Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
26. Making a candidate ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups.
Sun May 31, 2015, 03:28 PM
May 2015

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Is the problem with the debates. Debates should be run by third party groups. You know, like the League of Women Voters. When that was the standard actual journalist who valued journalism asked questions. There was a panel of them. Different people, with different experiences, from different parts of the country, representing different news organizations. Having one hand picked, corporate hack, like Chuck "It's not my job" Todd asking questions is not my idea of staying informed.

These corporate network hacks would sell out the country for a parking space. Remember Russert asking Kucinich about UFOs? Remember Kalb (actually Shaw) asking Dukakis a death penalty question in the form of a rape fantasy of his wife? This is the level of debate we get from hand picked corporate hacks more interested in invites to DC cocktail parties than informing the American public.

And why oh why should any Democratic candidate be penalized for participating in a debate not sponsored by the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party shouldn't be sponsoring in the first place!

Recommendations

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

i am not outraged. i will listen to others, to see if there is a reason to be outraged. seabeyond May 2015 #1
Making a candidate ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups. ZX86 May 2015 #26
The LoWV only EVER sponsored debates for the GE. MohRokTah May 2015 #56
And why was that? ZX86 May 2015 #61
Which is why they NEVER get involved in primaries MohRokTah May 2015 #63
Non-partisan debates moderated by people ZX86 May 2015 #68
And those come AFTER THE PRIMARIES MohRokTah May 2015 #72
I want non-biased debates interested in informing voters. ZX86 May 2015 #83
And you get those in the GENERAL ELECTION! MohRokTah May 2015 #90
You're wrong on that point. ZX86 May 2015 #104
BULLSHIT!!!! MohRokTah May 2015 #107
Being loud doesn't make you right. ZX86 May 2015 #125
Being right does, though. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #126
Only a fool believes that corporate money ZX86 May 2015 #129
Only a fool ignores the fact that a Democraticc candidate who cannot raise eough money MohRokTah May 2015 #130
Plus one! Enthusiast Jun 2015 #190
Nor does repeating the same thing over again make you right. LanternWaste Jun 2015 #202
Bernie agrees with you - ZX86 RobertEarl May 2015 #114
Speaking truths to Americans on talking heads shows? oh, my. merrily May 2015 #132
Willing to argue anything that benefits Hillary, no matter how merrily May 2015 #127
Actually, I don't remember Kalb asking Dukakis that question... JHB May 2015 #151
I stand corrected. ZX86 May 2015 #159
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for the thread. Enthusiast Jun 2015 #189
you have to sort of see beyond, in order to see it.. :) 2banon May 2015 #46
ha ha. you are funny. i am sure we know each other well, but... i only remember seabeyond May 2015 #53
His petulance is a thing of peevish beauty LanternWaste Jun 2015 #203
Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #2
he's running for the Democratic nomination dlwickham May 2015 #3
Better question, why wouldn't you? Exilednight May 2015 #66
because this is the time to try and win over Democratic voters dlwickham May 2015 #148
One stone, two birds. Exilednight May 2015 #149
Let's start by replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of DNC NightWatcher May 2015 #4
I agree. She's doing a terrible job, LuvNewcastle May 2015 #133
How do more debates help the average working Democrat? brooklynite May 2015 #5
"Democrat Party" is the denigrating name Righwingnuts use for the DemocratIC Party. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #8
I know, that was a referral back to the OP. brooklynite May 2015 #16
I know, the OP has been told multiple times. MohRokTah May 2015 #20
When you have nothing else to say attack the messenger. I am an older FDR Democrat or should jwirr May 2015 #43
Democrats are members of the Democratic Party. MohRokTah May 2015 #54
Actually he was helping him.. "Democrat party" is what rw call us to denigrate. Cha May 2015 #162
More information is always better than less. ZX86 May 2015 #28
I want weekly debates on issues, nationally televised Carewfan May 2015 #33
What a completely revolting suggestion. MohRokTah May 2015 #39
Yeah, more money in politics is the solution. ZX86 May 2015 #45
It's the game we have. MohRokTah May 2015 #50
It's not a game. ZX86 May 2015 #64
It's more like a game than anything you can describe. MohRokTah May 2015 #67
It isn't playtime. ZX86 May 2015 #75
IT HAS RULES! MohRokTah May 2015 #77
I will not GTFO! ZX86 May 2015 #86
Then vent your anger on an internet messge board and have the same effect as... MohRokTah May 2015 #92
The post is about presidential debates. ZX86 May 2015 #100
The debates and rules are set. MohRokTah May 2015 #119
Or change rules. ZX86 May 2015 #122
Not gonna happen. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #123
Not with that attitude. ZX86 May 2015 #128
Money does determine the value of candidates in the United States. MohRokTah May 2015 #131
Who said anything about wishing? ZX86 May 2015 #135
Well for the 2016 capaign cycle, you ai't changin' it, so all that's left are wishes. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #137
why are you setting yourself crazy debating this person dlwickham May 2015 #150
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jun 2015 #191
WTF???? ?????? 2banon May 2015 #55
It's called "vetting". MohRokTah May 2015 #58
Your world utopia is a plutocracy apparently. what's the point in holding elections at all? 2banon May 2015 #79
No, my party vets the fund raising capabilites of the candidates. MohRokTah May 2015 #81
"Either they can raise funds and get their message out or they become an "also ran"." tularetom Jun 2015 #194
Love you putting words in my mouth. MohRokTah Jun 2015 #195
Here's some words right from your mouth, dude tularetom Jun 2015 #198
What is not true about what I said? MohRokTah Jun 2015 #199
Pro-Citizens United = supporter of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas.. Shouldn't he be a Repuke? 2banon Jun 2015 #200
To achieve fair elections millions of us want publicly funded elections, as you know Enthusiast Jun 2015 #192
Was the title line a preface to the message body? Scootaloo May 2015 #153
The disgusting thing is refusing to allow a candidate to be vetted on their fund raising capability. MohRokTah May 2015 #154
You are advocating buying the nomination Scootaloo May 2015 #156
I am advocating winning the General Election. MohRokTah May 2015 #158
No, you are advocating putting the nomination up for auction Scootaloo May 2015 #161
You are simply not being realistic. MohRokTah May 2015 #166
I'm using your argument. Scootaloo May 2015 #169
If somebody besides Hillary Clinton can prove they can raise $1 billion they become viable. MohRokTah May 2015 #170
Including the Kochs. Scootaloo May 2015 #171
Super PACs are an entirely different conversation. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #173
I'm suggesting we put the nomination up for auction, like you want Scootaloo May 2015 #175
+1 appalachiablue May 2015 #183
And this is why we can't have nice things MFrohike May 2015 #172
OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #174
Whoops MFrohike May 2015 #176
I think they'd be more likely to catch a few if there were more of them? hollowdweller May 2015 #80
Because then they can get a debate on issues relevant to them. jeff47 May 2015 #85
+1 You get it, totally. As few chances as possible for the people to learn about real appalachiablue May 2015 #182
What do you know about the "average working Democrat"? Scootaloo May 2015 #152
IF Bernie cannot abide by the rules of the DNC, maybe he'd better seek the... MohRokTah May 2015 #6
Totally agree. /nt workinclasszero May 2015 #25
Because to acquiesce to authority ZX86 May 2015 #32
They DID create rules that benefit Democratic voters. MohRokTah May 2015 #35
Really? What's the benefit? jeff47 May 2015 #88
OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #94
Voters benefit from more debates, not fewer. merrily May 2015 #138
These aren't the rules of the DNC. They are the proposed rules. jeff47 May 2015 #91
These ARE the rules. MohRokTah May 2015 #96
Sorry, no. The exclusivity rules are new and not yet adopted. jeff47 May 2015 #97
Sorry, no, the exclusivity rule went into place and was announced May 5. MohRokTah May 2015 #105
No, the rules were not similar. Exclusivity is utterly and completely new. jeff47 May 2015 #109
+1 merrily May 2015 #143
The Democrat Party, really? JaneyVee May 2015 #7
There is no such party frazzled May 2015 #9
I think that was Lee "POS" Atwater's idea. n/t FSogol May 2015 #14
Do you evidence that FDR did not use Democrat Party? jwirr May 2015 #44
Ahem MohRokTah May 2015 #62
But I suspect he called it "the democrat party' also. And I can tell you we did not use this silly jwirr May 2015 #71
You are under the burden of proof here. MohRokTah May 2015 #74
Really. Trying to defend "Democrat Party" on DU? I see the OP changed it. Cha May 2015 #163
I know, then demanding we prove a negative on top of it. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #168
+1 Art_from_Ark May 2015 #84
A couple years ago I was sending an email about a heated topic and paused once when appalachiablue May 2015 #184
Its 2015, not 1940 frazzled May 2015 #144
Well, Democrats who named the New Democrat Coalition came close. merrily May 2015 #142
No such thing as the "Democrat" Party. It's the Democratic Party. nt City Lights May 2015 #10
tells... see i missed that. iddnt see the outraged, but did say i would check back and listen seabeyond May 2015 #13
My bad. ZX86 May 2015 #19
Thanks for making the correction. City Lights May 2015 #22
It's always fun Spirochete Jun 2015 #188
It's DemocratIC Duckhunter935 May 2015 #11
That was an oopsie. It is Democratic Party. ZX86 May 2015 #17
evereybody makes mistakes Duckhunter935 May 2015 #23
.... merrily May 2015 #145
Big whoop, if you want to appear at another event, you just have to call it FSogol May 2015 #12
He'd better edit soon or else somebody's gonna alert that shit. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #15
Some people around here will alert ZX86 May 2015 #31
Sometimes the Ham Sandwich deserves the alert. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #40
WTF. "Democrat Party" ???? AtomicKitten May 2015 #18
Please show me the evidence that anyone gave a damn back in 1940. Up until the last several jwirr May 2015 #48
I simply posted the definition AtomicKitten May 2015 #99
We Democrats stage left May 2015 #21
I had an aquaintance call it the "Democrat Party" when we were having a heated discussion. MohRokTah May 2015 #24
Good one! stage left Jun 2015 #186
The DNC does not need to have lots of debates. If the candidate can not get their message out in Thinkingabout May 2015 #27
Love it or leave it? ZX86 May 2015 #29
That was only in the GE. MohRokTah May 2015 #37
When you don't have an argument do you think the "corporate" word rolls out. Thinkingabout May 2015 #38
If you don't understand how corporations ZX86 May 2015 #47
OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #65
Apparently some feel corporations should share profits with every one. Thinkingabout May 2015 #82
And they wonder why people freak out about Socialism. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #87
Yes. It's called being a good corporate citizen ZX86 May 2015 #98
You haveno clue what that term means. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #124
You missed on that one. It isn't any wonder this nation doesn't function well. Thinkingabout May 2015 #160
We all share our income. It's called paying taxes. Corps. don't pay a fair share. merrily May 2015 #147
Well, if they're going to share the COSTS with everyone, it's only fair Scootaloo May 2015 #155
I perhaps do not share your opinion. Thinkingabout May 2015 #70
If you don't understand that corporations ZX86 May 2015 #112
I understand the corporation makes money for the owners (shareholders) and it may surprise some but Thinkingabout May 2015 #157
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? ZX86 May 2015 #164
6 is enough imo. hrmjustin May 2015 #30
Double it, and you're talking.. Carewfan May 2015 #36
Don't like it, run for the nomination of a different party. MohRokTah May 2015 #41
Because when they changed it from outside groups ZX86 May 2015 #57
The LoWV have NEVER sponsored primary debates. MohRokTah May 2015 #59
You're missing the point and focusing on minutiae. ZX86 May 2015 #120
OFFS MohRokTah May 2015 #121
That would be a no. ZX86 May 2015 #134
Since I'm very active locally and am a precinct comitteeman, it's definitely MohRokTah May 2015 #136
No. ZX86 May 2015 #139
So you cannot spend about 2 hours per month? MohRokTah May 2015 #140
I am very active as well kenfrequed Jun 2015 #201
i don't think we need 12. 6 is enough imo. hrmjustin May 2015 #42
No, it isn't. Because all 6 are national debates. jeff47 May 2015 #95
I think you can ask questions about individual state isuues in a national debate. hrmjustin May 2015 #102
Yes, we can completely cover 8-1/3rd states in each debate!! jeff47 May 2015 #106
Well then the candidates can petition the dnc to change the rules. hrmjustin May 2015 #110
How bout the DNC explain why they changed the rules first? jeff47 May 2015 #113
Ask them. hrmjustin May 2015 #115
I'm not the one with Debbie on speed-dial. jeff47 May 2015 #117
Lol point taken. But you are not lesser folk imho. hrmjustin May 2015 #118
Yes, it does sound that way. jwirr May 2015 #34
The Party doesn't care. Understand that. There is only one party. Two ends of the same worm. bowens43 May 2015 #49
Ridiculous. MohRokTah May 2015 #51
Really? What party would you workinclasszero May 2015 #178
Of course all the pro-6 debate supporters are those who's candidate will benefit from the limited jwirr May 2015 #52
One candidate will get most of the questions, the rest will get asked only about that candidate n/t arcane1 May 2015 #60
If your candidate can't get their shit together i six debates... MohRokTah May 2015 #69
Debates do not have to be national debates. jeff47 May 2015 #103
The DNC held 6 debates in 2004. MohRokTah May 2015 #108
No, candidates participated in 34 debates in the 2008 primary. jeff47 May 2015 #111
It's such a surprising pattern. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #101
If you're not confident in your candidate, you'll want to limit debates and who writes the Jefferson23 May 2015 #73
Absolutely Art_from_Ark May 2015 #93
I would like that.n/t Jefferson23 May 2015 #167
It's a disadvantage to candidates who are less well known and less well funded. merrily May 2015 #146
snip* Jefferson23 May 2015 #165
Democratic and exclusivity ZX86 May 2015 #177
Exactly. That it was changed from 22 is telling.n/t Jefferson23 May 2015 #179
That's The Guardian, seen by us political junkies and 14 other people. Let's see if the DNC toughs merrily May 2015 #185
I am so glad we have ignore. BTW not for you. jwirr May 2015 #76
you do realize it's a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY JI7 May 2015 #78
But if he talks directly to another candidate ZX86 May 2015 #181
That's the truth, another fixture to steer the Election away from voters, orpupilofnature57 May 2015 #89
This is to protect the only candidate who starts primary season with 91%f name recognition. merrily May 2015 #116
The root of the problem is that the DNC can't be trusted nm Teamster Jeff May 2015 #141
They dont want a repeat of what happened to the GOP in 2012. DCBob May 2015 #180
The More debates the better. stage left Jun 2015 #187
Limiting debates favors the candidate with the highest name recogniton, ergo the policy. Scuba Jun 2015 #193
Derp. nt. NCTraveler Jun 2015 #196
Funny how everybody on this thread who agrees with this silly debate limitation tularetom Jun 2015 #197
Limiting debates goes against everything Democracy stands for. azmom Jun 2015 #204
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Democratic Party need...»Reply #26