General Discussion

aspirant

(3,533 posts)

189. Why not have

Thu May 7, 2015, 11:35 AM

May 2015

the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Unions have 6 debates each and invite all the candidates with the stipulation that if you don't participate the American people will know you are not supportive of these groups.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

190 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did You Guys Catch The "Exclusivity Clause" For The 2016 Democratic Debates ??? [View all] WillyT May 2015 OP

Nothing like 'monopoly.' elleng May 2015 #1

So am I Andy823 May 2015 #8

Me Too !!! WillyT May 2015 #18

As if $2B isn't enough. delrem May 2015 #2

The Goal... 2.5 Billion $$$... And Yeah... You'd Think That Would Be More Than Enough WillyT May 2015 #20

I hate giving clicks to HufPo hootinholler May 2015 #3

Hint: "disadvantageous to candidates who have relatively low name-recognition" arcane1 May 2015 #7

She has Spoken: Jackpine Radical May 2015 #41

I'm glad I was sitting down when I read this unexpected news. arcane1 May 2015 #52

Yes, I really should have broken it more gently. Jackpine Radical May 2015 #56

LOL Hissyspit May 2015 #180

I think a few people will understand why I won't vote for her. JDPriestly May 2015 #95

Or, the DNC was on board with her plan. Either way... merrily May 2015 #101

Yep MissDeeds May 2015 #40

I don't agree that this benefits one candidate. Agschmid May 2015 #63

Of course it does. Jim Lane May 2015 #103

Good!!! Thespian2 May 2015 #172

I am hoping that someone other than corp-media gets to put on a debate. Maybe Democracy Now rhett o rick May 2015 #105

Racked your brain and can't think if a single reason AtomicKitten May 2015 #123

Well, if you're a person with good ideas, christx30 May 2015 #161

Who knows? What business sulphurdunn May 2015 #181

I know. They think I'm clicking for side boob pics. Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #190

This is absolute bullshit and needs to be challenged Bjorn Against May 2015 #4

Agreed !!! WillyT May 2015 #17

Challenged! I agree. Enthusiast May 2015 #132

Not very democratic. PowerToThePeople May 2015 #5

I don't think there's anything curious about the timing. The GOP post mortem for the 2012 okaawhatever May 2015 #6

Oh please. cui bono May 2015 #9

Oh, so you support going so far left you're unelectable in the general? Great idea. Can't think of a okaawhatever May 2015 #10

No, I support going left enough to get the people excited about voting again. cui bono May 2015 #12

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT May 2015 #15

Exactly what I've been thinking. This "contract" is dangerous BS AikidoSoul May 2015 #174

Wait, are you really saying hootinholler May 2015 #57

No, what I'm saying is to adopt policies that are popular with the majority of the voting okaawhatever May 2015 #58

Sanders supporters are not the "rabid ultra left base". cui bono May 2015 #182

Well, Andy823 May 2015 #11

according to TRMS.... Sheepshank May 2015 #147

The Timing... Who Knows... The Amount Of Debates And The Number Of Candidates... WillyT May 2015 #13

I don't think the timing and number of debates is the only important point. The participants GoneFishin May 2015 #39

The Republicans want to limit debates because they need to limit exposure jeff47 May 2015 #30

because read that sentence about name recognition again, that's why.. Volaris May 2015 #79

, 2banon May 2015 #50

Me too. Agschmid May 2015 #64

Come off it. It's very obvious what this is. Marr May 2015 #89

Yeah, I guess they realize she's not up to the challenge. n/t winter is coming May 2015 #141

Now someone's finally making sense. Six debates is plenty. No sane voter pnwmom May 2015 #110

Did you watch all 26 Democratic debates in 2008? jeff47 May 2015 #137

exactly, Rachel Maddow covered this in great detail last evening. nt La Lioness Priyanka May 2015 #159

"exclusivity does no one any favors" panader0 May 2015 #14

If A "Non-Sanctioned" Debate Were To Erupt During The Campaig Trail... WillyT May 2015 #16

I get that. panader0 May 2015 #19

Totally Agree... WillyT May 2015 #22

The DNC would have the authority to refuse to let a candidate into a DNC debate jeff47 May 2015 #26

The participants negotiate the terms of the Dem debates. This can mean limiting certain types GoneFishin May 2015 #49

Do you mean a conversation between candidates... Agschmid May 2015 #65

How many organized conversations aspirant May 2015 #160

Oh hey! Agschmid May 2015 #165

Odd or even,which is better? aspirant May 2015 #167

Well, let's say the Des Moines Register wants to hold a debate jeff47 May 2015 #24

Great Point !!! WillyT May 2015 #28

I can't understand why the DNC would want sanctions panader0 May 2015 #31

Well, scared of something is the only reason I can think of. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #32

You'd almost think they were trying to limit the amount of time candidates spend together winter is coming May 2015 #140

The DNC doesn't want exposure given to lesser-known candidates arcane1 May 2015 #157

Who would want to limit the venues, voices, and opportunities for questions & substantive discussion? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #21

One Would Think... WillyT May 2015 #23

Right. hay rick May 2015 #76

The only way to get around it it is to stay away from Exilednight May 2015 #25

Interesting... And Diabolical... WillyT May 2015 #27

Interesting idea. Jackpine Radical May 2015 #43

This is exactly what should happen. nt woo me with science May 2015 #60

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #61

I think it is time to shake the two parties up by hosting web debates that the two parties liberal_at_heart May 2015 #69

Excellent idea dreamnightwind May 2015 #113

Over 40% of this country druidity33 May 2015 #173

Or for everyone to participate in te same unsanctioned debate Renew Deal May 2015 #133

This was my first thought as well. bunnies May 2015 #156

Unfortunately, that would play right into their hands. Jim Lane May 2015 #179

guess the party's doubling down on acting like the MPAA? MisterP May 2015 #29

The RNC has a similar clause Gothmog May 2015 #33

Because we want fewer people to hear about our candidates? (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #34

Explain, please? SusanCalvin May 2015 #36

The RNC revised its rules so that candidates have to participate only in RNC sanctioned debates Gothmog May 2015 #42

But with few SusanCalvin May 2015 #45

What a bunch of bull SusanCalvin May 2015 #35

Pfft. You'd just vote wrong. jeff47 May 2015 #37

OMG! hootinholler May 2015 #59

Sorry, I just now got it. SusanCalvin May 2015 #175

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #38

Any word on who's writing the questions? LOL. n/t cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #44

Written exactly like a corporate non-compete agreement. Oh wait... whereisjustice May 2015 #46

Ouch MissDeeds May 2015 #47

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT May 2015 #54

exactly! liberal_at_heart May 2015 #70

So true. Such controlling obnoxiousness. nt stillwaiting May 2015 #135

What BS. What are they scared of? 7962 May 2015 #48

You wanna run as a Democrat, you play by their sandbox rules. msanthrope May 2015 #51

And when the DNC tries to add rules that obviously favor one candidate? (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #138

This avoids the "so and so didn't show up" posturing jberryhill May 2015 #53

Yes I did and I wonder what is going on with that. lovemydog May 2015 #55

Didn't Mean To Take Over Your Post... Anger Got The Better Of Me... WillyT May 2015 #62

Not at all WillyT. This deserves its own thread. lovemydog May 2015 #66

Word... WillyT May 2015 #67

I just looked up that quote. lovemydog May 2015 #71

It's a good quote. We do need more democracy. We need politicians who represent the people, liberal_at_heart May 2015 #106

Most definitely liberal_at_heart. lovemydog May 2015 #116

and yet some DUers will claim it is the voters fault for staying home. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #68

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #74

I was excited about watching the debates for once until now. Now they can forget it. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #77

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #81

The 1% will not give up their power without a fight that is for sure. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #82

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #86

There were more slaves on plantations than owners, yet they stay enslaved for decades. jtuck004 May 2015 #163

This pic nails it dreamnightwind May 2015 #119

yes it does. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #122

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #126

This is the kind of thing that would convince me not to vote for the "nominee". /nt Marr May 2015 #104

So, the arguments in favor of this so far appear to be: delrem May 2015 #72

I know whatchamacallit May 2015 #108

That's the DNC for you RoccoR5955 May 2015 #73

Absolute power corrupts absolutely! liberal_at_heart May 2015 #75

So they have ever done Bugenhagen May 2015 #85

For all the whining is its the Democrats that are hosting the debates... Historic NY May 2015 #78

and isn't it lovely how the party gets to control the process. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #80

Sorry perhaps he should run as an independant if he feels so strongly... Historic NY May 2015 #83

He was trying not to hurt the party by pulling votes away from the party but if this is the way the liberal_at_heart May 2015 #87

Well no independent has garnered more than 6.6 % of the popular vote... Historic NY May 2015 #90

You know what? The 40% that don't vote don't care that you think they gave the election to the liberal_at_heart May 2015 #91

I know that why this palce has disolved into KOAS.. Historic NY May 2015 #94

welcome to my ignore list. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #98

funny....... Historic NY May 2015 #100

It isn't debates hosted by third political parties (i.e. the Green party), Ms. Toad May 2015 #114

Bingo SusanCalvin May 2015 #177

Boy, you did a great job torching that strawman!!! jeff47 May 2015 #139

Really look at the list of debates from 2008....... Historic NY May 2015 #186

Yes, strawman. jeff47 May 2015 #188

Every other candidate should attend third party debates then. Let Hillary do a sad little monologue Marr May 2015 #84

yep. A coronation is what the party wants. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #88

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words May 2015 #92

The DNC would love that dreamnightwind May 2015 #125

Well, we're back to 1960s-like riots in cities. It's time to repeat the 1968 convention. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #142

That clause is just disgusting. JDPriestly May 2015 #93

must agree to do so exclusiveley, making them ineligible to participate in any debates organized by DJ13 May 2015 #96

That should be part of a no lobbying law anyway let alone for debates. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #97

I think that's the Nader Rule WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2015 #99

Nope. Nader was already excluded by not running for the Democratic nomination. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #143

Super delegates, coronation attempts, disadvantaging candidates with lower name recognition, merrily May 2015 #102

It should be no different than 2008 (or Republicans in 2012) IMO. phleshdef May 2015 #107

How many non-crazy people are going to watch more than 6 primary debates anyway? pnwmom May 2015 #109

Or, only have the opportunity to watch one or two CanadaexPat May 2015 #127

Or, only be interested in seeing them a few weeks before your state's primary. winter is coming May 2015 #145

Why would I watch an Iowa-centered debate? jeff47 May 2015 #144

Maybe, if O'Malley's worried he's an unknown, he should get the hell into the race pnwmom May 2015 #111

Democracy. The will of The People. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #112

It's more like the will of the media conglomerate and party leaders. I am so tired of liberal_at_heart May 2015 #115

Posted G_j May 2015 #117

The media may not get away with not reporting these protests this time around. The young liberal_at_heart May 2015 #118

I voted for her in 2012 Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #120

Thanks. I didn't know that. I almost voted for her in the last Presidential general election. liberal_at_heart May 2015 #121

She is very good G_j May 2015 #124

I did as well.[n/t] Maedhros May 2015 #164

So - Will We See Hillary Debate Herself - That Should Prove Amusing cantbeserious May 2015 #128

Huge K&R. Corrupt. woo me with science May 2015 #129

Typical neolibs trying to control access to information. 99Forever May 2015 #130

THIS SUCKS! Of course Hillary is on board with the DNC plan. Enthusiast May 2015 #131

What top-down, authoritarian, managed bullshit. Freedom! stillwaiting May 2015 #134

Rule 22: Ms. Clinton's podium must be at least three feet taller than the other podiums, Buns_of_Fire May 2015 #136

Some more jeff47 May 2015 #149

Flames added electronically by channel frylock May 2015 #170

FoxNews grabbed the exclusive broadcas rights (to BOTH party's debates) last time--has that changed? librechik May 2015 #146

Debate organized br corporate butt sniffers. JEB May 2015 #148

DNC = Beowulf42 May 2015 #150

O'Malley is right, plain & simple. K & R nt mother earth May 2015 #151

KnR nt chknltl May 2015 #152

"Controlled debates"...yeah, controlled by the DNC Left coast liberal May 2015 #153

This stinks to high heaven tularetom May 2015 #154

The operative word here is "controlled" nt fadedrose May 2015 #155

i think both parties made the exclusivity announcements, as per the Rachel Maddow from last night La Lioness Priyanka May 2015 #158

Third-Wayers keeping the republic Republican. nt valerief May 2015 #162

Yup, very true. BeanMusical May 2015 #166

O'Malley, Sanders, Webb and Chafee should contact the League of Women Voters. ieoeja May 2015 #168

It's now a Chicago-style machine, angling to gloss over weaknesses closeupready May 2015 #169

Good grief. Talk about restricting freedom of speech. This is ridiculous. DebJ May 2015 #171

And who would this help ??? orpupilofnature57 May 2015 #176

Of course Clinton is on board with the DNC plan aintitfunny May 2015 #178

Let the DLC play their games. They will just grease the skids for Bernie NorthCarolina May 2015 #183

WTF is the DNC up to now? blackspade May 2015 #184

Uhm so the DNC is anti free speech? Wow. L0oniX May 2015 #185

Huge K&R, and see this response by Dragonfli to this issue: woo me with science May 2015 #187

Why not have aspirant May 2015 #189