General Discussion

Gothmog

(180,372 posts)

116. The post that you responded to was dealing with SCOTUS and control of the SCOTUS

Wed Jun 10, 2015, 07:10 PM

Jun 2015

I agree that the environment is an important issue but if the GOP candidate wins in 2016, then nothing will be done with respect to the environment. Sanders and HRC both will take more steps to protect the evironment than Jeb or Walker.

Bernie may do better only if he is elected and is viable in the general election. I have yet to see one Sanders supporter explain to me how Sanders is going to counter $887 million from the Koch brothers and another billion dollars that Waler or Jeb will raise. Money is important in elections. I am not convinced that Sanders will be competitive in a general election contest. Heck, the latest PPP poll had Sanders at well under 20% compared to over 60% for HRC. Those numbers do not inspire confidence.

The environment as well as the SCOTUS are two reasons why we can not let the GOP win 2016. By your own analysis and the material in your post, we are approaching a point of no return and letting the GOP control all three branches of government will not help this issue

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The simple reason why the DNC wants to limit the number of debates. [View all] DanTex Jun 2015 OP

I disagree. Scuba Jun 2015 #1

You are not alone. I am here with you. merrily Jun 2015 #30

+1 It is about limiting public access to the less-familiar candidates. hifiguy Jun 2015 #41

best guess G_j Jun 2015 #77

Exactly dflprincess Jun 2015 #139

+2 mylye2222 Jun 2015 #142

While I find that plausible DFW Jun 2015 #2

I don't know what the official explanation is. Probably something written in politicalese. DanTex Jun 2015 #8

HuffPost has an article on it, quoting Communications Director Mo Elleithee octoberlib Jun 2015 #31

While you're at it, DFW, ask him why he violated the DNC rules by organizing the Hillary fundraiser? Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #57

Be glad to. One question before I do, though. DFW Jun 2015 #91

Ask him also if they plan a public rebuke of Boyd Brown for calling Sen Sanders crazy peacebird Jun 2015 #101

Andy is treasurer, not finance chair DFW Jun 2015 #108

Boyd brown is on DNC from SC, Munoz did hold a fundraiser for Hillary peacebird Jun 2015 #113

OK, I'll ask him if he has any comment. DFW Jun 2015 #143

Then I apologize. Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #117

You're brave. MohRokTah Jun 2015 #3

there is no way to establish whether that analysis is truthful or not cali Jun 2015 #5

And only did so this year because the Republicans instituted it first. MohRokTah Jun 2015 #7

yes. let's emulate the shitstains! cali Jun 2015 #11

Oh yes, wise idea letting the GOP have a leg up in the GE! BRILLIANT!!! MohRokTah Jun 2015 #12

DWS borrowing from the GOP playbook. Who'd thunk it? think Jun 2015 #61

There is ZERO sense here, but I've grown to recognize closeupready Jun 2015 #25

"Best for the party" pulled out of nowhere is not analysis. jeff47 Jun 2015 #40

"truthful analysis" Phlem Jun 2015 #90

^^^^Perfect Example of my point. eom MohRokTah Jun 2015 #92

Oh so rolling my eyes is the onslaught of the Bern? Phlem Jun 2015 #98

Waiting for "Bernie is being blindsided in 3.....2...........1 leftofcool Jun 2015 #4

That's actually the advice of campaign-advisors: "Don't talk." DetlefK Jun 2015 #6

I think both Hillary and Bernie are smart enough not to get caught like that. DFW Jun 2015 #18

K & R to that post alone. Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #80

Have enough debates and all candidates will eventually say something that hurts them stevenleser Jun 2015 #87

True enough DFW Jun 2015 #89

That is so funny ... NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #129

K&R! stonecutter357 Jun 2015 #9

The 2012 GOP Field was a circus show before any of the debates Bad Thoughts Jun 2015 #10

+1. It wasn't the frequency of the debates that did the GOP in; it was the things they said. winter is coming Jun 2015 #71

The GOP could lock in a conservative majority at SCOTUS for generation if the GOP wins in 2016 Gothmog Jun 2015 #13

That's just how it goes. closeupready Jun 2015 #23

NO, that's not how it goes, but that's what they want you to believe R B Garr Jun 2015 #47

The DNC is limiting debates at HRC campaign's request. closeupready Jun 2015 #56

"a vibrant GOP one." Which vibrant GOP face would that be? R B Garr Jun 2015 #72

I still have not figured out why six are not enough Gothmog Jun 2015 #76

Yeah, but it doesn't have to be. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #109

That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room DFW Jun 2015 #27

How will the next POTUS have any chance to get any worthwhile justice confirmed. CK_John Jun 2015 #134

We need to take a few Senate seats back. DFW Jun 2015 #145

Same thing is said every four years. merrily Jun 2015 #34

All my adult life I have heard it. hifiguy Jun 2015 #42

In Texas, I am living with the consequences of the Voting Rights Act being gutted Gothmog Jun 2015 #49

I know it's not a made up issue. hifiguy Jun 2015 #55

That is due to the failure of Texas Democratic Party doing their parts. Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #63

NO, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act was done by the SCOTUS and Roberts Gothmog Jun 2015 #74

It's not what you would have heard almost a century ago. merrily Jun 2015 #52

"the next election is the most important one evah blah blah blah" m-lekktor Jun 2015 #53

Look at the ages of the current SCOTUS justices Gothmog Jun 2015 #48

Same thing is said every four years. I posted their ages myself on another board in 2008. merrily Jun 2015 #50

And Obama got to pick Kagan and Sotomayor who kept the court from being 7-2 conservative Gothmog Jun 2015 #78

Yes, I remember. I could have done without Kagan, though. And I've been crossing my fingers merrily Jun 2015 #137

Another issue is climate change... It NEEDS to be dealt with by next president! cascadiance Jun 2015 #79

This is such a huge issue and it is being overlooked. hifiguy Jun 2015 #82

How is that relevant to the SCOTUS and civil rights??? Gothmog Jun 2015 #85

No, the question of the OP is not just SCOTUS but the cost of a GOP presidency... cascadiance Jun 2015 #93

The post that you responded to was dealing with SCOTUS and control of the SCOTUS Gothmog Jun 2015 #116

But I viewed that as a comment relevant to the original post... cascadiance Jun 2015 #121

Just because people tell you something doesn't mean it isn't true... N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2015 #123

I never said it was or wasn't true. I said only that the same thing is said every four years merrily Jun 2015 #138

And that means the DNC has to forbid non-DNC debates because......... (nt) jeff47 Jun 2015 #38

General election viability is a valid criteria to look at candidates Gothmog Jun 2015 #45

And that is served by forbidding other people from holding debates because............ jeff47 Jun 2015 #51

Apparently ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #110

Sorry, SCOTUS means shit to me... Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #60

As long as you are comfortable with the next court overturning Roe v. Wade and the right of privacy Gothmog Jun 2015 #75

And hell ... any case that challenges the economic status quo. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #111

Look at the ages of the current SCOTUS justices Gothmog Jun 2015 #86

RBG will live forever Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #88

What a sound gameplan Gothmog Jun 2015 #114

Without a majority of 60 in the Senate that is what is needed to confirm. CK_John Jun 2015 #135

Regardless of the year fredamae Jun 2015 #14

The ONLY reason for wanting more debates: Buzz Clik Jun 2015 #15

This would probably be closer to the truth than any othe story. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #131

You have to realize most of these guys are not that smart. bemildred Jun 2015 #16

Simple: Hillary is neither a good speaker, nor has a compelling platform to run on. nt Romulox Jun 2015 #17

Criminal Justice reform...immigration reform...overturning CU... brooklynite Jun 2015 #19

Outsourcing, job obliterating "free trade", forever wars, influence peddling... nt Romulox Jun 2015 #20

You can cite those as positions in her campaign, right? brooklynite Jun 2015 #22

Those are essential characteristics of her public life. She's vulnerable on these issues. nt Romulox Jun 2015 #24

Oh wow, this goes against all of the bitching about Hillary getting big bucks for speaking. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #132

Hillary is unlikeable. The more exposure she gets, closeupready Jun 2015 #21

People don't need to have to like her...they need to want to vote for her brooklynite Jun 2015 #26

With a 29% US voter participation rate, how many eligible closeupready Jun 2015 #29

Enough... brooklynite Jun 2015 #32

Fine, for those of us who are liberal closeupready Jun 2015 #39

You said it yourself. People need to want to vote for her. Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #64

And you have evidence to support that assertion? brooklynite Jun 2015 #66

No, the poster does not. It's just another Bernie supporter with no proof. leftofcool Jun 2015 #95

"Most people" leftofcool Jun 2015 #94

Here ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #112

Don't put words in my mouth, thank you. Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #118

Accuracy and (intellectual) honesty, used to be a liberal value. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #119

It still is. Jumpin Jack Flash Jun 2015 #120

I have no preferred candidate, beyond a stated determination to work and vote FOR ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #122

"People don't need to have to like her...they need to want to vote for her..." R. Daneel Olivaw Jun 2015 #106

When you are short on likability and electability it leave los to be desired. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #133

Presently, but there have been no debates... R. Daneel Olivaw Jun 2015 #154

Is your post #106 permature because it is before the debates also. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #155

No. I am not asking to force electability or likability on any candidate. R. Daneel Olivaw Jun 2015 #156

If the candidates can not present themselves in six debates then lots more will not present them Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #157

Opinions vary. R. Daneel Olivaw Jun 2015 #158

you read my mind word for word. m-lekktor Jun 2015 #67

You can call me bold, you can call me brave, just don't closeupready Jun 2015 #68

haha m-lekktor Jun 2015 #151

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2015 #28

Blammo. hifiguy Jun 2015 #43

And they only just figured that out? Also, that doesn't explain the punitive exclusivity provision. merrily Jun 2015 #33

This is so obvious, it slaps you in the face. Aside from our friends living in Fantasyland... tritsofme Jun 2015 #35

It is best for the party because...........? jeff47 Jun 2015 #36

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what HRC or The Democratic Party or Iliyah Jun 2015 #37

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2015 #46

If Hillary's chances of winning are going to be in the high 90s... MattSh Jun 2015 #44

The strategy is easily observed Jester Messiah Jun 2015 #54

Thank you. This is VERY obvious to political news hounds closeupready Jun 2015 #59

Thank you. And for the record, someone who joined the party two minutes ago doesn't call the shots. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2015 #58

Did the DNC ask the candidates what they want? If so, who answered and what was their reply? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2015 #62

Of course they're not bound... brooklynite Jun 2015 #69

Your opinion is noted. Rex Jun 2015 #65

Bernie should be free to have as many debates as he wants with whomever he wants to debate. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #70

If he wants to run as an independent he can debate all the live-long day. MADem Jun 2015 #107

I disagree too. If two more candidates step forward, Damansarajaya Jun 2015 #73

The whole purpose of pushing that meme... NYC Liberal Jun 2015 #81

So your theory is that no one could possibly disagree with you except for bad motives? Jim Lane Jun 2015 #141

Here's what putss a hole in your theory - they're not allowing candidates to participate in Exilednight Jun 2015 #83

I think it's because it's the best to get a Dem elected. napi21 Jun 2015 #84

plausible, but as with the claims that it is a plot by Clinton Agnosticsherbet Jun 2015 #96

Your theory is at least plausible rock Jun 2015 #97

bullshit madokie Jun 2015 #99

I'll second that. Phlem Jun 2015 #100

Yup its already there madokie Jun 2015 #103

They're also expensive and the primary ones don't pull in many viewers. MADem Jun 2015 #102

Why, ever, wouldn't those that currently stand to compete in the next ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #115

Hmmmm...because someone with no investment in the party infrastructure MADem Jun 2015 #124

No ... Because the some anonymous posters ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #125

You have articulated the issue with absolute accuracy!!! nt MADem Jun 2015 #126

Nailed it! leftofcool Jun 2015 #128

Do you have a link to substantiate this claim? It seems a rather dubious one. R. Daneel Olivaw Jun 2015 #104

let me see Man from Pickens Jun 2015 #105

OK, yeah, I guess so HassleCat Jun 2015 #127

Climate change and democrats chev52 Jun 2015 #130

The limit I get. The limit paired with the exclusivity clause, I don't. morningfog Jun 2015 #136

The limit without the exclusivity clause is not a limit at all. DanTex Jun 2015 #148

But no candidate would be required to attend. morningfog Jun 2015 #150

The result would be the same though. DanTex Jun 2015 #152

I don't think they are required. morningfog Jun 2015 #153

I am just SO glad that the DNC has learned the lesson of 2008. Jim Lane Jun 2015 #140

Six seems like plenty to me too. ucrdem Jun 2015 #144

Fringe candidates want more debates for a number of reasons. DanTex Jun 2015 #149

I rarely watch debates anymore. The modern format is off-putting to me. Recursion Jun 2015 #146

I agree, the debates are mostly theater. DanTex Jun 2015 #147