This message was self-deleted by its author

[Agschmid]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Agschmid) on Sun Sep 27, 2015, 10:56 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[SonderWoman]

1. Or just drop the exclusivity clause.

So even if just Bernie and Martin wanted to debate they could.

[SonderWoman]

3. I doubt she would, but no need to keep it exclusive.

6 DNC debates is fine for 5 candidates, but DWS should drop exclusivity to give candidates more freedom. My problem with the debates is more the schedule. For example, one of the debates is on a Saturday night 6 days before Christmas....when no one will probably be watching.

[SonderWoman]

8. I don't even mind the starting point...

Its the ending point. October 6th seems fine, but they should have been scheduled with less gaps.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The starting point is Oct 13th and that comes after the New York registration deadline

has expired.

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/

http://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingDeadlines.html

[99th_Monkey]

42. You've got to be kidding

or lets say I wish you were kidding.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Bernie's primary strength other than his message is getting young and disaffected Americans

to turn out.

I only see two people that benefit from this cynical, undemocratic manipulation of the debate schedule, in order.

1. Hillary Clinton as she was a Senator from New York.

2. Donald Trump as this is his home turf.

Schultz has already abandoned three Democratic Candidates in Florida because she was "too personally close to their Republican opponents." I wouldn't be surprised that should Trump win the White House, Schultz switches political parties.

Schultz is doing everything she can to undermine the Democratic Party whether it's to benefit Hillary or Trump.

[99th_Monkey]

54. What surprised me in your first post

was the thing about NY, and their voter registration deadline.

All their disaffected progressives who are not registered D, are going to need
to get re-registered as Dems. Hope Team Bernie is getting the word out on this soon
enough.

I know the rules vary from state to state on this ^, meaning Sandernistas need to
have a state by state strategy.

[questionseverything]

56. am i reading this wrong or is it already too late?

Voter Registration Deadlines

September 10, 2015 State and Local Primary Deadlines
MAIL REGISTRATION (N.Y. Election Law Section 5-210(3))
Application must be postmarked no later than August 15th and received by a board of elections no later than August 21th to be eligible to vote in the Primary.

IN PERSON REGISTRATION (N.Y. Election Law Sections 5-210, 5-211, 5-212)
You may register at your local board of elections or any state agency participating in the National Voter Registration Act, on any business day throughout the year but, to be eligible to vote in the State and Local Primary, your application must be received no later than August 14th.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS (N.Y. Election Law Section 5-208(3))
Notices of change of address from registered voters received by August 21th by a county board of elections must be processed and entered in the records in time for the State & Local Primary.

November 3, 2015 General Election Deadlines
MAIL REGISTRATION (N.Y. Election Law Section 5-210(3))
Applications must be postmarked no later than October 9th and received by a board of elections no later than October 14th to be eligible to vote in the General Election.

IN PERSON REGISTRATION (N.Y. Election Law Sections 5-210, 5-211, 5-212)
You may register at your local board of elections or any state agency participating in the National Voter Registration Act, on any business day throughout the year but, to be eligible to vote in the November General Election, your application must be received no later than October 9th except, if you have been honorably discharged from the military or have become a naturalized citizen since October 9th, you may register in person at the board of elections up until October 24th.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS (N.Y. Election Law Section 5-208(3))
Notices of change of address from registered voters received by October 14th by a county board of elections must be processed and entered in the records in time for the General Election.

////////////////////////////////////////////

the dnc is now involved in voter suppression?

<insert the worst cussing you can imagine here>

[Uncle Joe]

58. It's too late for the primary and notice the mail in date limitations for the general election.

November 3, 2015 General Election Deadlines
MAIL REGISTRATION (N.Y. Election Law Section 5-210(3))
Applications must be postmarked no later than October 9th and received by a board of elections no later than October 14th to be eligible to vote in the General Election.

I'm sure it's all just a cosmic coincidence that mailed by is before and received by Oct 14th deadline is the day after the first Democratic Debate.

I believe it's voter suppression by discouraging the peoples of New York and possibly other states excercising their right to vote by denial or at the very least greatly limiting critical information when it's needed the most.

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising the right to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.

The tactics of voter suppression can range from minor "dirty tricks" that make voting inconvenient, up to blatantly illegal activities that physically intimidate prospective voters to prevent them from casting ballots. Voter suppression could be particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression

[questionseverything]

63. new yorks primary is not until

New York Democrat
Presidential Nominating Process
Primary: Tuesday 19 April 2016
State Committee: Thursday 26 May 2016 (presumably)

why would peops have to register by the middle of sept?

that is like 6 months before the primary....

for the general the oct deadline should be oct 16 for the general in nov 2016?

[Uncle Joe]

59. When you combine the cynical manipulated dates of the debates with the sanctions applied

to any Democratic Candidates exercising their freedom of speech and holding non-sanctioned debates by the DNC, what else can that be but a form of voter suppression?

During the slave days before the Civil War it was illegal to teach African Americans how to read because the slave owners knew that knowledge was power, Schultz knows that knowledge is power and that's why she's actively doing her best to limit the peoples' exposure to knowledge while it can still make a difference in their lives.

[morningfog]

11. The exclusivity clause would be a nullify if Hillary stepped up.

Sanders and O'Malley are ready. Hillary says she open to more, but she doesn't mean it. If she did she's join in a debate, the DNC would not keep all the candidate out.

[SonderWoman]

12. You need a host/sponsorship to hold a debate.

You need a sponsor, an arena, security, tickets, parking, national media, television stream, etc.

[morningfog]

14. Your point? There are dozens waiting in the wings to step in.

The DNC is not the only capable body.

If Hillary wanted, there would be more debates. It is that simple.

[Change has come]

20. You don't say!

That sounds so daunting.

[ZX86]

25. No you don't.

Who says debates require a live audience? All you need is a room, a camera, and some microphones.

[Volaris]

37. I would love to see them borrow that old round oak table

That is nearly useless now that Charlie Rose is at CBS (I know, he put in his time and probably deserved a payraise, but he's also next to useless on his new format)
have a dozen questions on cards...no moderator, they just pick one, and start in on a round robin, and go until everyone's said their piece.
Would make quite a stark contrast from what the GOP had been letting pass for debates...I thought a better format might have been for the moderator to just hand out knives, scream RONALDREAGAN!!!! and let them go.
That's not a debate.
We can do better=)

Debbie, why won't you let us be better???

[PoliticAverse]

53. CNN has already existing television studios, that's all you need.

There's a reason there were 26 of them in the 2007/8 primary season and some candidates wanted there
to be more even.

[Aerows]

65. Well, that and you need a candidate

that is trustworthy and good at taking questions.

[brush]

4. You're absolutely right

Last edited Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm watching the repug debates right now, it's going on for 5 whole hours — 5 hours — and clown car candidate after candidate are spewing talking points, half truths and out right lies without being challenged by the moderators.

They are getting free air time to influence the American people with their outpourings and because DWS has decided to not begin Dem debates we are not GETTING EQUAL TIME.

These guys and one woman are getting all this face time in front of national audiences and opinions are being formed, who to vote for perhaps is being decided and our Dem candidates won't be before the national TV audience for several more days.

Our candidates are behind in national TV exposure.

This is a huge miscalculation. We should have had our first debate at the same time or before the first repug debate.

[Pharaoh]

30. ^^ this ^^

[sabrina 1]

32. Exactly. She is letting the Repubs win this. Many people

who are not deeply into politics are likely to pick one or other of these Repubs because they don't KNOW there are other options.

I've said this before but I'll repeat it. Sometimes you have to wonder if she isn't trying to lose it for Dems. And if she's not, then she is the most incompetent person who has ever held this job.

[JDPriestly]

39. We learn by repitition.

the Republicans appear to disagree on minor issues. In fact they are brainwashing unsophisticated viewers with their doctrines such as that if you just butcher people, kill enough of them, they will respect you and do what you want.

[Divernan]

50. Viewer picks a GOP candidate;less likely to watch Dems debate.

Classic marketing psychology. It's like deciding to buy a new car. You look at several models & makes, but once you pick one, you become more committed to that choice, emphasizing to yourself & others why you made the best choice, and more open to seeing/exaggerating shortcomings in the makes and models you rejected.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. Amen

Anything the Democratic Party candidates say in response to them will get lost in the chatter of the stupids who've stepped out.

[Go Vols]

6. I was wrong one time too

it passes.

[Go Vols]

13. I did too

my now 26 year old kid wont let me forget it.

[kenfrequed]

7. Agreed

If it is any consolation, I have been wrong innumerable times in the past.

But let's get on with it.

[mak3cats]

10. Thank you for that.

Maybe some who post on this site who boast about their inner circle contacts should pass this upward. Thanks again.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for your candor, Agschmid.

[Old Crow]

16. I don't understand.

What is this "other party" I keep hearing people talk about? I've been watching the Republican debates... both were great. Really building some excitement there and making my friends and I think about whom to vote for from the 16 or so people we've been watching. And another Republican debate is coming soon! Woo-hoo!

There's such a broad range of Republican solutions to this nation's problems. And these Republican debates really help frame the discussion and inform me about the issues that I should be focusing on.

So, wait, where was I? Oh yeah: What's this thing I keep hearing about some other party?

[mountain grammy]

17. I couldn't agree more..

their bullshit lies, lies, and more lies must be refuted.

We must have a counter to the bullshit show the GOP is putting on.

[restorefreedom]

18. she is doing all the dems a disservice.

the crazies have had too much lead time.

good idea about the email.

[Chakab]

19. They also need to be in prime time on WEEKDAYS not Saturday nights

and definitely not six fucking days before Christmas.


Seriously, what the fuck is DWS thinking? Even if her objective is to rig the game for Hillary, this debate schedule doesn't make any sense. It's hurting the entire field.

And why wasn't she forced out of that position after that Iran debacle? You think that the head of the RNC would survive undermining a Republican President after such an important diplomatic accomplishment?

This is the problem with the Democratic Party. More often than not they do the Republicans' work for them. Supporting this perpetual circular firing squad is exhausting.

[Old Crow]

21. 100%. Couldn't agree more. (N/T)

[JustAnotherGen]

47. I guarantee I won't watch

The Christmas debate. I'm having a holiday party that day. I'm sure I'm not the only person who will be celebrating Christmas early.

[Sunlei]

22. Someone host an online meet up, not a debate and take questions from the internet audience

Everyone has a computer with a camera. Let candidates pull the questions they want and each have 5 minuets and give each 3 or 4 turns. Load the show right up to youtube.

structured TV shows like republicans have are so fake and yesterday. boring like an infomercial. costs to much to set-up.

Use the internet and todays technology.

[tomm2thumbs]

23. the GOP debates are soaking up viewers in the vacuum

and frankly, whoever is debating on the Democratic side needs the practice for the general to build debating muscles

[slipslidingaway]

24. At this point it is almost too late, New Yorker's need to register within the next two weeks to vote

in the primary and the first Dem debate is scheduled afterwards and within a month.



Too little, too late. The Dem party has allowed the media to focus almost exclusively on the Republican candidates for well over a month, shame on them!!!

[HooptieWagon]

28. That's Debbie for you. Nt

[slipslidingaway]

29. Yup and if we lose it is because we did not fight n/t

[HooptieWagon]

31. Debbie only fights progressive Democrats.

She rolls over for Republicans.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Yes, she can replaced, as for Dem debates it really is too late ...

they could never get this organized in the next few weeks. Never mind the last almost two months of free air time they have ceded to the Repubs.

[SoapBox]

26. It's borderline criminal...

Talk about ANTI-Democratic.

Thank alot, Deb!

[Renew Deal]

35. How is it borderline criminal?

Since when is scheduling debates different than your liking a crime?

[Renew Deal]

34. The debates should have started three months ago.

[JDPriestly]

36. It is a huge, huge, huge mistake.

too few debates,too late.

[winter is coming]

38. Chris Hayes intereviewed her tonight.

DWS acknowledges that "a smattering" of the DNC would like more debates, but says that isn't going to happen, because the 26 debates we had for the '08 election were too many. Apparently, the only options are 6 or 26???

Supposedly, the number of debates is being limited so the candidates will have more time to campaign and take their message to the people. And that can't be done--potentially for millions of voters--during a nationally televised debate?

DWS claims that they coordinated with all the campaigns in re the debate structure before it was announced, clearly implying that the campaigns had input into and were okay with current set-up. Hayes countered that O'Malley has said his campaign was not consulted. Without overtly calling O'Malley a liar, DWS implied as much. It will interesting to see/hear O'Malley's response, as I expect he's telling the truth and hasn't got much to lose by calling DWS out.

At this point, I'm not sure what will happen. Part of me wishes DWS would yield sooner rather than later, because it's not good to have the GOP candidates catapulting their bullshit while Dems do nothing. It makes us look like our candidates are ill-prepared or don't have any ideas/policies to put forth. On the other hand, the longer DWS drags her feet, the heavier that anvil around her neck becomes, and the more likely it is that this mess will finish her in politics, which would trouble me not at all.

[liberal_at_heart]

41. Debates have been replaced with SuperPac ads. Dirty politics if you ask me.

But then, what can you expect from American politics? American politics is dirty and getting dirtier every single year.

[zazen]

48. she kept chewing up air time with the "robust" meme, while lying her ass off n/t

[Ino]

40. There'll be no debates before Hillary wants one...

REALLY wants one. She's letting DWS take the heat for this, in exchange for something down the line.

[delrem]

44. Hillary Clinton has this in hand.

Hillary Clinton's campaign just announced, once again, that they aren't panicking and that they're staying a course that's been planned out for months, after a lead up of years, and is going ahead like clockwork. You can trust that Hillary Clinton and her PACs have this in hand - after all, she will shortly be President of the United States and, she said it herself, the World, and who are we to second-guess the decisions of a leader who embodies such gravitas?

Of course, if Hillary Clinton wants more debates with different and even more advantageous timings and restrictions, then that will happen, but it's getting late in the game for such a mid-course change, and her lieutenant Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already declared on the matter. The matter is "cooked", and it's been "cooked" by better and more important people than you and I.

We all want what's best for the Democratic Party, and by definition what's best for the Democratic Party is that the most electable candidate is put forward as representative, and Hillary Clinton is the most electable candidate. "Electability" is the essential argument, but there's also a powerful although more contingent and accidental argument. As everyone knows, since citizens united big money coupled with obscene income inequality puts the extremely rich at an advantage in electoral politics, and Hillary Clinton has the most big money backers by far, the other candidates having few if any. So it wouldn't do to give the other candidates a voice in a lot of debates where forcefulness and truth regarding issues that matter can muddy the waters and lead people astray - to vote against their interests by voting for an un-electable, poorly funded candidate.

[djean111]

49. I award you the much-coveted, but rarely given, Stephen Colbert Award! n/t

[randome]

51. What's the rush? The GOP isn't making any inroads.

Let them flounder and belittle one another all they want. Having our debates after everyone is sick of hearing about the GOP is probably a positive instead of a negative.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Smarmie Doofus]

52. Among so many BIG mistakes.

>>>Email DWS now, this is A BIG mistake by the DNC.>>>>

Good on *you*, btw.

K and R

[Babel_17]

55. It looks bad now, and people will later see it ...

... as reflecting an ethical bankruptcy. Well, after the media relentlessly pounds away at how it looks like favoritism and gaming the system. It's going to be impossible to avoid the comparison to the 2007-2008 debate schedule.

It's about suppression. DWS is suppressing the number of debates.
This goes against what we fight for when it comes to elections. We want no suppression of the democratic process.

P.S. I think the following quotes from DWS needs to be reposted.

“I have to simultaneously make sure that we’re getting ready to make sure the party is prepared to support our eventual nominee, and at the same time manage a neutral primary nominating process, which I’m going to do. I’ll make decisions that will make some people happy and some people unhappy. I can’t worry about that.”

I think that when DWS said "our eventual nominee", she had Secretary Clinton clearly in mind. And that's a real problem for our party, imo.

“You can see that our candidates are gaining steam on their own,” she said. “Look at the crowds Bernie Sanders is drawing. We have not had any debates yet and Bernie Sanders has found a way to really catch fire with our base.”

Sounds to me like the head of the DNC cares not a whit for getting lesser funded voices heard.

[Cal33]

57. It's not likely a mistake. It was more likely deliberate.

[bvar22]

60. I agree....no mistake,

....but a carefully plotted strategy that will enormously benefit those with "Name Recognition".
Guess who THAT is.

Neither Party hold actual "debates" anymore.
The Presidential Debates used to be hosted and moderated by the League of Women Voters.

[div class= "excerpt"]Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. 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"


Is DWS "an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public"?
Yes.

Is the Clinton Team "an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public"?
Yes.

This was all carefully planned and decided by the Throne,
probably because Hillary lost ground during the debates because of gaffs like this unforgettable one from 2008:

.

[Babel_17]

61. Thanks for that reminder of The League

We need them back.

[pscot]

62. highly recced

[Aerows]

64. See, I knew I liked you for some reason, Agschmid

I absolutely agree. You can't win without visibility and our party candidates not available to speak of their views is, well, I don't know how else to put it.

Dumb as a bag of hammers.

If you don't advertise the superior product you are selling, you lose to the person that is advertising a shoddier product.

[GoneFishin]

66. I can not and will not vote for a morally bankrupt politician.