General Discussion

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)

165. snip*

Sun May 31, 2015, 08:28 PM

May 2015

An advisor to a presidential campaign has accused the Democratic National Committee of “not negotiating in good faith” over plans to limit the number of debates in the party’s 2016 presidential primary.

The DNC announced on Tuesday that it would only authorise six debates in the party’s 2016 primary, 22 fewer than the number held in 2008. Starting in October, each of the four states holding early nominating contests (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) will each hold one debate as will two other states to be determined.

The DNC will also introduce an “exclusivity clause” which would ban candidates from official debates if they appeared in ones which it had not sanctioned.

However, according to the campaign advisor, the DNC had originally ruled out an exclusivity clause saying it was “undemocratic” and such a rule would be “unfair and too punitive”.

The aide claimed the DNC had not “negotiated in good faith with campaigns” and that “the cake was baked” from the start. The advisor predicted that “the DNC is going to find the schedule unenforceable. It will fall apart”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/07/democratic-national-committee-didnt-act-in-good-faith-over-primary-debate-limit

Interesting

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Democratic Party needs to get it's Sh*t together. [View all] ZX86 May 2015 OP

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