O’Malley: Sanders fine with 'rigged' Dem debates

[MADem]

O’Malley: Sanders didn’t want more debates

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said Tuesday that his Democratic presidential rivals Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton are in agreement that the current primary debate schedule is sufficient.

“I asked Senator Sanders. Senator Sanders doesn’t want to do more debates either,” O'Malley said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe." "He kind of liked where it is. But hey, all of that is what it is.”

O’Malley has long criticized the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for limiting the 2016 presidential primary with its current debate schedule. He argued Tuesday that voters will eventually tire of the political establishment influencing the electoral process year after year.
“The concentration of power and wealth in our economy, that same concentration of power and wealth is happening in the Democratic Party,” O’Malley said. "And you know what? I don’t care."......

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264363-omalley-sanders-doesnt-want-do-more-debates-either

There's video at the link.

Apparently Sanders really doesn't want more debates. Quite surprising, given the complaining about them we've heard to this point.

[djean111]

1. The rules are that any Dem candidate who debated outside of the schedule would be barred from

further debates. O'Malley asked Bernie to do just that. Bernie followed the rules, said no to O'Malley, but did call publicly for more DNC debates. Looks to me like O'Malley is pissed that Bernie did not take his bait.

Still beating this dead horse, and it does not affect even on vote, IMO. For me, it certainly affects how I see O'Malley.

[tecelote]

2. Yes. Bernie did the honorable thing.

He may not agree that so few debates are good but when asked to break the rules he said "no".

Bernie is the honest and moral candidate. He'll make a great President.

[MADem]

4. I got the impression that O'Malley wanted Sanders to help push Clinton

into more debates after she told him no initially--but Sanders said he also didn't want more debates. He is, apparently, a status quo kind of guy.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/omalley-dnc-helps-hillary-with-limited-debates-and-bernie-sanders-likes-where-it-is/

O’Malley: DNC Helps Hillary with Limited Debates and Bernie Sanders ‘Likes Where It Is’

Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean disagreed that the committee was deliberately trying to “cook the books” in Clinton’s favor, saying she is a skilled debater and that candidates complain about the scheduling every cycle. When O’Malley pushed back, Dean asked whether he ever considered challenging his competition to an exhibition debate outside the DNC’s schedule.

“You think I haven’t done that,” O’Malley shot back. “I asked Senator Sanders. (He) doesn’t want to do more debates either. He kind of likes where it is.”

[djean111]

8. Hilarious that you call him that for following the rules.

He just did not take O'Malley's bait, and followed the rules of the DNC. If he had taken O'Malley's bait, I am confident that he would have been attacked for not following the Democrat rules.

This is just a sad, sad effort, and, really, damages O'Malley in my eyes. Looks like O'Malley is angling for VP or something.

And none of this will channel any support or votes from Bernie. The "I cannot respect Bernie" posts from those who are Hillary supporters are just ridiculous. They didn't like Bernie anyway, and were not going to vote for him anyway. So who cares.

[MADem]

15. Call who what?

I gave my impression of the full arc of the story.

The word "either" has meaning for me. My impression is that O'Malley wanted Sanders to join him in pressing Clinton to appeal to the DNC for more opportunities, and, like her, he wasn't interested EITHER.

O'Malley closed the door on VP at the last debate--IMO, anyway.

As an aside, the phrase "Democrat rules" is concerning to me, for obvious reasons. I hope that's just a typo.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Today is 'Bernie is the status quo' which alternates with 'Bernie is not enough of a Democrat'

So either he's dinged for following the Party rules or dinged for not having joined it soon enough. I see this with legislative votes as well. Cry and wail about the fact that Bernie voted for the Clinton Crime Bill as if Bernie acted alone when he voted with the strong majority of Democrats including 2/3 of the Black Caucus and all of that Caucus leadership. So he voted with the Democrats and yet he is held up as being sole author of that Bill, praised by Hillary, signed by Bill, yes votes from Biden, Kerry, Boxer, Moseley-Braun and every Democratic Senator but two. All but two.

So my recommendation is to pick one or the other 'Bernie is not a Democrat' or 'Bernie votes with the Democrats too much'. Either 'he's an Independent from VT' or 'He follows DNC rules too closely'. Alternating those arguments makes both seem specious.
'We dislike him because he is too tall, save for on Sundays when we dislike him for being too short'

[MADem]

51. Well, he did agree to the DNC rules about debates. So did O'Malley. So did Clinton.

For awhile there, his supporters made a lot of noise about how "unfair" it was, and he kept pretty silent on the subject. You can see the threads here on DU and all over social media -- "Tell 'DWS' that WE want MORE Debates!!" Lots of griping on those lines.

Then, all of a sudden, here's O'Malley, saying--like the Sanders supporters (if not Sanders, or his staff) "Let's have more debates."

Clinton is fine with the rules as written, so O'Malley tries to exhort Sanders to join him to push the conversation with the DNC. And what does Sanders do? He takes the "status quo" approach to this particular issue--he doesn't want more debates, he agrees with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, he intends to abide by the agreement he signed.

On this specific matter, he is entirely "status quo." As is Clinton. As is the Chair of the DNC.

No one is "dinging" him--though he could have said something about this attitude he plainly holds (that he does NOT want more debates) weeks, even months, ago, when his supporters were calling Clinton every name in the book for not pushing for more debates. Surely you remember that?

I should think that it would have been a better move for Sanders to make this attitude known earlier--it would have tamped down a lot of acrimony.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

87. Yep. All this whining about him following the rules is beyond ridiculous.

Can you imagine the gnashing and wailing if he broke the rules?

The Hillary fans would be screaming how he isn't really a Democrat and they knew it all along.

I can't wait for silly season to be over so we can bash repigs instead of eachother.

I'm going to run, not walk, to the polls and vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.

[Art_from_Ark]

137. I will gladly, wholeheartedly vote for Bernie

and will leave it at that.

[djean111]

90. Yup. Just a typo. I am more of a Democrat than, say, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

"Democratic".

[Vattel]

36. It would have been crazy for Sanders to join O'Malley in breaking the rules.

The most likely result would have been that he would have been excluded from the official DNC debates and so unable to debate Clinton at all. The idea that Clinton would have been convinced to also break the rules is far-fetched, to say the least. Sanders would have been relentlessly attacked for being dumb enough to join O'Malley in breaking the rules.

[MADem]

42. I think the idea was to create an atmosphere of public pressure.

If two out of the three are calling for more debates, then it looks like one person is being favored if the wishes of the two aren't considered. Sanders kind of ruined that by shutting it down.

Sanders' supporters were previous to this vigorously calling for more debates (you can see this in the DU archives, as well as all over social media), but the minute O'Malley started chiming in, Sanders HIMSELF has backed off that tack and is saying NO--I just don't want more.

I think MOM wanted to tag team with Sanders to persuade Clinton to join them in asking DNC for more debates, but then, once it became obvious that MOM wanted to play it this way, Sanders gave him the same answer that Clinton did. Which was, in essence: Nope. Don't want to do more debates. We're three, not twelve or sixteen, and we get plenty of time to talk in the existing venues. Overexposure and "gotcha" are games that the GOP plays--don't give them more fodder.

I don't think he (or anyone) was interested in breaking rules, necessarily (though that's a good excuse to use) --just trying to get consensus to change them. Sanders refused to play along because he doesn't want more debates either--as the NYT article revealed.

[Thinkingabout]

53. Perhaps things changed once the debates started. So far the DNC debates have been

fruitful, in fact the GOP are following suit.

[Vattel]

64. You are making many unsubstantiated claims.

There is no evidence that Sanders didn't want more debates.

[MADem]

65. I am not making any CLAIMS. Good grief, I am having an adult discussion of these

issues with other adults, and we are all expressing OPINIONS.

If you can't deal with that, you know where the HIDE THREAD button is.

There IS evidence that Sanders didn't want more debates--why don't you try READING the doggone links before you make "unsubstantiated claims" about what people have to say.

Start with the NYT link that is IN this thread. The one that says Sanders did NOT want more debates!!

smh.

[Vattel]

71. You are upset because I used the word "claim" instead of "opinion"?

Okay, to avoid further outbursts, let me rephrase: You are expressing unsubstantiated opinions. I listened to the interview of O'Malley that generated all of this nonsense. I read the times report. Sanders turned O'Malley down when O'Malley suggested scheduling debates that would violate the DNC rules. That was smart. But I see no reason to think that he didn't want the DNC to schedule more debates.

[MADem]

72. I'm not "upset" at all. I'm a bit surprised that you are going to a confrontational and disruptive

approach as a first resort. Those "outbursts" aren't needed here.

My opinions are backed up by video and the printed word. Sorry if you don't like the sources, but I can't please everyone.

Sanders' staff is cited in that NYT article. If you're really interested, pull it up and read it again.

[Vattel]

80. Sorry, I confused the Times piece with another piece.

I hadn't read the Times piece. I have now. Not much there. Some unnamed people (who are these people?) say that Sanders' campaign team were "less emphatic" in private discussions than in public about getting more debates scheduled. Even these unnamed people don't say that the campaign team didn't express a desire for more debates in conversations with the DNC. They only say that they were less emphatic. I am still seeing little to justify believing that Sanders and his campaign didn't want the DNC to schedule more debates. I guess I think that with the evidence that is available to us, we can only speculate.

By the way, I don't see why you thought I was being confrontational and disruptive. I always point out when I think someone doesn't have enough evidence for the views they are expressing. I didn't do it in a rude way. So I am not sure why you got so upset.

[MADem]

81. You accused me of making "unsubstantiated claims." They weren't unsubstantiated at all.

That's the whole "confrontational" bit. It was rude, IMO, but I'll get over it. And repetition of that "upset" word doesn't make it any more true this time around. Slightly piqued, at best, at having my good name sullied, perhaps.

The opinions I expressed had a basis in print and video media. The unnamed people in the article were staffers on the Sanders campaign.

If you don't think it's VERY odd that after months of Sanders' supporters screaming about "more debates," that Team Sanders never really gave a shit, never wanted them, didn't have a problem with the existing agreement with the DNC... then I can't insist that you share this view.

I do think it's a noteworthy development, though.

[Vattel]

93. Serious question: What makes you think the unnamed people were Sanders staffers?

I mean the ones that said that in private the Sanders campaign were less emphatic about wanting more debates.

[MADem]

97. Because that's how they were SOURCED in the NYT article....!

As for the Sanders campaign’s approach to the party committee, people briefed on the flap about the number of debates believe that Mr. Sanders has fed on outrage against the D.N.C. that was created by others, not his own team, in efforts to deal with the data issue. These people described Mr. Sanders’ team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/29/top-bernie-sanders-aide-rankles-those-in-and-out-of-campaign/?_r=0

"Mr. Sanders' team" means, to me, anyway, people who work on Sanders' campaign. They're not talking about supporters or hangers-on, they're talking about players inside the campaign who have had "private discussions" with media and others about the debates.

It makes sense, though, that the media never caught on to the "umbrage" that was generated in social media (and for which followers were excoriating the media for not covering) --the Senator's OWN STAFF was telling the media that Sanders wasn't all in for more debates. What the media should have covered, and didn't, is that the 'fans' were saying things that the 'staff' didn't support.

[Vattel]

118. That doesn't seem accurate.

The NYT article says that "these people described Mr. Sanders' team as decidedly less emphatic . . ." It doesn't say that these people were members of Sanders' team. So I am still wondering who "these people" were.

[MADem]

119. These people are people who met with Sanders' team in private meetings.

I haven't heard anyone from Sanders' team come forward and call "these people" a buncha liars.

And they're not shy about going on offense.

I think the story is true.

[Vattel]

121. Maybe they are DNC people. It would be nice to know.

The story may be true. But the fact that some people outside the campaign thought that the Sanders' campaign team was "less emphatic" in expressing a desire for more debates in some unspecified private setting isn't particularly interesting, in my opinion.

[MADem]

124. I think it is true. There'd be a vociferous denial by now if it weren't.

O'Malley kind of harshed the "Waaah, DEBATES!" game by piping up, but the truth is that that whole victimology scheme had been pretty much played out. After a while, when you keep blaming a woman named Debbie for all your woes, it does sound like you're not ready for prime time.

It may or may not be a terribly interesting turn of events, but it has certainly tamped down a lot of that hot-breathed insistence from fans that Sanders wants more debates....because, as it turns out (and as anyone watching the things with an unbiased eye can see), they really AREN'T his best venue (he does the Big Rally Speech well, that's his thing). His people are smart enough to see that, even if his fans aren't.

[Vattel]

125. No one was blaming Wasserman for all their woes.

She has been and should be blamed for the ridiculous restrictions on debates and her horrible handling of the data breach. Those restrictions and her response to the breach still seem likely to have reflected a bias towards Clinton, although there is no way of knowing for sure. Ultimately, though, I don't think Sanders has been hurt much by Wasserman's screw ups.

I don't think any of the three--Sanders, O'Malley, or Clinton--have been impressive in the debates. Obama is a much better debater than any of them. In terms of substance Sanders has been way better, but he has not had the killer instinct when he needed it. He needs to be lighter on his feet too in terms of responding to Clinton's moves.

I think Sanders needed more exposure and so wanted more debates. He had to overcome a huge gap in familiarity.

[MADem]

126. I invite you to do a DU search of the DWS name, and you'll see otherwise.

The same memes seen here have been "brigaded" across other social media outlets and in responses to news articles. If the weather is too cold or rainy, people will blame her. It's freakish, it's weird, and most telling of all, the gripes in many cases sound like they've been written at the same outrage factory. It's just not believable, which is why it's not selling very well.

As for the debates, Clinton wipes the floor with the lot--no one has a better command of the facts, no one can pivot and get down in the weeds while maintaining a clarity of argument like she does. The more I watch her debate, the more I realize that her husband was right--she IS the smartest of the two, and she taught HIM everything he knows. What he has, and she doesn't, is that roguish nature and that devilish twinkle in his eye...but he uses HER techniques when he rolls out an argument.

She has a unique ability to break down an issue into digestible chunks. It's quite remarkable, and why she does so well in those Q/A "small group dynamic" meetings that she has made the centerpiece of her campaign. People come away from those things realizing that she can do more than deliver a canned tirade, she can think on her feet and her depth and breadth of knowledge is pretty doggone formidable.

She is impressive, no two ways about it. She will make an amazing POTUS.

[Vattel]

136. I wish I had your confidence in her, but I judge a candidate mostly by her record.

And it is remarkable how someone as bright as her could have had such bad judgment so many times on so many issues, especially on the foreign policy front.

[MADem]

138. She has done a superb job of carrying out POTUS's foreign policy vision, and advising him

as well.

She IS the smartest person in the room--make no mistake. I have confidence in her because she's earned it.

[Vattel]

139. Her many mistakes are in the record. No possibility of hiding that.

[MADem]

141. Whilst Bernie's many missteps remain a deep, dark secret?

You are (unintentionally, I'm sure) amusing.

[Vattel]

142. Bernie's record on most issues is much better.

[MADem]

143. No, it isn't.

He talks a great game, but he has "done" very little, in actual fact, for a guy who has been living on the public dime for a third of a century.

He's had no real job, save taking a government paycheck, odd little "writing" activities and failed carpentry efforts (he has been described as a "shitty carpenter" by his FRIENDS) notwithstanding.

And he talks and talks, but he doesn't do much of anything at all.

His best days are behind him--he put in a fair day's work as mayor of that small town called Burlington, but since then, he hasn't done much save point and hector. He IS a good friend to Lockheed Martin and the gun industry, I'll give him that.

[Vattel]

144. He has been on the right side of issues way more than Clinton.

[MADem]

145. If being "on the right side of issues" means lotta talk, little walk, sure.

And he's been on the WRONG side of the gun issue from the get-go; he's consistent about that, anyway.

[Vattel]

149. Well he accomplished more in the Senate than Clinton did.

And his voting record is not just talk. That record is way better than Clintons. Although, speaking of talk, listen to his arguments in the debate about the IWR and then listen to Clinton's. The difference in judgment is striking. Or listen to Clinton's well-known defense of marriage inequality. Cringeworthy. And then there's her support of capital punishment and the criminality of marijuana and the bankruptcy bill and the patriot act. And now she wants a no fly zone in Syria and she just assumes that the Russians will not fly in that zone. Her lack of a sensible view on that issue is glaring and dangerous. I could go on and on, but the pattern is clear. Her record is not nearly as progressive as Sanders' record.

[MADem]

158. No, actually, his record is NOT "better" than Clinton's.

Next time you look at it, look at legislation that was actually passed into law, as opposed to stuff he has "proposed."

Dennis Kucinich did a lot of proposing, too.

What's cringeworthy is Sanders' continued stance on guns despite all the craptastic slaughters that have happened in recent years.

Clinton has a huge base of support in the gay community, so your continued griping on that score just doesn't resonate. She's also a fan of medical MJ, and anyone who isn't totally stupid, clueless or blinded by bias can plainly see that she's threading a needle on that issue. Sounds like she's a "states rights" advocate on that matter (just like Sanders was on gay marriage). As for capital punishment, she's already said she'd like to see some federal restraint, that it has been used unfairly, and that it should be "limited and rare," but can see reasons to retain it for especially heinous crimes--a stance that is held by a load of people in this country, so you can stow that one, too.

The way you manage a No Fly Zone is you assign SECTORS--you seem to believe that we're all Red Dawn up in here; that we're incapable of establishing patrol sectors with other air forces and coordinating movements...? That's why you sit down with the other guys and work that stuff out. It's not rocket science, unless you want to MAKE it (or fake making it) so...

The pattern is clear, all right--it's on to the nomination and the election and Inaugural Day 2017, when USA will welcome President Hillary Clinton to the White House.

Hillary raised eighteen million dollars this 4th quarter for Democratic candidates to use in their general elections. That haul is not for her primary effort (that amount was 37 million)--that goes to the DNC and will be used for general election races -- to include Senate and House candidates.

Has anyone announced how much money Bernie has raised for "other Democrats" for use in general election races?

[Vattel]

159. What did Clinton get passed into law when she was in the Senate?

At least Sanders accomplished significant legislation as chair of the Veterans affairs committee (if I remember the name of the committee). And anyone who isn't stupid or clueless or biased would see that her movement on issues like marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage has been way behind the curve of progressive movements on those issues.

Her hawkish support of invading Iraq and unconstitutionally going to war in Libya and huge troop increases in Afghanistan and no fly zones in Syria, and her absolutely stunning refusal to concede that the bombing of Gaza was a disproportionate use of military force, disqualifies her as a desirable candidate for CIC. Of course, the no fly zone would not blanket all of Syria. Nobody said otherwise. The idea that Russia would cooperate with us on a no fly zone anywhere in Syria is pure fantasy because such a zone would be aimed at restricting Assad's use of air space in ways that support rebel forces. (Russia supports Assad.) And the best Clinton can do in response to questions about whether to we would shoot at a Russian aircraft in the no fly zone is to say that they wouldn't enter the zone, as if she can guarantee that. In the debates she has been very unimpressive in answering questions about Libya and Syria, and even Obama delicately suggests that once she is in power she will realize that the no fly zone is a bad idea. But we are supposed to trust her "expertise" on such matters.

[MADem]

160. Here ya go...!

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?pageSize=250

[Vattel]

161. Yes, I know, nothing of significance that she sponsored became law.

[MADem]

162. The Lily Ledbetter law was "nothing." Ooooh kay..... nt

[Vattel]

163. She was a co-sponsor of that bill, not the sponsor.

Nothing of significance that she sponsored became law. Did you look at your own link? Click on "sponsored" and "became law."

[MADem]

164. So? You do realize that not all co-sponsorships are simply "ME TOOs?"

She had leadership positions in the Senate, and was on the CROWN JEWEL of committees, the SASC, because she did "nothing of significance?"



And look how long it took her to get there--she was like greased lightning. She has skills.

You might want to compare her list of pledged delegates to those of the other candidates, and re-calibrate.

I think you have much to learn.

[Vattel]

165. Yeah, she had the skills necessary to support the invasion of Iraq. I am dazzled.

She was so skillful, she managed to parrot all of Bush's bullshit about Al Qaeda operatives being harbored by Hussein, Hussein's active nuclear weapons program, and his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. And she even supported Bush's demand that Hussein leave Iraq or be invaded. I guess that is what you mean by doing something of significance that got her on the SASC. To me, that should have disqualified her from serving on that committee.

Sanders did great work on the Senate Veterans Committee, as you probably know, and he never supported the Iraq invasion. Clinton supporters on DU have offered a large number of pathetically dumb arguments trying to paint Sanders as a hawk too, and so you may want to dip into that bullshit in response to what I am saying. A little ILA here and F-22 there, and then add in some votes to fund the troops and PRESTO: Sanders is magically transformed into a Clintonesque hawk.

By the way, Sanders was also an original co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter legislation that became law in 2009. They both sponsored and co-sponsored a lot of good legislation in the Senate.

[MADem]

10. It's a dead horse that's getting a lot of play in the media, though.

O'Malley's use of "either" suggests to me that he tried to get HRC interested as well.

Perhaps he wanted Sanders to join him in convincing Clinton to band with them and ask DNC for more dates.

In any event, Sanders doesn't want to do it "either." That's the take-away from these reports.

[djean111]

11. And I am sure that is pleasing to you, as is the spate of OPs about this right here.

I do honestly believe that all this has done is make O'Malley look whiny or something. Shrug. We all take away what we are hoping for in the first place, here.
Fact remains - excoriating Bernie for following the DNC rules is just pathetic.

[MADem]

16. Now, now--no need to get personal.

11. And I am sure that is pleasing to you, as is the spate of OPs about this right here.

If you don't want to participate in the conversation, don't (the HIDE THREAD button works a treat)--but there's no need to try to make this about me.

My view of this gambit is that O'Malley was trying to persuade Sanders to join him to push Clinton into pressing for more contests, and Sanders wasn't interested "either."

[Dustlawyer]

12. Funny, in the last debate when O'Malley had an opportunity to join Bernie in discussing

how DWS and the DNC rigged things for Hillary he past it up and critisized both Bernie and Hillary for "bickering." He had the perfect opportunity to bring this up and chose not to.

[MADem]

17. Why do you think he's altered his approach? nt

[Dustlawyer]

19. Hard to say for sure. I would speculate that in the debate he chose to appear

"Above the fray." The DNC firewall mess made both Hillary and Bernie look bad so he chose to stay away. That's my take on it anyway.

I think he and Bernie are right, the DNC are in the tank for Hillary. He should have had the courage of his convictions to press the issue.

[MADem]

20. Howard Dean says that they said the same thing about him.

He was running the DNC when Clinton and Obama were locked in battle in 08, and he says he was scrupulously fair. That didn't stop people from insisting that he favored one candidate over another.

He believes that the charges during this contest are unfounded as well.

[Dustlawyer]

26. And he supports Hillary.

[Dustlawyer]

59. Welcome to DU!

It's a little divided at the moment, but still a great place to be as far as I am concerned.

[MADem]

60. He supports her now--he didn't back then. nt

[stillwaiting]

43. It really makes me wonder just what O'Malley was trying to do here with Bernie.

O'Malley knew damn well what the consequences would be if Bernie and O'Malley did what O'Malley proposed.

I just can't shake the feeling that O'Malley's entire purpose was to knock out Sanders. For Clinton.

This episode certainly strengthens that perception for me.

[PyaarRevolution]

135. Suspicion

I suspect that if Bernie followed MOM's tack then he would've let Sanders open his mouth, keep his shut and see Sanders frozen out of the debate.
Bernie might not play dirty but the others will.

[NobodyHere]

107. Who the honestly care about future DNC debates w/o Sanders and MOM?

They would be rendered moot and Hilary could talk to an empty chair for two hours for all we care.

[upaloopa]

3. I never thought Bernie supporters represented what Bernie stands for.

He isn't a rabid Hillary hater.

These folks here are not following Bernie. Rather they have an agenda and he happens to be the most convenient method of putting their agenda on stage for a few months.

None of what is said about Hillary here comes from Bernie's campaign. It's as if his followers here never even pay attention to what he is saying but use his running for president to bad mouth Hillary. That lets DU be open season on Hillary until the nomination. It invites wing nuts to join in the Hillary bashing.

They wanted Warren but she is too smart to be their mouth piece. So Bernie and they are both mutually beneficial to each other. He gives them a platform and they give him more attention with their money than he could ever get on progressive talk radio.

[nc4bo]

6. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Dec 30, 2015, 06:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I never thought Bernie supporters represented what Bernie stands for.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=959046

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"These folks here are not following Bernie." Broadbrushing all supporters and accusing them of having an agenda contrary to Democratic Underground.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 30, 2015, 07:07 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree with the post but can't squash the person's opinion.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The grapes must be sour as hell at Camp Clinton. Let 'em lash out and blame the grapes instead of the soil the vine was planted in.

[MADem]

9. Why are people alerting on opinions?

Why couldn't the alerter just challenge the poster on that POV?

I could see if the poster said "All Sanders supporters on DU are (insert insult)" -- that would be rude and hurtful, but this comment is just an expression of perspective that is best challenged--if not refuted-- with an exchange of ideas.

A case can be made that at least some people (Key word there is SOME, jurors~!) purporting to support their favored candidate aren't doing very much to bring people over to supporting the campaign, and in fact, aren't helping to open hearts or minds.

[upaloopa]

14. Maybe some opinions are too close to the truth.

We are about to start the new year. The primaries will be over soon. We will know by March that Hillary will be the nominee. All the anti Hillary stuff will not change that.

I like to tell it as it is.

[Cha]

21. 'cause they're lazy.

[Perogie]

38. Pot meet Kettle

[Cha]

40. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.. I don't even alert.

[tonedevil]

129. Just because you don't alert...

doesn't mean your "debate" style isn't lazy.

[Cha]

132. Like I said.. no idea what you're talking about.

[Doctor_J]

103. Is this a joke?

Why are people alerting on opinions?

"It's my opinion that Hillary and all of her minions are lying, pandering right-wing racists"

Are you saying such sentiments shouldn't be alerted? You guys are just like your candidate - new rules every time you feel like it.

[MADem]

105. Hell, when you're talking about Clinton, there's no point in alerting--the eighty percent of Sanders

supporters here would vote to leave that and squawk that you were trying to stifle free expression. The TOS is the thing that most people who have joined here (or re-joined) since June can't be bothered to read.

OTOH, if you say "Bernie looks a little haggard and tired looking in that photo" out come the fangs, the claws and the punch-the-button-to-alert "brigade." And that'll prevail.

DU, in terms of candidate support, is Opposite World.

[Amimnoch]

33. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

I just LOVED the irony in "accusing them of having an agenda contrary to Democratic Underground."

There are so many things I could say about the irony of a disciple of St. Bernard making that kind of comment.. but I can't think of any that wouldn't actually be hide worthy. So.. I'll just sit back and laugh my ass off at that comment and hold my tongue.

[Dustlawyer]

22. Not all Bernie supporters are bad and not all Hillary supporters are angels.

We are all Americans, good, bad, and indifferent. Every candidate has snarky supporters. To think otherwise is ridiculous. This election is not taking place in a vacume. I have had some pretty stinky crap thrown at me by Hillary supporters, so you cannot put her supporters on a pedestal and lump all of Bernie's supporters together as bad.

Pointing out differences between the candidates is part of the process. Holding them accountable for their statements and actions while in public office is fair game, not bashing. Supporters of both sides need to stick to the issues and the candidate's records.

[upaloopa]

23. Look at your avatar.

Bernie is no Che Guevara. He isn't even in the same league. To me that is the first lie.

Then there is all the made up crap about Hillary that does not constitute fact and is called a discussion of issues. That is the second and biggest lie.

Bernie's campaign is not about starting a revolution that is the third lie.

[Dustlawyer]

28. When you fail to acknowledge the truth about your own candidate, and constantly attack

the other candidate and their supporters, you lose credibility.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Exactly.

To elect a President, no matter who the candidate is their electorate will contain both the best and the worst of humanity. It's millions of people, so that means some of each sort, for each candidate.

[FSogol]

32. You nailed it. Look at the number of times in the debate where Sanders agreed with HRC and O'Malley

[treestar]

57. I agree. The same people always finding President Obama in the wrong

are the same ones who wanted Warren and the same ones who are now all for Bernie. They are not for Bernie in any fashion. If he hadn't run, O'Malley would have them all. They are merely anti-Democratic.

And Warren is a real Democrat now, so it would be tougher had she run to make up the conspiracy about the party favoring Hillary.

[stonecutter357]

5. K&R!

[stonecutter357]

7. O’Malley doesn't even know Sanders. If he did well.......

[Scuba]

13. It's just "Third Way" O'Malley doing his job.

[MADem]

18. Do go on. You're suggesting he's playing a role? nt

[NurseJackie]

24. All things considered, especially how Hillary's poll numbers rise after each debate ...

... it's little wonder that Bernie is content with the debate schedule. I'm sure he's tired of pivoting.

[Amimnoch]

29. Now now, you're only citing the official, and scientific polls... the ones with established history.

Quit ignoring the online polls.. you know the same ones that, if they were at all correct we'd have had Ron Paul as President in 2008.

[CoffeeCat]

30. Hillary is losing in the most important polls

She is tanking in Iowa. And we have state-by-state primaries. Not a national primary.

Sanders has closed the gap. He's within 5 now, and we've got a month remaining. He's got momentum in Iowa, due to his large crowds and Hillary's incredibly low attendance numbers. There appears to be very little enthusiasm in the state for her. The final push in Iowa will only highlight that Sanders has the energy and enthusiasm, and Clinton--not so much. When Sanders draws 10,000+ to his rallies and the Clinton camp struggles to fill the chairs in a high-schooo gym, how do you think those optics will affect her "inevitability" meme--the foundation on which her entire campaign is built?

She's most likely going to lose Iowa. And it could be a big loss. And she'll lose NH. This is a better start than Obama had.

She may be winning in all national polls (and so was Obama) but those polls mean nothing. As the campaigns face off in each state, that inevitability (along with her polls) will erode.

It's happened in Iowa.

It's happened in NH.

It will happen in additional states.

[NurseJackie]

34. Wait, wait ... let me guess ... "Just like 2008" ?? :-D

[CoffeeCat]

37. The trajectory is nearly identical to 2008

but I would say that it is much worse for Clinton time time round, because this is her second time running.

We've "been there, done that" and still she's going to lose the first two states.

The dynamics are exactly the same, but they appear worse.

I never imagined that Sanders would have closed the gap to only 5 points, with a month remaining until the Iowa caucuses.

It's better than 2008.

[NurseJackie]

39. Okay.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Obama had a three point lead in IA at this point in 08. Sanders has a 13 point deficit.

Obama had a three point lead in IA at this point in 08. Sanders has a 13 point deficit.

Please feel free to check my math:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html#polls



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

[NurseJackie]

47. :-) <3

[CoffeeCat]

55. According to the latest CBS/YouGov poll

Sanders is only behind by 5.

Yes, Obama was up a few points at this point, but Sanders is rising quicker and Clinton's support is eroding faster..

Sanders started out at .8 in Iowa. Clinton at 60.

A few weeks ago, the Iowa Poll showed Sanders trailing by only 9 (51/42). CBS now shows a 5-point gap (50/45).

There are also other signs that Clinton is not doing well in Iowa. Her crowd numbers are atrocious. Barely anyone seems interested in her campaign. She had much stronger interest, bigger crowds and more enthusiasm in 2008.

As we get closer to the caucus, Bernie is amassing support and enthusiasm and Clinton is losing it. She's got a big challenge ahead of her--stem the tide of support leaving her and going to Bernie.

A significant sign that Iowans were looking for someone else to support, besides Clinton, in 2008. Sanders is emerging as that candidate in Iowa.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. I cited aggregate polling

I cited aggregate polling :


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.htm


If you want to cherry pick polls Senator Sanders is losing by eighteen points in the last Iowa poll released:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-iowa-polling-3/

[CoffeeCat]

67. Aggregate polling is bunk

and it's an unreliable way to measure current Iowa support--because the political landscape is rapidly changing.

We're entering the critical phase in Iowa. The campaigns heat up and voters are fully engaged. So much has changed here in the past two weeks.

I don't cherry pick polls, but I do look at reliable, science-based polls that are the most accurate. The Iowa Poll and the CBS/YouGov are two polls that are follow science-based methodology. Both start with registered Iowa voters. Then they ask, "How likely is it that you will caucus?" If they're likely caucus goers, the pollster obtains data from those who will caucus for Democrats. This captures data from first-time caucus goers, younger voters and Independents in Iowa--who make up the largest voting block on Iowa.

Many of the polls included in your aggregate are faulty. They exclude Iowa Independents and those who have never caucused.

I don't waste my time with unreliable polling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. If you believe

Aggregate polling is bunk

If you believe averaging all the polls is a less reliable method of predicting election results than relying on the one or two polls that confirms your biases there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.


Here is a link that can help you inform yourself of the difference between cherry picking polls and looking at the aggregate and the respective efficacy of the two approaches:

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations are considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).

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

Aggregate polling is the most reliable predictor of election results and Senator Sanders is trailing by fifteen point in Iowa:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary

Iowa should be Senator Sanders' wheelhouse. It is sparsely populated, predominately rural, and homogeneous.

[CoffeeCat]

75. I think aggregate polling is fine for national poll

and polls in states where primaries aren't imminent.

When you've got a state that is in complete flux, because the campaigns are in 4th gear--with incessant television ads, multiple rallies happening daily, nonstop media coverage, phone calling and canvassing campaigns--and the media camped out and covering politics 24/7--then aggregate polling is outdated.

Polls from two weeks, three weeks, ten days ago--are irrelevant in Iowa, when so much changes during this crazy time.

I'm not cherry picking. I'm doing the exact opposite.

I sat down and read the methodology from many of the polls. So much is complete bunk. I like to know where the candidates actually stand, by reading reliable polls. Not bullshit from lazy pollsters who don't know what a valid poll sample is.

I waited for weeks, for Selzer's Iowa Poll--because she's got a sterling reputation. An A+ rating from Nate Silver; an honor he's only give to three pollsters out of hundreds. I trust Nate Silver. CBS uses the same methods as Selzer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. The aggregate polling

The aggregate polling includes all the polls but only includes the most recent polls in their averages:



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary

I waited for weeks, for Selzer's Iowa Poll--because she's got a sterling reputation. An A+ rating from Nate Silver; an honor he's only give to three pollsters out of hundreds. I trust Nate Silver. CBS uses the same methods as Selzer.

-Coffee Cat

Nate SilverVerified account
‏@NateSilver538
BTW, Selzer is the best pollster in the country, according to 538's ratings:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ …
Still, just one poll. No poll is magic.

I sat down and read the methodology from many of the polls. So much is complete bunk.

-Coffee Cat

Exactly, you cherry picked the polls that confirmed your biases:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

I trust Nate Silver. CBS uses the same methods as Selzer.

Coffee Cat

Ummm, no... Nate Silver aggregates polls and Selzer does a conventional landline/cellphone poll. CBS/YouGov does some weird hybrid where they combine the results from opt in (anybody can vote) polls with landline calling. Don't take DemocratSinceBirth's word for it. Verify it:

The CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker is a panel study based on interviews conducted on the internet of registered voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The poll was conducted by YouGov, an online polling organization.

The first wave was fielded between September 3-10, 2015, with 4,860 respondents, and the second wave fieldwork was completed between October 15-22, 2015, with 3,952 respondents and the third wave between November 15-19, 2015. The fourth wave was fielded between December 13-17, 2015. The majority of the 2nd-4th wave respondents are recontacted panelists. Respondents were selected from YouGovs and two other online panels. These are “opt-in” panels which are open for anyone to join. However, YouGov also randomly selected persons from voter registration lists who had previously voted in primary elections and contacted them by phone.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/methodology-2016-cbs-news-battleground-tracker/

If you are a fan of Nate as I am , you can read his book, as I did:






His whole argument rests on the premise that the more information you include in a prediction the more accurate it is. Cherry picking information that confirms your biases turns that premise on its head.

[CoffeeCat]

89. I probably am cherry picking.

You're right. I am cherry picking.

I only rely on the most recent Iowa polls that have stellar, science-based methodologies.

Guilty as charged.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. Your words

Your words:

I trust Nate Silver. CBS uses the same methods as Selzer.

-Coffee Cat

Bloomberg/Selzer methodology

Methodology
Dec 12 (Bloomberg) — The Iowa Poll, conducted December 7-10 for Bloomberg Politics and The Des Moines Register
by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 400 registered Iowa voters who say they definitely
or probably will attend the 2016 Republican caucuses and 404 registered voters who say they definitely or probably will
attend the 2016 Democratic caucuses.
Interviewers contacted 2,635 randomly selected active voters from the Iowa secretary of state’s voter registration list by
telephone. Responses were adjusted by age, sex, and congressional district to reflect all active voters in the voter
registration list.
Questions based on the subsamples of 404 likely Democratic caucus attendees or 400 likely Republican caucus attendees
each have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were
repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the
percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of
respondents—such as by gender or age—have a larger margin of error.
Republishing the copyright Iowa Poll without credit to Bloomberg Politics and The Des Moines Register is prohibited

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r64LeSt1xPPk

CBS/YougGov Methodology

The CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker is a panel study based on interviews conducted on the internet of registered voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The poll was conducted by YouGov, an online polling organization.

The first wave was fielded between September 3-10, 2015, with 4,860 respondents, and the second wave fieldwork was completed between October 15-22, 2015, with 3,952 respondents and the third wave between November 15-19, 2015. The fourth wave was fielded between December 13-17, 2015. The majority of the 2nd-4th wave respondents are recontacted panelists. Respondents were selected from YouGovs and two other online panels. These are “opt-in” panels which are open for anyone to join. However, YouGov also randomly selected persons from voter registration lists who had previously voted in primary elections and contacted them by phone.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/methodology-2016-cbs-news-battleground-tracker/

Your words, again:

I think aggregate polling is fine for national poll

and polls in states where primaries aren't imminent.

When you've got a state that is in complete flux, because the campaigns are in 4th gear--with incessant television ads, multiple rallies happening daily, nonstop media coverage, phone calling and canvassing campaigns--and the media camped out and covering politics 24/7--then aggregate polling is outdated.

-Coffee Cat

The Selzer Poll you are hanging your hat on is three weeks old.


http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r64LeSt1xPPk

Two questions:

Does CBS/You Gov use the same methodology as Selzer as you claimed or do they not?

(and)


How can a three week old poll still be accurate in a race "that is in complete flux" as you claimed?

Thank you in advance.

[MADem]

45. Apparently, that's part of the reason why Sanders doesn't want

more debates, according to the NYT!
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/29/top-bernie-sanders-aide-rankles-those-in-and-out-of-campaign/

As for the Sanders campaign’s approach to the party committee, people briefed on the flap about the number of debates believe that Mr. Sanders has fed on outrage against the D.N.C. that was created by others, not his own team, in efforts to deal with the data issue. These people described Mr. Sanders’ team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.

Mr. Briggs denied that claim. But in an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday morning, Martin O’Malley, the low-polling Democrat who has pushed the hardest for more debates, seemed to confirm that Mr. Sanders had not been aggressively seeking to buck the party establishment.

“I asked Senator Sanders” to do more, said Mr. O’Malley. “Senator Sanders didn’t want to do more debates either. He kind of liked where it is.”

[Historic NY]

56. Deflection attention to benefit ones self...

I've seen some of his debates from VT. There was just no way to sustain the rigors of the 08 debate schedule here.

[Rose Siding]

82. Well he is a politician, and Hillary excels at debates

These people described Mr. Sanders’ team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.

[redstateblues]

113. Hit the nail on the head

Wasn't Bernie bitching about the amount of debates? Now since his numbers have gone down after every debate he's ok with 6

[SunSeeker]

27. K & R

[zalinda]

35. While O'Malley was my second choice

he certainly has gone down a notch in my opinion. I mean, there were things that I really didn't like about him, like his singing. I'm sure many Bernie supporters had given him a pass, but would have wanted to see him run again, but O'Malley may have just signed his death knell to his next run for President. I'm sure we'll see many more 'youngsters' popping up in the next 10 years or so, who won't shoot themselves in the foot.

Z

[Gloria]

41. K & R....

EOM

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. As an O'Malley supporter ...

my one source of disappointment in his running (beyond his lacking numbers, which I don't think he has much control over, as no one is listening to him) is his agreeing to abide by the Exclusivity Clause, precluding unsanctioned debates, and then complaining about the number of sanctioned debates. It showed a rare instance of a lack of foresight.

What attorney would agree, or advise someone, to give up something without knowing they could live with what they were getting? In this case, no competent attorney would agree to, or advise a client to sign, an exclusivity/non-compete clause, without being satisfied with the number of sanctioned debates.

So I think, both, O'Malley and Bernie, are/were being disingenuous in their complaining about the number of events. In the best case, they thought they would be polling better; but, in the worst case ... neither, thought about it.

[MADem]

48. That IS a fair point, and is similar to the comments by Howard Dean on the subject.

If ya don't like the rules, don't agree to 'em.

Of course, a lot of this stuff is just an effort to grab the news cycle, but it is interesting how there's a lot of push foreward/pull back on this issue.

I think if we had a dozen candidates, there might be a point for more debates--but with three candidates, that's plenty of time to have a say. And it's not like you can't pull the debates up with a few clicks, if you just had to watch football instead, or whatever.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Again, it would seem if one has to agree to exclusivity ...

the first, in a long list of questions/assurances would be: how many debates (I believe I will need to get my message across); The timing of the debates; The location of the debates (at least one of which to be held in one of my strong holds); and, who will be the sponsors of the debates. The time to negotiate these things is before signing the agreement.

[MADem]

68. That would be the sensible thing to do! nt

[AgingAmerican]

49. OMalley is sounding desperate

So much for him running a 'clean' campaign.

[restorefreedom]

52. at this point, bernie has momentum

and does not want to risk getting tossed out of the remaining debates for being in an unsanctioned one. OM has had little national exposure and is being largely ignored my m$m, so he has less to lose by participating in any debate. he needs people to know who the hell he is and what he is about.

this is not a war between om and sanders. its just both sides doing tactically what is best for their candidate.

the hillary camp would like nothing better than to see two candidates who have coexisted quite well up to now at each others throats over a non story. meanwhile, the horrible policy positions and huge judgement errors of hrc just slip on by.

lets try and remember what is really important. this dustup will pass quickly. the corporate owned oligarchy will not.

[MADem]

54. That's not what NYT and others are saying, though.

What they are saying is that Sanders has ALWAYS been fine with the debate schedule, and that debates are not his strong suit, so he was never pushing for more debates in the first place.

The only ones pushing for more debates were his supporters.

That was fine, to create an 'aggrieved, underdog, victim' kind of meme, but O'Malley kind of popped the bubble with this latest move--which has made public the revelation that Sanders was opposed to any change to the schedule. It doesn't grow his support, these debates-- in fact, the one who gets the most benefit from it is Clinton, who always gets a bump after one of those things. It makes sense that he doesn't want more, if they aren't helping him any, and they are helping his opponent.

[restorefreedom]

63. he spoke out publicly several times calling for more debates

he may not be doing so now as much becsuse he realizes it is a futile exercise and needs to focus on campaigning.

he did very well in the debates but doesn't need them as much as Om for exposure,

and fwiw, i do not hold the nyt as a paragon of truth. not anymore.

[MADem]

66. His staff said he didn't mean it, that the debate format didn't help him.

They were right about that--the polls pretty much bear that out. Clinton always gets a bump.

If you don't believe the NYT, is MOM lying, too?

[riversedge]

73. So, Sanders can demand more debates publicly--then staff later says he does not mean it. ha hs.

Whow. that is quite the set up! Sanders gets the public all riled up against the DNC --not once but twice! (the data snooping)

[MADem]

77. It's definitely a curious situation.

All the pot-stirring and hot breathed rhetoric...it's like watching a soap opera!

I'm kind of amused to find out that the opposite (that he did NOT want more debates) was true.


As others have pointed out, though, why sign a DNC agreement that says one is OK with a DNC debate schedule if one doesn't actually agree to it?

There does seem to be an element of posturing going on here.

[riversedge]

78. He gets his base all riled up but what must they think of him now?? For weeks he

let this go on and on. Very dishonest in my book.

[R B Garr]

122. Yes, it does look like this is yet another gimmick

to maintain his perpetual victim status. It is quite calculated and dishonest.

[riversedge]

123. Bernie must love being the victim

[restorefreedom]

83. i am not suggesting the nyt always lies

but every media outfit has an agenda of some sort, that's just reality.

i honestly don't care anymore about the "controversy" of the debates. bernie is doing well at his rallies. mom is the one hurt the most by lack of expousre which is really a shame since he has great ideas. and even the few debates he got less speaking time than the others.

[MADem]

148. You'd think there'd be some blowback from the BS campaign if there was any "lying" in that

article, though--and they haven't said a single, solitary word. There's been plenty of time for them to formulate a statement, too.

It's not like his staff is afraid to go on the attack, like what happened when they were defending themselves against charges of cheating. They completely ignored the accusations against the staffers who wrongly accessed data, and then tried to blame the victims of the breach.

[restorefreedom]

150. i think at this point bernie is focusing on campaigning

rallies, meet and greet, etc.

he has accepted the schedule and is moving on to tasks he can actually affect, unlike the schedule, which appears to be a lost cause

thats my take, anyway

[MADem]

151. I think the source was telling the simple truth--those debates are NOT his strength.

Affecting a desire for more debates and transmitting that to a fan base that likes the whole "underdog" meme was useful for as long as they could play it--but once MOM wanted to team up and push for more, all of a sudden it became a bad idea.

If every time you debate, your opponent gains a few points, it's probably a good idea to stop making an issue of "more debates." I think that's what the bottom line is, here.

[restorefreedom]

153. then that is a campaign decision for them

to fight it or not. MOM is really the one who is getting screwed by the schedule, he really needs more exposure.

[MADem]

155. MOM is toast. He didn't get enough valid signatures to get on the Ohio ballot.

That's a major primary--if he wants to be a player he's got to play in that game. When "Rocky de la Fuente" (who ever the hell THAT is) can gather enough signatures to appear on that very same ballot, you've got to figure that MOM is on the ropes, organizationally.

See: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/12/martin_omalley_fails_to_make_o.html

He lacked organization and he just couldn't seem to resonate with voters. He didn't work the Sunday talkers or the Late Nights in order to gain free/cheap exposure.

He's a nice enough fellow, but he wasn't really offering any sort of vision that was definable in any way. What he does have that sets him apart is youth, good looks, and musical ability, but those aren't in particular demand this cycle.

[restorefreedom]

156. he has some good positions

but maybe this just wasn't the cycle for him. he is young, though...he has plenty of time to do this again.

"What he does have that sets him apart is youth, good looks, and musical ability, but those aren't in particular demand this cycle."

*snort*

[tonedevil]

131. You have a quote...

from a staff member saying that? What is the name of this staff member?

[MADem]

140. Obviously, that person would be fired if they spoke on the record.

Affected naivete is not an asset in this instance.

You surely know this.

[tonedevil]

146. Thank you for showing...

your very empty hand.

[MADem]

147. What, pray tell, does that even mean?

I am not a reporter for the NYT, and I didn't write the article that is referenced.

Those sorts of "Internet Tough Guy" comments don't speak very well for you. The one with the "very empty hand" is you--and if you really have an issue with the reporting of the NYT, you had best not ever use them as a source, for any reason, here--else you look hypocritical.

[tonedevil]

152. I don't know...

where the "Internet Tough Guy" thing comes from as I don't see any threats in any thing I've written. Preemptively calling someone out for possible future hypocrisy is down right hilarious though.

[tazkcmo]

62. Or

Irrelevant candidate remains irrelevant.

[Adrahil]

74. Well, i don't see that Sanders benefits from "rogue" debates...

The debates have not benefitted him to any really measureable extenet. I think he thinks his hope in a slow and steady effort benefits him best. He will li,ely win New Hampshire, and could win Iowa too, if he is luck. If he does that, he hopes his message resonates beyond his current base. That's his only plausible path to victory. Thee is no benefit in cutting himself completely off from the mainstream viters he needs to win over. O'malley, otoh, needs a Hail Mary. His numbers are barely there, and he needs something dramatic to have any hope at all. Right now, his hop is in supplanting Sanders as the Clinton-alternative candidate, which is a real stretch, IMO.

[MoonRiver]

76. Bawahaha

Much ado about nothing, as usual!

[GeorgeGist]

84. Surprised you fell for this tripe.

[MADem]

99. What tripe? It appears that O'Malley is making a play to raise the debate issue. That's the topic.

As an aside, it also appears that the Sanders team (despite all the hectoring from supporters insisting otherwise) does not actually WANT more debates, as they aren't doing Sanders any good. The one who gets the bump is Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/29/top-bernie-sanders-aide-rankles-those-in-and-out-of-campaign/?_r=0

[elleng]

102. Howard Dean raised the 'debate issue,'

O'Malley answered his question.

[MADem]

111. Nooooo. O'Malley is trying to gin up support for more debates.

He's not getting it from EITHER candidate, who -- both of them, mind you (notwithstanding what some fans are saying) -- are apparently comfortable with the debate schedule outlined in the agreement that they both made with the DNC.

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/29/top-bernie-sanders-aide-rankles-those-in-and-out-of-campaign/?_r=0

As for the Sanders campaign’s approach to the party committee, people briefed on the flap about the number of debates believe that Mr. Sanders has fed on outrage against the D.N.C. that was created by others, not his own team, in efforts to deal with the data issue. These people described Mr. Sanders’ team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.

Mr. Briggs denied that claim. But in an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday morning, Martin O’Malley, the low-polling Democrat who has pushed the hardest for more debates, seemed to confirm that Mr. Sanders had not been aggressively seeking to buck the party establishment.

“I asked Senator Sanders” to do more, said Mr. O’Malley. “Senator Sanders didn’t want to do more debates either. He kind of liked where it is.”

[elleng]

112. NO DOUBT he would like more debates,

and the other 2 are satisfied (it appears) with dws/dnc status quo. TOO DAMN bad our 'democracy' has to settle for this.

[MADem]

114. Well, to be fair to ALCON, it's not like these candidates were unaware of the debate schedule before

they signed up to run. They all cut deals with the DNC and that was part and parcel of the agreement.

They might have said something before they entered the race, and then SAID they said something before now.

[Gothmog]

85. So far the debates have not helped Sanders

[MADem]

100. I know. The only one who gets a bump is HRC... nt

[Autumn]

86. Hillary supporters are fine with them too. Love the outrage

[MADem]

98. As are the Sanders crew--it's all Happy Families, apparently, save for O'Malley.

That's the point MOM was making.

As for the Sanders campaign’s approach to the party committee, people briefed on the flap about the number of debates believe that Mr. Sanders has fed on outrage against the D.N.C. that was created by others, not his own team, in efforts to deal with the data issue. These people described Mr. Sanders’ team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/29/top-bernie-sanders-aide-rankles-those-in-and-out-of-campaign/?_r=0

[Autumn]

104. O'Malley. Trying so hard to be relevant and Hillary supporters jumping on his Bad Bernie

bandwagon.

[MADem]

106. There's no "Bad Bernie Bandwagon." There's a "Gee, Bernie Let His Supporters Say One Thing,

Rather Vociferously, Too--While He In Fact Held a Different View" bandwagon. And it took O'Malley's fit of pique to bring all that out.

That's just INTERESTING.

It's not "good" or "bad" -- but it sure as hell is Politics As Usual!

[Autumn]

108. What's interesting is what O'Malley

says that Bernie says. I've seen this Castro before.

[MADem]

110. So you think that O'Malley is lying? nt

[Autumn]

115. Bernie and his supporters want more debates. Sanctioned debates.

I found it strange that O'Malley wants Bernie to go against the rules. I ask myself, what happens if Bernie does an unsanctioned debate and just who does that benefit? We all know what happens if the candidates do an unsanctioned debate. The only one that would benefit from Debs little punishment would be Hillary because O'Malley becomes more irrelevant by the day.

[MADem]

116. Not according to O'Malley-- or the NYT article that discusses this.

The article says Sanders is fine with the debates as they are, notwithstanding the ire of supporters, that debates are not his strength.

That's a fair point--HRC gets the lion's share of bumps from them.

I don't think O'Malley was going for unsanctioned debates. He was looking for support to press for more sanctioned ones.

He wanted to change the game half way through, and add more sanctioned ones, but no one, save him, is interested.

[Autumn]

120. You believe O'Malley. I'm going to trust Bernie.

The other candidates could say the sky is blue and i would look out the window to make sure. For a Hillary supporter you sure are hanging on and lapping up every word O'Malley says about this. So very transparent. Now you have a nice day because I have better things to do.

[MADem]

128. Given that BS has (carefully) said very little on the subject, it's hard to know what to "trust."

I think O'Malley isn't terribly successful as a POTUS candidate, but I don't think he's a liar. I've never made a secret of my preference, so I don't understand why you're going on about "So very transparent" like you've made a great discovery, or something.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, don't--but the and "Have a nice day" schtick is just an unnecessary display of pique.

[PowerToThePeople]

88. Fail.

[MADem]

96. Talk to O'Malley about that. This is his POV. nt

[Live and Learn]

91. O'Malley fine with breaking party rules. Sanders plays by rules.

There, your OP title is fixed.

[MADem]

95. Did you even click the link? It's not "MY" OP title. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

94. O'Malley's last stand

[MADem]

117. Probably. The only question is, does he drop out after IA, or does he

hang on for another week for the knockout in Nashua? Either way it does look like he's close to the end of his run, absent a miracle.

[Doctor_J]

101. Thanks for posting this

I missed it the first 18 times. are you trying to get people to put you on ignore?

[MADem]

109. Go right ahead. Not sure why you think you're "punishing" me.

Go use that IGNORE tool if you feel you must--don't wave it like a threat because it's not--if you don't want to talk to me, fine, just don't.

Look, if you don't want to discuss or see a topic, there's a thing called HIDE THREAD that works a treat.

I can't help but be amused that you suddenly and rather dramatically noticed EIGHTEEN whole threads (gasp) on the topic at nearly eleven PM eastern time, but this particular thread has been up on this board since SIX FORTY THREE AM eastern time this morning.

So yeah, whatever.

Thanks for posting this deep personal concern!

[riversedge]

133. Your post is a HOOT.

[Jarqui]

127. I think O'Malley needs to focus on getting the required number of real

signatures for him to get on state ballots and leave the BSing to Trump.

The Sanders campaign has stated repeatedly they'd like to debate Hillary.

Just because O'Malley is too stupid to realize or too dishonest to reveal that debating Sanders without Hillary would allow Hillary off the hook for any further debates, doesn't mean the rest of us should fall for such nonsense.

[senz]

130. And even as he said this, O'Malley knew what was coming

what just happened in Ohio.

I strongly suspect he's had to make some hard choices lately and chose to sacrifice his 2016 chances for long-term political survival. Which could have entailed saying what he said with Dean.

Can the rest of us fight this thing?

[MADem]

134. He wasn't making any friends at the last debate. Not sure he's looking at any "cabinet position"

after some of the comments he made. He's going to have a hard time finding work IN government, unless he's already worked something out.

Maybe he's looking for a media gig--either as a pundit or a talk show host.

[mr_liberal]

154. Sanders isnt really trying to win.

Thats why he doesn't want more debates. He's doing what Hillary wants because he knows she's going to be the nominee. He doesn't want to create division in the party and hurt her chances in the GE.

[MADem]

157. I think you're right on that score.

Why burn a bridge, too--when there's a shot at a cabinet post? Secretary of Labor would be a good fit for him, and it would provide the DNC an opportunity to put a fresh face into the VT delegation that they could depend on for the next three or four Senate cycles, providing that candidate delivered and resonated.

We need new blood in the firm, and that's one way to do it!