Luv the way the DNC faithful talks down to us Bernie supporters - "Run along now children, we know whats best for you"

[sabrina 1]

27. Both Bernie and O'Malley are a problem for Hillary on the issues.

So yes, I guess they are trying to avoid having a public debate on the ISSUES. They prefer the controlled, scripted 'unveilings' of what their candidate feels safe to discuss with no opportunity for anyone to challenge her.

I think candidates should debate anyhow, if she doesn't want to then fine, but the public has a right to see where those asking for their votes stand on the issues.

[A Simple Game]

69. Bernie has mentioned the Democrats and Republicans having joint debates.

Perhaps Bernie and O'Malley should ask to join the Republican debates. Can you imagine how Bernie would shine compared to the clowns? He would wrap up the nomination and the general election in one debate.

WARNING: Using the word socialist for a drinking game would be the same as signing your own death certificate.

[RufusTFirefly]

72. I recall this suggestion and think it's a wonderful idea

It would bring the lunacy of the Republican Party into sharper relief. It would also make it clear to Republican viewers that many of Bernie's positions appeal to the vast majority of Americans. Only the rich and powerful are likely to object to them.

[askew]

82. They can't debate because DWS put in a exclusivity clause in the debate rules for the

first time (clearly to help Hillary). That means no candidate is allowed to appear onstage with another candidate unless it is a sanctioned DNC debate. If they do so, they are banned from the DNC debates. Many debates that had been a tradition of the Dem nomination process had to be cancelled or re-formatted into speeches because of this rule. The Black-Brown debate in Iowa being one of them. Important debates on issues regarding criminal justice, immigration, etc. won't get to happen now because DWS wants Hillary to win. It's pathetic.

[sabrina 1]

146. What a scam. Can't other candidates appeal that ruling? The voters?

What if they all ignored it and all were banned from the DNC debates EXCEPT Hillary?

This is an insult to voters who have a right to hear from the candidates on where they are on issues.

[askew]

162. The O'Malley campaign pushed back hard and the DNC basically said take it

or don't come to the DNC debates.

[Le Taz Hot]

166. At which point one has to retort,

"WHAT DNC debates?" She's such a clueless useful little tool. Dumb as a box of rocks to boot.

[PatrickforO]

28. Yes.

They are afraid of Bernie.

NO ONE in the establishment wants Bernie. It's just us.

[Attorney in Texas]

29. Is there any Democratic candidate who is clamoring for early debates?

It seems like the Democratic campaigns are moving at a reasonable and appropriate pace.

I'm not in a hurry to crown any candidate as the nominee, and expediting the debates seems to be the most direct means of expediting the nomination process.

It is not even clear yet what candidates will be running (for example, it is unclear whether the Vice President is running: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/politics/joe-biden-white-house-2016-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0 ).

What's the hurry?

[Maineman]

41. Bernie as suggested early one-on-one debates between Democratic and Republican candidates.

That would help expose the positions of the GOP clowns. Sounds good, but of course it will not happen.

What I do not understand is people who wait until the last minute to decide who to vote for. That opens the door wide open for last minute dirty tricks and lies with no time to debunk them. Or, is it just the media that finds such people in order to further their own interests?

[Attorney in Texas]

55. Agreed but neither Sanders nor Clinton are pushing to expedite the Democratic debates, and it seems

like expediting the debates would help only Webb, O'Malley, and Chafee while it would be a detriment to Sanders and Clinton (both seem content to focus on organizing in early primary/caucus states at this phase of the campaign) and Biden (who does not seem ready to make a decision and a looming debate schedule might force him to make a decision before he is ready).

[merrily]

97. Expediting the six debates is not the issue. Increasing the number of debates and

beginning them as soon as possible is the issue.

Please stop stating the scenario that is best for Hillary and attaching Sanders' name to it.

[Attorney in Texas]

104. You say “Expediting the six debates is not the issue…beginning them as soon as possible is the issue

You and I may have a different understanding of the word “expediting,” but let’s focus on where we agree – we both want Sanders to get his message out and we want him to do as well as possible in the primary (and hopefully win the primary).

What do you see in terms of news stories about the Sanders campaign? I keep seeing GREAT stories about how he is building a grassroots movement and attracting unprecedented crowd. I’m good with this. I think the Sanders campaign is good with this. I fail to see how shifting the campaign’s focus from grassroots building to a focus on national televised debate helps the Sanders campaign.

In every other democracy across the globe, they select their representative leaders with campaigns that are half as long, a quarter as long, or even a tenth as long as the political campaigns in the US. What do you see in our government that makes you want to double-down on the prolonged political campaign model?

[merrily]

105. Of course, your ellipsis intentionally omits the critical words from my post, so you

can snark about my understanding of the meaning of the word expediting. Candidly, I don't have a lot of patience with that kind of posting.

I asked you to stop using Sanders' name as you advocate for Hillary's dream scenario re: debates.
What news stories you are and are not seeing is beside the point.

[jwirr]

77. What's the hury? The first two primaries are in the first two months of 2016. Or are we supposed to

ignore them?

As to candidates calling for the debates to start. Not that I know of but this is not about the candidates - it is about involving the people. We have one candidate with name recognition and 4 relatively unknown candidates (regarding their stance on issues) running. Don't we the people have a right to know what our candidates are proposing?

As to the number of debates and scheduling. The last I heard from DWS they want 6 debates starting maybe in August (maybe not) and ending in September 2016. But most would be scheduled at the beginning of the primary with almost none during it. That allows for several things to happen.

First of all it keeps name recognition at the front because debates are the way candidates get known. That is largely the way President Obama got known. So we need one this month and we need a good moderator who will not show favoritism in any way.

Secondly by having most of the debates at the beginning and few during it again favors name recognition because if you did not see the first debates then you will most likely vote for the known candidate. In a primary the election is in many states and voters are not necessarily interested in the election in other states. They may not get involved until their own state election.

Third if there are not enough debates throughout the primary season the issues and who stands for them can easily be forgotten. Keep all our candidates in the process by having debates throughout the process.

I also do not like the fact that the DNC is handling the debates this year instead of the League of Women Voters. The DNC has already in many ways shown that it favors one candidate so what makes sure that the moderators do not favor one candidate. Who is going to determine the questions asked? These things are not going to get voters out to vote. In fact this is a damned good way to break up the Democratic Party.

[Attorney in Texas]

86. I agree that plenty of substantive debates are beneficial but I'm unsure that stretching the primary

to extend for months and months before the first primary and caucus is good for the selection process.

The longer the primary campaign, the costlier it will be.

The costlier the campaign, the more dependent the candidates become on fundraising (which is either a distraction at best or an avenue for improper influence at worse and is a bad thing in any event).

The more the candidates are dependent on fundraising, the more it marginalizes less establishment-favored candidacies who have less ready access to funds.

Scheduling the debates early stretches out the campaign, and I'm skeptical that stretching out the campaign is a good way to select the best candidates (and US campaigns are already much more stretched out than democratic election campaigns in the rest of the world, and I see no evidence that this is getting us a better group of representatives).

[jwirr]

102. I hear what you are saying and regarding money you are correct. We have always had these

primaries over a year before the general election begins. There is some talk about having all primaries on one day and that might be a solution. However the primaries are our way of making sure that we select our candidates from the bottom up not the top down. (And as we can see that is not always the case.)

Iowa is often very hard to organize because they are a caucus state and decide their candidate at local meetings rather than going to the poles. But all states end up with a state convention that ends up at the national convention. So it all takes time.

I am not sure if people would even vote in a one day primary. One of the organizing tools candidates use is getting out the vote.

I attended a caucus meeting in a country that had 10,000 citizens and our community caucus had 9 of us there. Not necessary a good way to select a candidate at all.

I do not know how this can be fixed in the future but it is too late to do it this year. In the mean time we need a balanced approach to our candidates.

[mythology]

90. Obama had over 70% name recognition in early 2007 when he announced he was running

In comparison, John Edwards, as the 2004 VP nominee was at 80% in early 2007. Not a huge difference.

The debates were not what gave Obama name recognition. He got that from is 2004 convention speech and then his profile as a Senator.

That said, I wish the DNC would schedule the debates to kill off at least some of this silly conspiracy nonsense that it's some nefarious Clintonian plot.

[jwirr]

150. The DNC is supposed to be unbiased toward all candidates. There have been a number of examples

that is not true this campaign. No one said it was Hillary doing it. The incidents have all been posted here on DU. You can continue to trust them to do their job if you want to but I will not because they tend to favor centrist Democrats.

[druidity33]

135. I thought the LWV

had not hosted any debates since 2002? 2003? Somewhere around there...

[jwirr]

148. I do not know when the last one was but they do a good job.

[Buns_of_Fire]

152. Even further back than that. 1988.

In 1987 the parties announced the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission chose LWVEF to sponsor the last presidential debate of 1988, but placed so many rules and restrictions on the possible format of the debate that the LWVEF was finally unable to agree to participate. In a press release at the time, Nancy Neuman, then LWVUS President, stated that the League had “no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

http://lwv.org/content/league-women-voters-and-candidate-debates-changing-relationship

I miss the LWV sponsorship, but the days of Lincoln-Douglas are long gone.

[merrily]

84. Yes, candidates would like more debates, the sooner and the more numerous, the better.

Passing that, a primary should be about voters, not only candidates.

[Attorney in Texas]

89. I have not seen where Sanders or Clinton have requested a debate or complained about the scheduling

of debates. Most of the political research suggests that primary voters are not paying attention yet.

I'm all for debates; I'm just skeptical that scheduling them this early is a good idea.

Look at the Republican debates. Forcing the campaign into full-throttle mode before the voters are paying attention to policy issues is turning their primary into a reality-TV-style game show.

I am not looking at the Republican nomination process and wondering "why isn't my party doing that?"

[merrily]

92. Then you missed it as to Sanders. OF COURSE Hillary doesn't want more debates.

If you were signed up at Bernie's website, as most of his supporters here are, you would know he has been trying to get more debates.

[Attorney in Texas]

110. We are agreed as to more debates. I don't see Sanders or any candidate demanding sooner debates

[merrily]

113. I don't attach the same degree of importance to what you don't see

as you seem to. Bernie wants as many debates as he can get. Your assumption seems to be that he wants them all bunched together down the road. I don't think that assumption has a basis. On the other hand, earlier debates would do his run a lot of good. Ergo....

[jwirr]

151. You are missing the point. This not about what the candidates want. It is about what the voters

want. We are the ones who fund the DNC and we have been asking for earlier and more debates. There is a protest at the DNC office in DC today about this very subject. What you seem not to understand is that this is our party - it does not belong to the DNC, DSCC or the DCCC.

[Attorney in Texas]

161. We disagree that "it is about what the voters want." To me, it is about selecting the best candidate

If the voters want a reality TV show style selection process, that does not mean we should scrap voting by primaries and caucuses in favor of a prime time show where voters text their favorite.

Moreover, you say "we" have been asking for earlier debates. Who is this "we"? Is it a majority of voters? A majority of Democrats? A majority of use who Sanders? Is it a majority of anything?

Scheduling the debates when the candidates are ready and the voters (not just the activists like you and me but those who will participate in the primary process) are ready to pay attention seems wiser (it's the way the every other democracy around the globe does it except in the US).

[FlatBaroque]

139. .

[jalan48]

32. I think the oligarchs are tired of debates.

[RufusTFirefly]

36. Yes, they are. Why can't the rabble seem to understand the concept of "inevitability"? n/t

[jalan48]

38. Here are your choices-blue or red. That's it. If you don't like them don't vote.

Here are the issues. Blue or red. If they don't fit you, don't vote.

[zeemike]

81. Exactly

They want to make it simple, chose a color and vote for it...or stay home and STFU.

[nashville_brook]

125. yes, and that's why so many people don't vote.

if it's going to be a charade of two coronated entities representing both sides of Wall Street, why bother. primary debates ENGAGE the electorate. they're going to be very sorry they took this strategy when voter turnout falls to record levels in Nov 2016.

[erronis]

48. Sort of like the Romans sitting in the coliseum getting tired of the contrived sport

That they initially conceived of.

"Oh, dear, all this blood and hacking makes me tired, and hungry, and thirsty. Let's leave early for our private bacchanal."

[L0oniX]

33. Brave votes for the Iraq war but cowards when it comes to Bernie. Got it.

[wundermaus]

37. Be afraid, be very afraid...

Liberty will go gentle into that good night.

[Cheese Sandwich]

44. Probably they are just protecting Hillary and her billionaire pals by killing US democracy.

[reddread]

46. afraid of the voters

corporations have a lot on the line.

[Nay]

68. Well, exactly. Afraid the voters might hear and like policies that are diametrically

opposed to what the 1% wants for them.

[think]

49. The 1st Democratic primary debate in the 2008 elections was on April 26th 2007

In 2007 the Democrats had their first primary debate much earlier in the primary season than they are now in the current primary debate cycle. In fact no concrete debate dates, locations , or moderators are even given for the announced 6 tentative primary debates being proposed by the Democratic National Committee.

April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University

The first Democratic debate was in the evening of April 26, 2007, in Orangeburg, South Carolina, at South Carolina State University. State party chairman Joe Erwin said that he chose South Carolina State because it is a historically black college, noting that African-Americans have been the "most loyal" Democrats in the state.[8] The debate was 90 minutes, with a 60-second time limit for answers, and no opening or closing statements.[9] It was broadcast via cable television and online video streaming by MSNBC.[10] The debate was moderated by Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News.[citation needed]

The Iraq War was the major topic of the discussion, and all of the candidates strongly criticized President George W. Bush.[9] Although, some public fanfare occurred initially,[11] pundits considered the debate unspectacular, and no single "breakout" candidate was identified.[11][12]

A poll of 403 South Carolinians who watched the debate indicated a belief that Obama won the debate, with support of 31% compared to Clinton's 24%.[13] However, journalists Tom Baldwin, of The Times, and Ewen MacAskill, of The Guardian, both reported that Clinton appeared to retain her frontrunner status.[14] Political pundits such as Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough declared Clinton the most "presidential", stating that her appearance and answers were: succinct, within the time limit, unambiguous and thorough.[citation needed]

The opinions of pundits varied in regard to the third-polled candidate, Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), with some asserting that his performance was weak and not akin to the energetic performance that he portrayed during his first election campaign in 2003.[citation needed]

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008#April_26.2C_2007_.E2.80.93_Orangeburg.2C_South_Carolina.2C_South_Carolina_State_University

[Smarmie Doofus]

51. Now, really. I think you *know* the answer to that question. n/t

[cantbeserious]

52. The DNC And HRC Are Hoping He Bows Out Of The Race Before A Debate Is Necessary

eom

[RufusTFirefly]

74. Yet if this campaign rested on ideas instead of money, the "inevitable" candidate would be Bernie!

[cantbeserious]

98. Yes - Agree Completely

eom

[polichick]

56. Scared of the pitchforks.

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[Triana]

61. Not at all. D. Wasserman-Schultz is just an ineffective, uninvolved

DNC chair who needs to go so she can be replaced w/ someone who is actually actively interested in Dems winning.

[merrily]

111. I very much disagree that Debbie Republican Schultz is uninvolved in this

Presidential.

[George II]

62. Why do followers of a man who never felt the need. ...

....to JOIN the Democratic Party insist on telling the Democratic Party what to do?

[RufusTFirefly]

65. Haha! That's rich! Coming from someone who recently switched from a Canadian flag to a Hillary logo!

I'd say the fact that the best Democratic presidential candidate isn't even technically a Democrat should serve as a gigantic warning sign to the party about how out of touch it's become with the electorate.

But will the DNC take this to heart? Of course not.
There's way too much money propelling them on their doomed trajectory.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

109. So you're saying Bernie should mount a third party campaign in 2016?

Bold strategy George. Many around here are rather negative toward Nader for spoiling Gore in 2000. Lefties been repeatedly warned that the only acceptable time to challenge a Democrat is through the primary process. Otherwise you're just a Republican enabler. But now that someone is trying that, this is not an acceptable option either? People are not happy about the state of this country or the Democratic Party, especially young people. In a 2014 Pew survey, half of Millennials described themselves as independents, compared to 24% Democratic, 17% Republican. You want to tell left leaning independents to fuck off, well, that's your decision to make. We will find representation with or without the Democratic Party.

[askew]

63. It's the candidate protection program.

The DNC and Hillary campaign know that the more people see her, the less they like her. And that her getting the Dem nod means she needs to run on her huge name recognition advantage and hope most voters never hear of the better alternatives. That's why they aren't allowed to participate in outside debates for the first time ever. That's why there is no debates scheduled yet. And it's why the debates will complete focus on vapid bullshit like flag pins and other nonsense. Because on issues, actual achievements or consistency, Hillary loses.

[tinkerbelle]

67. Done! Petition signed

and thank you for posting this. I was wondering what to do about the fact that there's nothing scheduled. Maybe this will help.

[malthaussen]

73. Silly question, really

Mrs Clinton has nothing to gain by indulging the fever for debates. She's sitting quite pretty. Maybe if a serious challenge were mounted against her candidacy her strategists would have to reconsider.

-- Mal

[restorefreedom]

75. let's do the math

A. the more people see of Hillary, the less they like her. The more people see of Sanders and O'Malley, the more they like them. thus, Hillary stands the most to lose from the debates.

B. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clearly in this for Hillary, and she is in charge of scheduling the debates.

A+B = no debates for as long as DWS can get away with it.

besides, this is clinton.s turn. The poor dear has already had to campaign much more than she should have. I mean we don't want her to have to EARN this nomination do we?

[zeemike]

85. Signed it

But with the understanding that they have a habit of ignoring petitions.

[rock]

87. Yes, that's got to be it!

I can't think of a single thing else it could be. Of course they say I'm as dumb as as a rock -- No, wait, they say I'm well named! Yes, that's it.

[NanceGreggs]

100. Yes, yes, of course.

Everyone is "terrified" of Bernie Sanders - the Democrats, the Republicans, FOX-News - everyone!!!

[Zorra]

101. Maybe Bernie could do an internet mock Dem debate, with actors playing the other candidates,

their script being paraphrased reiteration of other candidate's positions.

Host 1: Senator Sanders, what is your position on the TPP?

Senator Sanders: I'm totally against it. My position is stated and made clear here, at http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/defeat-the-trans-pacific-partnership

Host 2: Secretary Clinton, what is your position on the TPP?

Secretary Clinton: Specifically, there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

And that is my steadfast position on the Trans Pacific Partnership at this time.

Host 1: Well, there you have it folks. I'm Stephen Colbert!

Host 2: And I'm Keith Olbermann... Tune in again for the next debate in the "the DNC and Wall St Democrats vs. Bernie Sanders and The American People" debate series. Good night, and good luck.

[polichick]

107. Same reason certain voices on msnbc were silenced.

[RufusTFirefly]

114. Yes and no.

Technically, MSNBC can do whatever the hell it wants when it comes to programming. I think it's more than a little naive for people to pin their hopes on a commercial network, whose sole reason for being is to make a profit. They have no problem pandering to a particular audience if it makes them money. But when their content starts to threaten their profitability, they have no hesitation in deep-sixing certain voices or indeed the network's entire political stance if that's what it takes.

In the case of the debates, we're supposedly talking about our democracy, the very foundation our system rests upon.

[polichick]

116. imo what the two have in common is not wanting the people...

to hear about certain things - Big Ed and Bernie aren't quiet about the TPP, etc.

The silencers are both worried about profits for their puppet masters.

[restorefreedom]

108. as much as i am not a fan of chuck toaster pastries

I watched a segment just now on Meet the Press with DWS. He asked her about the debates and she started waffling in saying that they're finalizing their protocol or some bullshit like that. He asked her specifically if there was not going to be a debate in August or September, and all she said was that they would be debates in all of the early states and that it would be announced soon. I think she just telegraphed that there's not gonna be in August or September. they are looking to push this off to October at the earliest.

[Raine1967]

118. I believe they should have the schedule out by now, but with the rumors

about Biden, I think they are waiting for him to make a decision.

I would;t want our first debate to be without a candidate. Joe said he would make a decision by the end of the summer and I have a feeling that is what is holding this up.

They aren't afraid of Bernie no more than they are afraid of anyone challenging Clinton.

I really dislike this idea of being afraid.

[BillZBubb]

154. If they are "waiting for Biden" they should be fired for incompetence.

They can schedule the debates and Biden can then make his decision whether to get in or not.

When you are helping party members make informed voting decisions, you go with the candidates who are running. You don't wait around for those who might run.

[Raine1967]

160. I don't disagree with this at all.

I am pretty uncomfortable with DWS and how she is handing this entire issue.

[whatchamacallit]

119. "Why would you need more than none?"

[think]

141. Should DU hold a contest to guess when the 1st debate will be?

[Babel_17]

142. Signed (nt)

[Babel_17]

145. If the debate schedule is thin and late, Sanders can hold roundtables

Last edited Mon Aug 3, 2015, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Sanders could hold roundtables where there's a moderator who asks questions regarding a few selected issues.

Sanders could invite prominent economists, environmentalists, etc., and he could invite HRC.

He could signal that he would accept a similar invitation from Secretary Clinton.

This would frame the issue of debates. Sanders will discuss the issues and those who refuse to engage on them will be prominently framed as having done so.

[GoneFishin]

147. I was also searching for some gorilla forum/discussion format to circumvent the debate blockade

that is being subtly imposed.

I am getting a feeling that the boiled frog psychology is deliberately being used, and waiting too close to the primaries for a resolution will be too late for Bernie's ideas to fully take root.

I think the underdog candidates need to consider some aggressive proactive steps to organizing gorilla debates.

[Babel_17]

156. I'd frame it as bypassing the stall, though "guerilla" gives it a vibrant vibe :)

If Senator Sanders were to engage in roundtables that would be useful in and of itself. And that's part of the point, these kinds of discussions are essential to Democracy. Elections should be about more than mere slogans, and massaging the media.

Making the current debate schedule look sad is merely inevitable.

[GoneFishin]

164. Yes. "Stall" is a better description.

[brooklynite]

157. I may know something this Thursday...

If so, I'll let you know.

[FloridaBlues]

158. Yea I'm sure Hillary is shaking in her heels to debate ole Bernie !

[arely staircase]

163. A debate of registered democrats runnimg for president

will surely occur. But it is six months out.