DWS Is Rat F-ing Our Party And Bernie At The Same Time - Scheduling Debates For Low Viewership

[KamaAina]

Originally posted in GD in error by Yallow.

Her helping Hillary, by scheduling the debates at times where they have the least chance of people watching them is totally insane.

The lengths this girl, and her DNC buddies will go to to hurt our party, and help Hillary is mind blowing.

Prepare for president Cruz.....

I am pissed.

Having Americans watching 3 good candidates discuss real issues is good for Democrats.

DWS (and her buddies) are bad for Democrats.

Period.

[MineralMan]

1. DWS isn't a "girl."

Each Democratic debate has been watched by millions of people. Think about it. Like the Republican debates each debate has had fewer viewers than the previous debate. That's a typical thing. People watch ad make choices. Often, they don't watch the next debate, and even fewer watch the third debate.

In 2008, each of the Democratic candidates had about 17 million votes in the primaries. About 35 million in total. Six million viewers for the third debate in this year's series is actually pretty good.

Yes, the Republicans have had higher viewership. Their debates are a comedy act, so they're attracting even Democrats to watch them.

Saturday evening is as good a time for a debate as any other time, really. But, since there are really only two viable Democratic primary candidates, the interest in the debates is lower. Many people have already decided who they support, and there's another debate before the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses. Viewership will go up a bit for that one, I think. It's likely that the outcome will be known by March 2, so more people will be interested at that time.

But DWS is still not a "girl." Once someone is out of high school and college and is holding a position of responsibility, it's time to stop referring to that person as a "girl." You would't refer to Hillary Clinton as a girl, I imagine. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the head of the Democratic National Committee. She's no "girl."

[KamaAina]

2. No, I wouldn't. The wording is Yallow's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027467651

[MeNMyVolt]

101. This OP is your's, regardless of how you frame it. Repost, or original with a link.

Same damn thing, and very disappointing.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. Saturday night before Christmas is a shitty time for a debate. You know it. I know it.

Everyone knows it.

Time for some honesty, MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

10. I watched it. So did 6 million+ others.

Did you?

[pangaia]

27. 6 million isn't even the population of Dallas/Fort Worth for shit sake !!!

DSW is a Clinton shill. She is doing this on purpose.
The next debate is on.. a Sunday fucking Night. !!

We've turned into a 3rd world banana republic.
get real..

[MineralMan]

32. Will you watch the next one?

Did you watch the most recent one? How about the one before?

Watching a debate is not a requirement for voting at a caucus or primary election. Most of the people voting will have watched none of the primaries, yet their votes will count, all the same.

At least 30 million people will vote in caucuses or primaries. That will determine the number of delegates each candidate gets at the national convention, which will determine who the nominee will be.

Debates are nice. We should have them. We are having them. It's up to individual voters to decide whether or not to watch them.

One night's as good as another, as far as I can tell. Viewership probably would not be any different on any given night of the week.

These days, anyhow, we can all record such things for later viewing.

I don't accept your assessment at all. Simply calling someone a shill is not evidence of anything. Sorry.

[pangaia]

51. Yes Yea and YES.

What's your point?

One night is definitely NOT as good as any other.

I don't accept your assessment at all.

[Gloria]

105. Moving this up....The 3 broadcast networks set the date. There are all sorts of negotiations

just to get on the air. They dump a debate in a timeslot that is already weak in viewership (or up against something else, like football)...won't lose $$, it's already a dead time for them.

The "news" channels on cable will put them with plenty of hype and will see better ratings than usual no matter what day it's on so it's ok with a weeknight.

As things heat up, the schedule looks better....because it's getting closer to the first primaries.....NBC coughs up a Sunday night...of course, Downton Abbey might be on.....

DWS is not in full control of when a debate is scheduled...

Here is the 2016 schedule...there should be no complaints...unless Downton Abbey is on and you don't have TIVO....

2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
NBC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Sponsors: NBC, Congressional Black Caucus Institute
Candidates: TBD

Thursday, February 11, 2016
PBS Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: PBS
Candidates: TBD

Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Univision Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Miami Dade College in Miami, Florida
Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
Candidates: TBD

Read more at http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/#jP2DFYBqKpqmQ5Do.99

[Hortensis]

42. "The basic purpose of political parties is to

nominate candidates for public office and to get as many of them elected as possible."

That's what the Democratic Party is busy doing. ALL candidates know if they want the party to consider them good shots at winning office they need to FIRST MAKE THEMSELVES WINNERS.

Hillary did, so her candidacy is nurtured, as are those of many other Democratic candidates who are running out ahead.

Bernie did not, so he's not promoted. Instead, for Bernie the door is held open for him to still MAKE HIMSELF A WINNER, by surging ahead of Hillary, in which case the DNC will shift the benign acceptance to Hillary and start nurturing Bernie.

See? It's actually a far, far less corrupt and more purposeful system than you so mistakenly imagined just minutes ago. Your part is to go convince others how great Bernie is. Complaining that the DNC is doing the job it was organized to do is silly.

[pangaia]

47. Oh jeeze.

[Hortensis]

61. Pangaia, the links between ignorance and unhappiness,

fear, discontent, all the dark emotions, are very strong. Knowledge is not just power, it's enabling, strengthening, and reassuring. Darkness tends to stoke those dark emotions, and light replaces that fearful emptiness with the reassurance of understanding.

[pangaia]

72. I must repeat.. Jeeze!!

[senz]

107. You mean "WINNER" in the eyes of the MSM

In terms of crowds of huge rallies, the people one encounters during the day, Facebook, and all the Internet polls, over and over, Bernie is the WINNER. He has already "surged ahead" of Hillary despite a virtual media blackout.

I find your comment disingenuous and insulting to the person you are replying to.

Awareness and discussion of DWS' problematic DNC is spreading. There is nothing "silly" about that.

[rateyes]

64. And at the same time there is an NFL PLAYOFF GAME

Do I watch the debate or hope to see my Vikings kick some ass? I am watching football that night. As far as DWS, if she doesn't want to be called a rat f--ker, then she should stop...well, you know. She has done nothing but lose elections for Dems. God, I miss Howard Dean and the 50 state strategy. DWS inherited an organization that was primed to be in control of both the executive and legislative branches for years to come, changed strategy, and fucked it up. She needs to go away. I hope she loses to whomever runs against her in FL.

[MineralMan]

65. You set your own priorities. So does everyone else.

I watched the debate, and I live in Minnesota, right here in St. Paul. The Vikings? A bunch of adults playing a ball game. I care much more about who becomes the President than whether the Vikings get a playoff berth. But we all have our own priorities.

[rateyes]

69. You and I both know that if the plan is to get viewers you don't schedule your show

in the same damned time slot as the fucking Super Bowl or playoff games leading up to it. Anyone who believes the limiting of debates and the scheduling thereof is not designed to help Clinton has blinders on. And, speaking of priorities, DWS's priorities are supposed to be electing Democrats, and she is on her way to losing again. Geez, the woman could fuck up an anvil.

[zeemike]

87. Well it is not about you.

They already have you no matter what.
And we can feel superior about it and look down our noses at those who would rather watch a game if we will, but it only pisses those people off all the more and drives people away...and the Dems cannot afford to do that.

[floriduck]

94. As a DFL chairperson, you of all

people should know how many people there are that haven't watched a debate due to other issues. Some are poor and work mega hours. Some have family issues this time of year. And then there are those undecideds. You and I know who we support but not everyone does. And debates are very important to the voters.

Now we have wall-to-wall Trumpvision on damn near every network there is. That's free advertising for the GOP. Since when is it smart to hide the Democratic candidates in a closet until Little Debbie decides to have a debate?

At the time DWS single-handedly decided to 1)reduce the numbers of debates, and 2) created a caveat to punish a candidate for participating in a non-DNC sanctioned debate, neither you nor I knew how this campaign period would go. We had no idea whether this would have been as close as it appears to be now.

So with all your steadfastness in your beliefs, you likely represent a minority of American voters.

[pangaia]

75. VIKINGS !!!!

Well, that did it. I was going to agree with you on everything you wrote,,
but...

[rateyes]

78. lol

Watch out, they are getting healthy again!

SKOL!

[pangaia]

98. GO PACK !!!!

May the best great big, really, really big guys win.

[rateyes]

109. Yeah, go Pack and

Take the Bears with you!

[pangaia]

112. Uncle !

[PatrickforO]

28. I didn't. It's the f**king Saturday before Xmas!

I had other stuff to do.

I'll catch it later.

[MineralMan]

36. OK. You can watch the next one.

Did you watch the previous ones? If not, let me give you a rundown. The candidates have said about the same things in each of the debates. They say the same things they're saying on their websites.

If you missed a debate, you can watch it at any time you choose. All of them are available for viewing on the Internet.

People routinely watch things when they choose to watch them. That's been going on for some time, now. Heck, I've been recording TV programming since the days of the VHS recorder.

Want to watch a debate? You can. Anytime you wish.

[think]

48. 18 million viewers or 6 million viewers. Who's message got to more of the American people?

[MineralMan]

53. What message came from the Republican Debates?

Clown Car. Pure entertainment.

[think]

63. It was a pretty simple question but it is understandable why you'd choose to avoid it.

[PatrickforO]

49. That sounds great, really 'cut and dried' no problem.

However, people who may have watched the debate if it would have been scheduled on a week night earlier in the month aren't gonna bother. Which is the whole point, MineralMan.

Because you and I and most of the other people on here, whether Clinton or Sanders supporters, are going to go to the trouble.

But what about someone who is undecided who might have watched the debate but had other stuff to do? What about the low information voters with whom we all say we want to connect?

I mean, the Saturday night before Christmas was a REALLY bad time to schedule any live TV event because it's when people are going to holiday parties. There's no way we'll ever agree I guess, but my question to you is, 'do you disagree BECAUSE you think you're right, or because it is in the best interest of your candidate?'

Because if it is the latter, even if you won't admit it, then the point goes against DWS for being so 'in the bag' for Clinton.

[Hortensis]

30. Disgusted loses if says yes. Disgusted loses if says no.

But hubby and I watched it, Mineral Man, and our 4 adult kids and spouses. Didn't even record to watch later, as goodness knows how many other millions did.

[MineralMan]

39. I've watched all of them, and will watch the rest of them.

If I need to, I'll just record a debate for viewing at my convenience. People do that these days, I understand.

That's why I ask if people watched. If they say no, then I know they just didn't bother. If they don't bother, they don't really care about the debates. If they cared, they'd watch. It's an argument without merit.

[Hortensis]

43. Without merit, but apparently not without satisfaction, or

these orgies of manufactured outrage wouldn't be so common.

[MineralMan]

46. It's desperation, I think.

The closer we get to the primaries, the more desperation we see. It doesn't really matter, of course. DU is just a blip in the statistics for elections. As far as I know, for example, I'm the only DUer in my Minnesota precinct. I expect the same is true in almost every precinct in the United states, except for married couples who are both on DU.

What happens on DU stays on DU, pretty much, as far as elections are concerned. It's fun for all of us political wonks, but really has no influence on anything, really

[Hortensis]

84. You're obviously right. The unhappiness is real and palpable,

even if much of the outrage has to be manufactured. I feel for the unhappy ones who truly aspire to high goals and just wish they had somehow been just as determined while being more realistic too. Some do manage that, after all. Like Bernie himself.

[DJ13]

102. Our party is a product

In order to maximize the visibility of a product and obtain the maximum sales from your ad buy you have to advertise to the greatest number of potential customers.

Its called maximizing product placement budgets.

Would a company advertise feminine hygiene products on Saturday morning cartoons?

Of course not, well that same concept says you dont sell politics when the majority of your potential base is watching a once a week special sporting event.

[Hortensis]

108. DJ13, our CANDIDATES are also a product -- THEIR OWN PRODUCT.

These days they produce and market themselves -- first to prospective endorsers, to political operatives and funders, to a political party, and mostly only then to the public. Our two main political parties are greatly weakened relics these days, but they are still useful to the point of still being necessary, so most candidates choose to present their "product" under the aegis of one of the two main parties.

Comparing political parties to for-profit businesses has limited utility. Neither the RNC nor the DNC are trying to maximize customers or profits. They're trying to get as many Republicans or Democrats at all levels elected as possible.

Sometimes fewer "customers" IS the way to go, especially for the GOP, because the GOP tends to do better nationally when fewer people come out to vote, even including Republicans.

And this year, the weakened RNC is desperate to destroy its frontrunning "product," Trump, but has been unable to so far. If Trump makes himself the nominee, the RNC is afraid Republicans will lose in dozens and dozens of offices across the nation. Republicans would be likely to lose the Senate, much of the House, governorships, state legislature seats, judgeships, etc., etc. That is to say, the RNC is in grave danger of failing to fulfill its purpose. Its reason for BEING.

On the Democratic side, the DNC is so far having far more success as it pursues its goals of getting as many Democrats as possible elected, taking control of the Senate, and holding the White House for its members. In the case of the presidency, that's far less due to the DNS than due to the good job a strong, self-produced product" is doing in her pursuit of the presidency.

And because another less viable, but interest-stimulating product has also done very well for himself, and thus all of us, by getting his message out nationally.

And O'Mally. IMO, he's made himself a great product, but his marketing of his product has failed badly.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. No. You have the parameters of the argument all fucked up.

Whether or not someone in GD_P watched the most recent debate is immaterial. There's no one who posts in this forum that doesn't already know who they're voting for (and yes, MINERALMAN, we've all known since the VERY BEGINNING of the primaries who we're voting for--anyone who claims otherwise is a liar).

Debates are for those who haven't made their voting decision. Ergo, a debate on the Saturday night before Christmas is shitty timing. Run your keyboard all you want, but you're only making clicking noises. This one's not up for debate.

[MineralMan]

60. Everything's up for debate.

You don't get to dictate the rules of debate here. Truly not.

People who are interested in watching the debates can do so, whenever they like. We live in, like, modern times, where it's possible to time shift anything on television. We all do it. If people don't watch the debates, it's because they don't want to watch them. If they want to, they can, even after the debate has occurred.

The reality is that most people are only interested in the highlights of those thing, and they got those on the network morning or evening news the day after.

Key points: Bernie apologized for Datagate and Hillary accepted. Hillary went to the toilet during the break and came back late. All three candidates attacked Donald Trump. Hillary invoked "The Force" during her closing remarks. Those were the highlights.

Those people who watched heard the same things they heard in the other two debates from the candidates. No minds were changed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. The fact that Saturday night was a shitty night for this event is NOT up for debate.

It would take a special kind of idiot, or a fixer, to claim otherwise. Bye.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. And how is it that I "lose"? For that matter, what is it that I "lose"?

My post was not controversial; the truth in it is obvious to those for whom truth matters. Whether or not I watched the debate (I did) is immaterial. I already know who I'm voting for. Are you able to explain your "he loses either way" scenario in understandable terms?

[daleanime]

70. All those are better numbers......

then if it had been held on Tuesday that week instead of saturday?


Please answer honestly, I hate losing respect for people.

[George II]

71. The people who wanted to see it saw it. Those that didn't want to see it didn't.

Maybe if Sanders had joined the party that he dissed for decades a little bit earlier he and his people would have had more say in the matter.

You don't join a club and then immediately start telling them how to run the club. Simple.

[kenfrequed]

79. Uhm you realize that isn't the point

Debates aren't just deciding which candidate to go with, they are a mechanism to advertise our parties positions and platform. They are a messaging device. If we intentionally schedule them so only political insiders and activists watch them then we are failing to get our message, as a party, out to the people.

It allows the republicans to frame the issues and determine more of the course of the debate and it allows people to identify with that party more.

Presidential debates are really commercials for downticket races as much as they are for individual candidates.

Surely you must get this?

Of course the people on a political message board website like this place will watch it. Hell, the people here would probably stay up till 2 am on a Thursday to catch it and may even watch pre and post debate spin on their webpage of choice. The point is to generate heat with the larger populace and that is much more important no matter who wins our debate.

[George II]

80. How does that differ from what I said? You really think that someone who isn't interested.....

....in seeing the debate would interrupt his/her surfing when he/she stumbled across the debate and say, "I think I'll watch this"? If they're not interested in the first place, coming across it by accident isn't going to cause them to watch.

Again, those that wanted to see it did see it.

[kenfrequed]

88. Nevermind

Your preferences are guiding you to accepting a schedule that you seem convinced benefits your chosen candidate over what is strategically useful to the Democratic party.

If the debates help Hillary then good.

If the debates help Bernie then also good.

Obviously I have my preferences but making people work to find a political debate or stashing it at a time when people are typically busy is idiotic. Anyone that says otherwise is selling something.

[zentrum]

76. Yeah I did watch.

Last edited Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

And it made me incredibly upset that it wasn't scheduled at a time when the maximum number of people were able to see our three democrats and all the free advertising it would give our message.

As a woman, I'm familiar with and un-offended by the vernacular "girl" as it was used this the post. But if your icon and name are to be believed, thanks for mansplaining to me.

[AgingAmerican]

99. Lowest viewership this campaign season

[think]

25. Indeed. The GOP got much higher ratings due to way better scheduling. Anyone who's being honest

with themselves knows this. Wish Hillary supporters could at least acknowledge the glaringly obvious.

Seriously. Would anyone let Hillary supporters that are making excuses for this pathetic scheduling anywhere near their event planning?

[PatrickforO]

31. They won't because we're in primary season and even if something is the blatant

truth, you're gonna get people who say, "no, it isn't."

In the old school it's all about ten second sound bytes and the establishment controlling the message.

But now we control it. And I say unequivocally that the Saturday night before Christmas is a really crappy time to schedule a debate. Any other 'spin' on this just isn't true.

[Hortensis]

50. The GOP debates are reality-TV circuses that

people tune into to watch shabby attempts at landing punches and sticking knives. That's the reason people have been watching. Some eagerly hoping for blood, some (like us) to be amused, and others drawn with the same appalled fascination that causes us to slow down when passing tragic wrecks on the road.

Otherwise, most people don't normally bother to pay any attention to candidates until election time is closer.

The Democratic debates are dignified and focused on the candidates' positions on issues. BOOORING to those who really want blood or to laugh at the ridiculous, and interesting only to the relative few already involved.

BTW, that's 6 million households, not 6 million viewers.

Think.

[JonLeibowitz]

5. I support Bernie, but I think it's fair to say O'Malley is viable.

No vote has been cast yet, so anything could still happen.

I try to be careful not to let the media spin who is "viable" and who is not.

[MineralMan]

11. I'm looking at poll results.

Nobody with less than 10% in the polls is viable as a candidate for the nomination in a three person campaign. Period. If you think otherwise, then I encourage you to keep supporting O'Malley. He won't be the nominee, though.

[JonLeibowitz]

15. I said I supported Bernie in my first post.....

Again, I don't think we should trust polls or the media over who is "viable". Votes are what matter.

In a way I am glad the Iowa Caucus redistributes caucus goers for candidates that fail to reach 15%; it is similar to instant runoff voting which I think is a great idea.

[MineralMan]

17. All Democratic caucuses and primaries

do the same thing. Anyone getting less than 15% gets no delegates, and the delegates are assigned proportionally to the other candidates based on the results.

That's part of the basic structure of delegate selection in the Democratic Party. I don't think O'Malley will be assigned any delegates from any primary or caucus results. His candidacy will have no impact on the convention as near as I can estimate.

[JonLeibowitz]

20. Yes, but in a caucus can't the caucus goers pick their 2nd desired choice?

That's different from proportional redistribution.

[MineralMan]

22. Not in the Minnesota caucuses. Each attendee votes for one

candidate. I believe that Iowa works the same way, although their caucus allows for people to join caucus groups and switch. When the actual count is made, though, it's one person=one vote. I don't think I'm mistaken about that.

The Democratic Party has some specific rules dealing with this.

[PatrickforO]

35. That's why, in my state, we're planning to have a lot of Bernie supporters

show up. And we've got talking points that are pretty persuasive.

But, to be honest with you, I'd rather have a primary, not a caucus.

[MineralMan]

24. Here's the procedure for Iowa:

Monday 1 February 2016: Precinct Caucuses. Democratic Party Caucuses meet in each precinct at 7 PM CST. Each Precinct Caucus chooses the precinct's delegates to County Conventions based on presidential preference (which, despite the media circus that quadrennially surrounds this event, is all that will be actually decided at these Iowa caucuses!).

NOTE: Estimates will, of course, be made by media outlets as well as by the campaigns of the presidential contenders themselves as to how many of Iowa's 52 National Convention delegates each presidential contender is likely to be ultimately be receiving as a result of the Iowa caucuses but, of course, since no National Convention delegates are actually being chosen by these caucuses, all such estimates will almost certainly, come the District Conventions in April and the State Convention in June, be wrong!!

At each caucus, each presidential contender who fails to get at least 15 percent support among the participants in the initial balloting after a period of discussion will be considered "non-viable" and all supporters of such "non-viable" presidential contenders will then be required to join in the support of presidential contenders who have remained "viable". To determine the viability of a presidential contender, multiply the number of eligible caucus attendees by the percentages below and round to the nearest whole number. This is the minimum number of delegates needed for the contender to remain viable.
50% (majority vote) for caucuses electing 1 delegate.
25% (one quarter) for caucuses electing 2 delegates.
16.66...% (one sixth) for caucuses electing 3 delegates.
15% for caucuses electing 4 or more delegates.
Example. 57 people attend a caucus electing 3 delegates. The viability is 1/6th of 57 = 9.5 rounded which is 10. Say 29 people support candidate A, 19 support candidate B, and 9 support candidate C. Candidates A and B are viable since they have support of 10 or more of the attendees. Because candidate C did not receive the support of 10 attendees, those supporting candidate C must realign to another candidate. At this point, the attendees realign themselves so 34 support candidate A and 23 support candidate B.

The caucus will next choose the precinct's delegates to the Democratic Convention of the County in which the precinct is located (which is all, despite all the media hoopla, that will be actually decided at the Iowa caucuses!) who will be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the support each "viable" presidential contender received in the second round of balloting at the precinct caucus as of the time of its adjournment. (Estimates will, of course, be made by media outlets as well as the contenders themselves as to how many of Iowa's 52 National Convention delegates each contender will ultimately be receiving but, of course, since NO National Convention delegates are actually being chosen by these caucuses, all such estimates will almost certainly, in the end, be WRONG!!!)."

Continuing the example from above: For Candidate A: 3 (total precinct delegates) × 34 (supporters) ÷ 57 (total attendees) = 1.789 which rounds to 2 precinct delegates. Candidate B receives 3 × 23 ÷ 57 = 1.211 which rounds to 1 precinct delegate. Note: Due to rounding, the sum of precinct delegates may exceed the total number of precinct delegates allocated to the caucus. If this happens, round down the candidate with the smallest fraction. Candidates receiving 1 precinct delegate are not subject to this rule, that is, candidates cannot loose their only precinct delegate during this adjustment.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D

[JonLeibowitz]

38. If I am reading that correctly then,

the second round allows a caucus goer to align with their 2nd choice and still make a meaningful voice be heard for theirs. That is what the difference between the 1st and 2nd round is. This is like Instant Runoff Voting, but with the "winner" concept being replaced by "viability".

[MineralMan]

41. Sort of. In Minnesota, precinct caucuses lead to

state Senate district conventions. There, delegates from the precinct caucuses choose delegates to the Congressional District convention, which in turn selects the delegates to the state convention. Due to the method used to select delegates at each level, there are rounding errors, due to uneven numbers of delegates. Typically, though, it all balances out statewide.

At the state convention, every effort is made to reflect the Congressional District caucus results, as voted on by the straw vote at the precinct caucuses. It works pretty well, although there can be a percentage or two difference in the delegates to the national convention, who are elected at the state convention.

It's all a bit awkward, but in reality it works out pretty well. We also hold a primary, but it has no effect on selection of delegates to the National Presidential Convention.

Personally, I prefer a straight primary election system. But even that, as in California, involves earlier county caucus meetings, which are very, very poorly attended, from my experience in that state.

It's a funky system, but it's the system we use.

You can look at the delegate selection method for each state at the link in my previous post. It's fascinating, but only if you're a political wonk like me.

[JonLeibowitz]

96. Thanks.

It looks like you can switch your preference and make your 2nd choice vote matter.

I plan to do a lot more reading about caucuses. They seem pretty cool. I actually prefer caucuses, but to each their own.

[emulatorloo]

56. Jon you are correct about the Iowa caucuses. If your candidate isn't viable, you move to

another candidate. Reps from the viable candidate's groups give a persuasive speech to the non-viable candidates supporters and then they make their choice. At my caucus in '08 all Kucinich supporters moved to Edwards.

[JonLeibowitz]

93. Exactly what I would have done!!

Thanks for the confirmation, that is what I was reading and didn't see how the rules differed from it.

I much prefer that to a primary then.

[Blus4u]

7. You can defend it, MM, but

in your heart you know the OP's message is true, "girl" comment aside.
You are smarter than that.

Peace

[MineralMan]

12. Unlike you, I do know my own heart.

You're not qualified to make statements of what's in my "heart." Not in any way.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. And you're qualified to tell the other poster he/she doesn't know his/her own heart?

Hypocrites are often the last to see the fruits of their hypocrisy. Think.

[MineralMan]

62. No, dude. I said he/she doesn't know what's in MY heart.

Everyone knows what's in their own hearts, for better or worse.

Seeya. I'm done with this subthread at this point. The floor is yours.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. I now see how it can be read either way. Can you see the same? I know you can--you're a wordsmith.

And you can have the floor back. You and I will have much more substantive things to argue about than this.

[Nyan]

3. Why is she the chair anyway? I forget.

What was the reasoning behind her being the chairperson?
What was the standard here?

[MineralMan]

6. President Obama chose her to be chair.

That is a Democratic President's prerogative, I believe, as the leader of the Party. When we have a Democratic President, he or she is the leader of the Party. That's how it works.

Chair of the Democratic National Committee[edit]

Chair Wasserman Schultz speaking to the College Democrats of America
On April 5, 2011, Vice President Joe Biden announced that Wasserman Schultz was President Barack Obama's choice to succeed Tim Kaine as the 52nd Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Once confirmed by the Democratic National Committee, she became the third female DNC chief in history and the first in over 15 years. Until she assumed office, current DNC Vice-Chair Donna Brazile served as the interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Wasserman Schultz was confirmed at the meeting of the DNC held on May 4, 2011, in Washington, D.C.[36]

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

[Zorra]

13. It appears that the standard is complete lack of integrity. nt

[frylock]

74. the standard was putting someone in place to grease the skids for Hillary.

That and Hillary's appointment as SoS were likely part of the bargain to finally get her to concede the nomination in 2008.

[in_cog_ni_to]

110. Bingo.

Which makes Obama complicit and the reason there's no way in hell he'll ever fire DWS.
Everything happening in this campaign was planned by the Oligarchs.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[LuvLoogie]

8. Star Wars and Winter Solstice!

Corporate Fantasy and the planets join forces with HRC & DWS. The sorceresses conjure darkness from their DNC coven to thwart the The Revolution of Truth and Genuineness!

Woah be to the 3rd Way when righteousness finally gets DNC fund sharing!

[NCTraveler]

9. I think you have it exactly backwards.

Either way I'm looking forward to beating the shit out of the republicans in the general. I have no interest in "prepare for president Cruz." No thanks. I have some fight in me. YMMV.

[rhett o rick]

33. And while some are distracted fighting the hapless Republicons the real enemy is looting

and enslaving the 99%. The Republicons are just a tool of the Goldman-Sachs Oligarchy just as those Democrats that also take their money. We are not in the state we are only because of Republicons but also Democrats that have sold their souls for a shiny coin.

This is a class war between the 1% and their puppets and the 99% and their candidate Sen Sanders. The People will prevail.

[NCTraveler]

37. I hope we prevail. A Clinton vicory in the Primary and the General....

would be huge for us. We can't rest now.

[rhett o rick]

85. I want the 99% to prevail not Goldman-Sachs. nm

[NCTraveler]

86. Agree. Nt

[BlueCheese]

14. While your language is strong...

... I do think our debates should be more numerous and not on weekends.

I think the debates are good vehicles for getting the party's message out.

[whatthehey]

16. I think this is an overblown concern

Only about 40 million voted in the last contested primary.

15 million saw the first debate alone. Millions more have seen the others, but with overlap individual count is impossible with absolute floor of 15 million however. That's the highest ever and more than 40% higher than the most watched of the 2008 versions.

On top of that about 15% the country has "cut the cord" and is likely to stream such things from various internet sources. CNN's live stream alone got 1 million viewers. Youtube's full version has 1.5 million views and the highlights 4.5 mililon.

Fewer and fewer people look to TV for news and information as a primary source, only 55% TWO YEARS AGO in a rapidly shifting environment. The internet is taking all that shrinking share and Sanders has a dominant following there.

It is almost inescapable then that the majority of likely primary voters have seen a televised debate at least once, and that huge numbers of them use the internet more than TV for their political insight anyway.

Few people who have any interst in the race at this point have had any difficulty comparing the candidates, and even the most pessimistic projections of Sanders' performance in IA and NH guarantee he'll get plenty more attention after those. In fact that has significant promise to really send a shockwave through those head in the sand types who haven't paid him any attention yet. Whether the headline is "Sanders wins...." or "Sanders close second to Clinton in...." the ostriches in other states (and there is no non-laughable claim out there that anyone even vaguely likely to vote in NH or IA hasn't had plenty of info already) are bound to perk up and say "who did what? let me check that out" Anybody who doesn't wouldn't vote in a Dem primary if a ballot came with free beer.

[shenmue]

18. She made people not watch

[INdemo]

19. Correction,That would be two good cacndidates.

Voters do not want another Bush or Clinton.
Hillary Clinton will not win the General if she is nominated.
Progressives will stay home on election day and walla...Trump or Cruz wins

[MineralMan]

23. I don't believe you are qualified to speak for "the voters."

You get one vote, just like everyone else. I suspect the voters will make up their own minds. We'll learn the results after each caucus or primary date.

Nobody can speak for "the voters." They speak for themselves.

[MadDAsHell]

21. I have a suspicion on the reasons, but maybe I'm wrong...

I know the President has defend DWS and the debate schedule, but I believe she's refused to answer questions about it.

Am I wrong? Has she stated a logical reason for the schedule?

[Faux pas]

26. Kickin'

[whatthehey]

29. So how come 40% more people watched than the best of 2008?

[frylock]

77. Citation, please.

[whatthehey]

100. Sure - will you admit I'm right publicly if I provide?

If not you can Google it yourself easily enough.

[BlueJazz]

34. "The game is rigged and you pieces of trash better sit down and start eating that shit up"

Actually said by Debbie.

[Skidmore]

73. I'm sure you have a link to an article about this then.

A google search only gets me back to your post here.

I call BS.

[BlueJazz]

106. "I call BS" You are correct.

[saturnsring]

82. when she was on stephanie miller show she laughed when hackable voting machines were

brought up. she giggled and said she'll let others worry about conspiracy theories

[Hoyt]

40. Based upon Sanders' debate performance, it actually helping him.

It's not that he's bad, it's just his opening statement is pretty much all he has. His few points are good, very good, but not much depth past that or explanation as to how he can make it happen/better.

[think]

44. The last GOP debate got 18 million viewers. The last Dem debate got 6 million viewers.

Do you really believe the DNC did a good job of getting the message of our candidates out to the American people?

[Hoyt]

52. Actually, I do. Let the GOP racists and warmongers beat themselves up.

[NurseJackie]

54. Based on what we now know about him ...

... it's doubtful that additional debates would help him. In fact, they would probably hurt him. Count your blessings.

[KamaAina]

57. And just what do we now know about him?

That his IT guy tried to document a security breach?

[NurseJackie]

67. LOL ... "document" ... Ha!

His National Communications Director? That guy? The one he fired?

Looks like Bernie is not a very good judge of character and he trusted the wrong people.

Now, he and his operatives want to blame others for his own failings. What a guy!

[TeddyR]

55. How about everyone

Dials back on the rat-fucking rhetoric? The constant bickering between Hillary and Sanders supporters is a drag and does nothing to help the party. I'm going to support the Democratic candidate, be it O'Malley, Sanders or Hillary, and hope everyone else that posts here will too. If not, well, then why are you on a message board for Democrats?

[Maedhros]

92. The first step to recovery is realizing that the Party has a problem...[n/t]

[lark]

81. DWS is a cancer on the Democratic party

She needs to go and go NOW! So sick of that DINO.

[beac]

83. +1 to all you said. n/t

[Still In Wisconsin]

89. You can be for or against Hillary, for or against Bernie... but DWS is a LOSER and a cancer.

Her track record sucks. She has implemented losing strategies. I could not care less about her personality or lack thereof, who she's friends with, etc. etc. What I do care about is she is helping to hand elections over to the Republicans. She is a loser. She needs to go.

[Auggie]

90. AGREE! And a huge K&R ...

except for the girl part.

[KamaAina]

91. Yallow said that, not me.

His post got locked because GD, so I copied and pasted it over here.

[Auggie]

97. I'm aware of that. Don't worry

DWS has really gotten under my skin too. In the ad biz we had a name for sell-out hacks like her:

"The Sales Prevention Team"

[blackspade]

95. Well, she does shill for Republicans in FL over Democrats.....

[Gloria]

114. Seem a lot of Sanders people dish out a lot of

GOP shit here, too.

Irony

[blackspade]

115. But the 'Sanders people' don't control the DNC....

And endorse rethugs over Democratic candidates.

Irony and false equivalency fail. But thanks for trying!

[Gloria]

103. Get a grip...The fact is that the 3 broadcast networks choose the

date. THere are all sorts of negotiations just to get on the air. They dump a debate in a timeslot that is already weak in viewership (or up against something else, like football)...won't lose $$, it's already a dead time for them.

The "news" channels on cable will put them with plenty of hype and will see better ratings than usual no matter what day it's on so it's ok with a weeknight.

As things heat up, the schedule looks better....because it's getting closer to the first primaries.....NBC coughs up a Sunday night...of course, Downton Abbey might be on.....

Here is the 2016 schedule...there should be no complaints..

2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
NBC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Sponsors: NBC, Congressional Black Caucus Institute
Candidates: TBD

Thursday, February 11, 2016
PBS Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: PBS
Candidates: TBD

Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Univision Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Miami Dade College in Miami, Florida
Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
Candidates: TBD

Read more at http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/#jP2DFYBqKpqmQ5Do.99

[raouldukelives]

111. Bernie might say things that make people go "Hmmmm".

And that, people becoming an informed and educated electorate, is the last thing Wall St, multi-national corporations or those in the pocket of them, desire.

[Ivan Kaputski]

113. I know plenty about Clinton. I needed to see the hear the others.

Since I couldn't watch the debates I've had to scrounge the inet to find info and vids.