General Discussion

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)

131. This would probably be closer to the truth than any othe story.

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 10, 2015, 09:47 PM

Jun 2015

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