2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Bernie Sanders Won’t Add Debates Without Hillary Clinton - Time
Why Bernie Sanders Won’t Add Debates Without Hillary ClintonStrategic interests of the various candidates have frozen the Democratic debate plan
Sam Frizell - Time
Aug. 25, 2015
<snip>
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has been hearing it from all sides. A former governor’s top staffer begged him to consider participating in an additional Democratic primary debate. A television outlet reached out repeatedly, eager to sponsor one. Thousands of the Vermont Senators’ fans signed petitions, appealing for more televised contests.
But the surging Democratic presidential candidate has been unmoved. In the midst of ongoing pressure for more Democratic primary debates, it’s increasingly unlikely that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will flout the Democratic National Committee’s strict rules that threaten punishment for any candidate who attend more than the six official debates.
Fearful of risking exclusion from a major national debate against Hillary Clinton, or elevating some of his lesser rivals, Sanders’ campaign has said he will not debate unless all the Democratic candidates for president are on the stage.
For former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is stalled at 1% in national polls despite months of campaigning and 15 years of executive experience, an appearance in a Democratic debate could be a decisive factor in his campaign, giving him a wide national audience to boost his name recognition. But Sanders is already attracting huge crowds of as large as 28,000 and has already surpassed Hillary Clinton in two polls in New Hampshire. “The O’Malley campaign was instantly excited and ready to go,” said a source at the TV outlet, referring to his efforts to organize an additional debate. “Sanders’ campaign has been impossible to get in touch with.”
“Sanders holds all the cards,” the source continued. “But right now he’s not playing.”
O’Malley and Sanders have both repeatedly called for more debates than the six sanctioned by the Democratic party, whose leadership has said it will punish presidential candidates who debate outside its framework by disqualifying them from further debate. At stake is crucial airtime and publicity for upstart candidates on a national stage, and the Democratic party’s chance to hash out its differences and policies from social security, immigration reform to Wall Street regulation.
“At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible,” Sanders said in a statement earlier this month. “I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule.”
In recent days, however, Sanders’ campaign has rebuffed at least one TV outlet’s efforts to draw Sanders into an additional debate outside the six sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. Earlier this month, his campaign manager brushed off a call from Gov. Martin O’Malley’s staff seeking further debate.
“It is not in Sanders’ self-interest to give up the possibility of debating Hillary Clinton,” said Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “His advantage is to be in the same stage as her, demonstrating that he can hold his own. He is doing well enough in the polls that forgoing that would be foolish.”
For each candidate...
<snip>
More: http://time.com/4010576/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-debate-martin-omalley/#4010576/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-debate-martin-omalley/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)It would have been out of character for him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And he's not about to allow them to do that.
From the beginning it was obvious that should he risk violating their unconstitutional rule, no doubt put in place for this very purpose, underestimating how smart he is, the DNC Debates would go on without him, which is what they want so badly.
So, he is doing this exactly right, unless ALL the candidates, including Webb and those with barely any support, and most of all, HILLARY, agree to debate, he should NOT go along with what is clearly an attempt to keep from the DNC debates.
What would happen if he did, Hillary would have two candidates who are no real challenge to her to debate and Bernie would lose the chance to debate her himself.
Very smart decision on his part. You cannot trick this man, he is way too smart for that.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Looks like we are either gonna actually see the bottom of that proverbial barrel, or else the DNC has got a pretty damned deep barrel to be creating garbage in.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
tech3149
(4,452 posts)I'm pretty sure Sanders knew going into this fracas that there would be ZERO support from the Democratic elite.
Running in the Democratic primary is just an entirely pragmatic choice to make the most of the political world we live in. This race isn't about one person, it's about getting people involved and committed to work for their own interests.
I know in my own so called blue state the Democratic party is less than useless. Can you imagine what it is like in states that the national party has thrown under the bus?
The success of the Sanders campaign will not be winning an election, it will be building a coalition that pushes both parties and the media to address issues rather than playing games to manipulate the public.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... not to expect support from party leaders of a party he has dissed for 25 years.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)I'm sure you can do better than that if you want to tear down Sanders.
Like I said before, the choice was entirely pragmatic, working in the environment in which you live.
How many elections has Jill Stein won for president?
As I said previously, Sanders run isn't about that one office! It's about building a movement that will take over both political parties and get them back to working toward an idea as opposed to supporting their continued employment.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm sorry, but those are just the facts. He culminated his 25 year diss by calling for a primary on Obama in 2011. It's ridiculous for him to expect party leaders of a party he has dissed and declined to join to help him. Not going to happen.
If he's going to win he's going to have to take down the party to do it. And he won't have coatails if he goes that route. DU is not the real world.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
tech3149
(4,452 posts)Sanders does not expect to win on the Democratic party support and understands the challenge.
You miss the primary function of the Sanders effort. It is not about winning an election, it is about building a movement. Bernie may win or lose but will the effort of the campaign start the revolution we need?
That is what I'm working for.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)To me, his one redeeming feature is pushing more viable candidates to the left and encouraging more people to get on board the liberal train. Too bad he has dissed the shit out of the party and called for a primary on a very successful Dem president.
When it comes to the governance part I think his policies are non-viable, too expensive, and/or miss the mark.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Do you agree with any of them?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Caucusing with a party is not "dissing" them. Supporting their candidates is not "dissing" them. Even stating that a primary candidate from the left wing of the Democratic Party would "enliven" the debate in 2011 is not "dissing" the party! It's making a factual statement.
Tell me: why are you so bitter?
I can explain to you why HRC isn't my first, or even fourth, choice for the Democratic nomination without sounding bitter. It's quite simple: while I agree with her on social issues, I think she's far too corporate on economic policy and too hawkish on foreign policy. There. That's it.
You, however, make up stuff that people think, say and do - make it up out of whole cloth unless you're a mind reader, which I doubt - to put down Sanders while only halfheartedly promoting your own candidate.
I'm with Willy T. Pushing the Democratic party back to the left and filling it up with progressive-minded Democrats instead of Third-Way operatives IS what the base wants and what we should be doing.
senz
(11,945 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to try to keep him OUT of the debates.
Btw, why did Obama and most top Dems support him for his Senates runs for so long? Were they UNAWARE of how he was 'dissing' them for decades? That doesn't say much for THEM, does it?
OR, it could be you just made that up! Lol!
frylock
(34,825 posts)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If a person can't make up their mind after 6 debates, 12 debates isn't going to change that. And Dems don't need the media to repeat the post debate nonsense they engage in 12 times instead of 6.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)more debates allows for debate on local issues.
If you aren't in CA/AZ/NV/CO, Western Water Law is really unimportant. If you are, it determines whether or not anything comes out of your faucet.
The DNC can hold 6 if they want. They can hold zero if they want. What they should not be doing is adding the exclusivity clause. Leave it up to the campaigns to decide what the "right" number of debates is. It's not like Obama and Clinton showed up to all 26 in the 2008 primary.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL. That seems pretty condescending to me. And I simply disagree. The media treats them as a reality TV show. We do not need that spectacle occurring more than 6 times. It's good policy to limit them. The shit show of 28 debates is ridiculous. IMO.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)so why would you expect respect?
God, it would be terrible to reach as many people as reality TV does.
And campaigns are free to limit the number they attend. Take out the exclusivity clause and the campaigns can decide if 26 is a "shit show" or not.
Why tie the hands of the campaigns? Let them decide.
I eagerly await your blind rephrasing of "6 is enough", utterly ignoring the exclusivity clause.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Andy823
(11,555 posts)I do. I want the exclusion part taken out of the DNC rules so the candidates can go to any even they want. I want to see all the candidates invited to those debates and let them decide to go or not.
If this is true and Bernie is now going to agree with the DNC rules, then I have a problem with that. Bernie was the first one to come out and demand "more" debates, he or his staff started a petition that was put up here on DU, did you sign that petition? For Bernie supporters to claim Clinton was "afraid" to have more debates, and that this was all a plan to help her, but now the same people are going to say it's OK if Bernie caves on this issue, is just plain wrong.
I can wait to hear it in Bernie's own words, but if he did cave, then I think it's hypocrisy, plain and simple, and that's not what I expected from Bernie.
cali
(114,904 posts)Bernie is apparently caving. I get that he's concerned that breaking with the DNC would mean not being able to debate hillary, but I think that by teaming up, they could force the DNC's hand.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)More debates help everyone get a chance hear from the candidates, and the exclusion rule is just plain wrong.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You reflexively treat anyone who doesn't bow to Bernie that way.
cali
(114,904 posts)activists who created Campaign Zero are astroturfers set up by the eeevil Sanders campaign
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It would piss off the DNC, who already are not his biggest fan for his refusal to embrace the party, and most importantly.... he doesn't need to differentiate himself from the also-rans. He needs to talk on HRC and only HRC really.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He has a tendency to come off as lecturing. And, I don't see how he is going to convince anyone that his proposals will see the light of day in congress (and they haven't for over 25 years) so he is at risk for looking like a pie in the sky, unserious candidate.
I wouldn't wish for more than 6 if I were a Bernie supporter. I guess time will tell.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)They are frustrated, and they WANT Sanders to bluntly lecture. I admit, I love seeing him do it on the Senate floor! And I think it does satisfy a certain desire among the base to "tell it like it is." I think that approach will fall flat in the GE (and I don't think it will win him the nomination either...), but I think Sanders supports will love it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)YMMV, of course. I will say I was very surprised when my 23 year old son stated that is what turned him off about Bernie (after attending 2 rallies). I had not mentioned my feelings about that to him. Two of the folks that work for me have also said similar about him to me. However, they are both minorities and he doesn't seem to click with minorities especially well. Didn't ask, but they may have other reasons not to support him.
frylock
(34,825 posts)oddly, the people that think limited debates are a good thing are supporters of Clinton, exclusively, TO A PERSON. Yet you believe that Bernie supporters would want limited debates? What kind of pretzel logic is that?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Just said I don't think he will do well. I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Perhaps you should be more cogent in order to avoid having words put in your mouth. But in any case, he's going to do just fine. He's not the one hiding from debates.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)There is nothing even hinting at suggesting he is afraid to debate in my comments. Allow me to refresh you:
How in the world is that vague, or even mildly suggestive that he is afraid to debate?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Several Bernie supporters have openly wished for more. Why would you think they wouldn't wish for more? Is it because you believe they are afraid they're candidate won't perform well?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Me thinking he is "afraid." Please don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem saying what I actually think, in case you haven't noticed.
frylock
(34,825 posts)"I wouldn't wish for more than 6 if I were a Bernie supporter."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)For the third time: "He has a tendency to come off as lecturing. And, I don't see how he is going to convince anyone that his proposals will see the light of day in congress (and they haven't for over 25 years) so he is at risk for looking like a pie in the sky, unserious candidate."
I DO NOT think he will do well in debates so therefore more debates he will not do well in is not an advantage for him. Notice the complete absence of the idea that I think he is "afraid."
Again, please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
frylock
(34,825 posts)and completely misguided. You are not a Sanders supporter, and are not really qualified to assume what they would or wouldn't wish for, particularly when what you believe they would wish for flies in the face of what they have been asking for.
Please refrain from putting wishes in the mouths of Sanders supporters.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's progress!
frylock
(34,825 posts)you certainly haven't answered my question asking what you meant when you said "I wouldn't wish for more than 6 if I were a Bernie supporter."
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That he 'lectures'.
Please show us some video clips of him 'lecturing' people. Thanks in advance.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)the answer is right in the post itself:
"Democratic National Committee’s strict rules that threaten punishment for any candidate who attend more than the six official debates"
I have no doubt that the DNC would love to be in a position to be able to enact that "punishment" with regards to Bernie to keep him off ballots or more likely to bar him from scheduled debates. He isn't taking the bait.
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)The fewer times that happens, the better for Hillary. Hillary is bigger than Sanders in every single way politically and with popularity in this country and across the globe. He simply needs to stand next to her. Right now they aren't equals. If he were to go outside there is a chance he would lose the opportunity to stand next to that to which he wants to be; one of the most popular political figures in the world.
cali
(114,904 posts)SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)Her frontrunner status isn't even being challenged. Other than a couple of states, no one can truthfully say she isn't the clear leader. Unfavorable or not.
cali
(114,904 posts)She'll probably win it and lose in the general
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)One would have to really stretch to make the claim you are about the general with a word like probably at this point in time. It is a perfectly accurate term to use as you are when it comes to the primary. There is enormous amounts of evidence to back that up. She probably will win that, as you state.
cali
(114,904 posts)in some swing states and in the.blue state of Michigan. And that's with a huge republican field. And no candidate with unfavorables as high as hers has ever won. Add to that that she is, at best, a mediocre campaigner, and the use of the word probably, is reasonable.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Um... no.
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)The op we are replying to and posts to that op. You don't even have to look elsewhere. It's actually pretty basic stuff.
frylock
(34,825 posts)FTS
tularetom
(23,664 posts)SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)Pretty condescending.
frylock
(34,825 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)As one of the article's sources states, “Sanders holds all the cards.”
Sanders is "bigger than Hillary" morally, ethically, and in the hearts of those of us who truly love what this nation stands for.
He doesn't "want to be Hillary," (how ridiculous) because he's not in it for ego and power (can you imagine?). He's in this because he cares about the American people.
Imagine that, SouthernProgressive. Imagine that.
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)I was simply talking about her standing in the polls, name recognition, and simple political clout. I don't see why that is offensive in any way. His goal needs to be to stand next to her as equals. That sentiment is echoed in the article and in replies throughout by Sanders and Clinton supporters.
"Sanders is "bigger than Hillary" morally, ethically, and in the hearts of those of us who truly love what this nation stands for."
I think you truly believe that as do all of his supporters. It isn't a something you will find me arguing against.
"because he's not in it for ego and power"
That is a statement that is very strange. He better be in it for the power. If not, he is going to get run over. Clintons political clout is one of the reasons I am supporting her. That clout only comes by way of political power. I agree he is one of the few politicians in the senate without a big ego. One of the very few.
“Sanders holds all the cards.”
You use that from the article as if it is a statement of fact, while arguing against other statements made in the article that are fashioned to much of what I said.
senz
(11,945 posts)and I very much appreciate your civility. I think we're talking about different senses of the word "power." Of course Bernie wants the power required to materially and spiritually lift up the American people. Of course he does; otherwise I doubt he would have run for office 35 years ago. What I meant is the sense of personal power and self-importance that I believe the Clintons feed on. Perhaps it falls under the broad category of ego. Bernie doesn't seem to have that weakness yet, and I hope he will be able to resist it.
Yes, he holds the cards among Hillary's opponents. But I think he's got a few cards that the Hillary camp are watching uneasily, too.
Refreshing conversation, SP.
elleng
(141,926 posts)said a source at the TV outlet, referring to his efforts to organize an additional debate. “Sanders’ campaign has been impossible to get in touch with.”
“Sanders holds all the cards,” the source continued. “But right now he’s not playing.”
O’Malley and Sanders have both repeatedly called for more debates than the six sanctioned by the Democratic party, whose leadership has said it will punish presidential candidates who debate outside its framework by disqualifying them from further debate. At stake is crucial airtime and publicity for upstart candidates on a national stage, and the Democratic party’s chance to hash out its differences and policies from social security, immigration reform to Wall Street regulation.
“At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible,” Sanders said in a statement earlier this month. “I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule.”
In recent days, however, Sanders’ campaign has rebuffed at least one TV outlet’s efforts to draw Sanders into an additional debate outside the six sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. Earlier this month, his campaign manager brushed off a call from Gov. Martin O’Malley’s staff seeking further debate.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)All they would have to do is invite Hillary and see if she comes, if not it's not going to hurt Bernie.
The amazing thing is the Bernie crowd was all for "MORE" debates a few weeks ago, and they were attacking the DNC, and blaming it all on Hillary that there would be so few debates. Now all of a sudden they "agree" with the DNC that 6 is enough? Weren't they saying not long ago that "Hillary" was "afraid" to have more debts because she would look bad?
elleng
(141,926 posts)everyone's playing their own self-interest cards, and in this game, MO'M's the loser, facially at least.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)If this is true, after all he said about "more" debates, and the petition going around from him or his supporters to encourage the DNC to "have" more debates, he is no longer my second choice after O'Malley in the primaries.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt since there is a lot os games being played by the media, but if it's really true and he has caved on this issue, I won't forgive him.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Giving up the guaranteed six debates with Hillary to participate in O'Malley's "Hail Mary" pass would be idiotic.
senz
(11,945 posts)
Vinca
(54,150 posts)Andy823
(11,555 posts)Bernie was the first one to complain that we needed more debates. He, or his staff, started a petition to send to the DNC, which I am willing to bet a lot of Bernie supporters signed, did you?
So now that it looks like he has "caved", and yes when you are the first one to complain then change your mind it's called caving, all his loyal supporters are going to stand by him no matter what. Funny when some of us here supported president Obama we are called all kinds of names like "Obamabots, blind supporters, loyalists", etc but now when Bernie supports do the same thing, that's OK?
Like I said if it's true he caved, and that's not good.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)He still wants them to do that, but risking exclusion from the DNC debates is foolish.
He isn't running to reform the DNC....he is running for President.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)For weeks I have seen Bernie supporters praising O'Malley for what he has been doing to get more debates. Many of them even said that Bernie and O'Malley should get together and start their own debates no matter what the DNC said. The same people have said the low number of debates proves "Hilary" is afraid to debate, and that the DNC is only doing this to help Hillary. Now it's all OK if Bernie really is caving on this issue? I don't think so.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'm sure that Bernie felt the same way. Hillary wants what all front-runners want, the fewest possible debates.
I would prefer more and earlier debates, but it is hard enough to win the nomination as it is without defying the DNC.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)But many here were encouraging people to sign the petition on Bernie's site, and saying that the DNC had no right to make the rules so candidates could not debate anyplace else otherwise they would be banned from the DNC debates, and I totally agree, there should have be no exclusion clause in the rules, and I thought both Bernie and O'Malley were going to stand up to them.
All that needs to be done is have the debates, invite all the candidates and those who do not come can expelling why they didn't. If the majority of them came to the debate, got banned, then who would the DNC have left to debate at their debates?
I was proud that O'Malley and Bernie were standing up to the rules banning those who went to other debates.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)But what I concluded was that the DNC structure was "all in" for Hillary, and if they had a choice there would be no debates at all.
They would love to exclude Bernie and O'Malley.
Hillary would never go outside of the DNC debates, not in a million years...this schedule was designed to help her.
The only way to beat Hillary is to stand on the same stage with her.
senz
(11,945 posts)As the article states, Bernie knows his current strength in the polls and he wants to take on Hillary directly. As he's stated many times, he is in it to win.
GO BERNIE!
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)He saw that one coming a mile away. Anyone with a lick of poltical sense would have.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)Then why put up a petition on his site to pressure the DNC for more debates? Why did he not just accept it when they first came out with the dumb ass exclusion clause?
Koinos
(2,800 posts)He is a front-runner compared to O'Malley, so he doesn't want to take chances on losing ground.
I expected he would do as much and am not surprised, since I am not a Sanders "disciple."
Sanders has always looked out for his self-interest in the past in his dealings with the democratic party in Vermont, his partial accommodation to the NRA, and his acceptance of Lockheed Martin and the F35.
Nobody is pure in politics, not even "Bernie."
He is in it to win, and some of his followers will have their eyes opened as the campaign proceeds.
Uncle Joe
(65,289 posts)Thanks for the thread, WillyT.