Sanders calls for a series of more debates in states such as "Illinois, Ohio, California, New York"

[morningfog]

. . .in recent months, Sanders has surged in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, leaving Clinton seeking ways to push back. She has even agreed to participate in an unsanctioned Democratic debate on Feb. 4 in New Hampshire, planned by the state's Union Leader and MSNBC.

The Sanders campaign, however, won't commit to appearing in the debate, citing the Democratic National Committee's exclusion clause: Any candidate who appears in an unsanctioned debate will be barred from future debates. The DNC has declined to sanction the Feb. 4 debate.

“I just spoke to Debbie Wasserman Schultz this evening and my hope is that the three candidates can sit down with the DNC and develop a series of debates to give the American people a better opportunity to judge which candidate they want to support,” he said.

While the DNC is unlikely to exclude all three candidates from future debates, Sanders added that he does not want to commit to an ad hoc schedule of debates set by networks.

“As I have said from day one I want to see debates. I love debates. I think it’s good for the Democratic party, I think it’s good for the people of this country, but you’ve got to do it in a rational way, you just can’t do it because some network says this and some network says that,” Sanders said. “I would hope that in the very short future we can develop a series of debates, and I think ... Illinois, Ohio, California, New York state are some of the states we might want to be looking at.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-27/ahead-of-white-house-meeting-sanders-says-obama-is-not-taking-sides

[Autumn]

1. Debates should be in every state the candidates campaign in or none at all.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

2. You don't early believe that. So, we should hold a debate in Vermont? Come on Autumn...

You're a smart woman.

[Autumn]

19. The debates have been set up per Hills friend DWS, no new ones.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

23. How did you get banned from the Hillary group? I would like to hear your story. nt

[Autumn]

26. Bernie Sanders abiding by their rules as a guest in their house.nt

[ProudToBeLiberal]

28. I share your pain. I know what it's like to get banned from a group. Sorry you had to experience it.

I hope you get unbanned someday.

[Autumn]

31. No pain at all, I'm rather proud of that ban.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

32. Do you think I am going too far with the brown nosing? Does flattery even work on you? nt

[Autumn]

34. No flattery does not work on me. nt

[ProudToBeLiberal]

35. You just crushed my hopes. I am now sad. Does guilt tripping work on you? nt

[bigtree]

3. that's not a very convincing excuse

...hell, with that flimsy standard (complaining about networks) we'll never get his support for debates, no matter how many states he ticks off on his wish list.

Here's an opportunity for the three candidates to stand firm against the DNC (Hillary practically onboard) and the 'revolutionary' candidate has cold feet??

Wtf is really going on here??

If they were to get banned by the DNC, they'd be able to accept any and all offers for a forum. What do they really need, but a moderator and their thinking caps?

[mmonk]

5. Ad hoc debates at the last minute in upcoming

states when earlier debates were near non existent so the media and parties could control the narrative are politically transparent.

[bigtree]

14. hell, my candidate isn't afraid of speaking off the cuff

...EVERY event he answers questions from the audience and the press.

All is see are frontrunners taking the knee.

[Cheese Sandwich]

36. This is it. It could void the agreement, giving the Hillary-DNC-MSNBC team the power to dictate

an ad hoc debate schedule on a rolling basis.

They could call a debate any time it would help Clinton and hurt Sanders.

That's the goal. The Sanders campaign is smart to proceed with extreme caution on this.

[morningfog]

6. What did DWS say to him?

Was he reminded of the sanction threat? Hillary may be on board, but there is a risk for any involved. DWS should waive the exclusivity or sanction this one. That is the answer.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. The impression seems to be that the DNC wants to cancel the next two debates. This is their out!

.


HRC does poorly in a variable debate setting, just like Bernie Sanders doesn't shine as well in a forum.



Since Sanders seems to benefit from a debate, this could give the DNC an excuse to cancel the Southern State debates.



If the DNC were willing to accept the wishes of the three candidates, DWS would allow more.

I say DWS, and not the DNC, because the DNC is ruled as an authoritarian organization, not by the board.



The Democrats are supposed to follow rules of their party and not go Sarah Palin Rogue.

All of a sudden, there is a wish to violate the DNC agreement that the candidates signed? Why Now?



.

[bigtree]

24. if they cancel those, the candidates are free to organize or accept debates wherever they want

...and now that Clinton is desperate enough to want more, they're sure to find more than enough venues.

Why is Sanders allowing himself to be shackled by a process that he and his supporters say is rigged?

[TheBlackAdder]

33. I think Clinton would like forums, not debates. But that removes the guaranteed ones in place.

.


It looks like a trap has been set, where he loses either way.

Except, he is following the rules and not violating them, kicking it back on the DNC being an operative of HRC.


.

[jeff47]

20. So...you're mad that Sanders is following the party's rules?

What's going on here is politics.

DWS has set rules, and insisted they can not be violated. DWS has also repeatedly insisted that the rules were not set in order to help Clinton.

Clinton now wants to break those rules.

He's put DWS in an awkward position. For another debate to happen, DWS has to either admit 1) the rules she has been supporting up until now were really bad ideas, or 2) the rules can now be changed, because Clinton wants them changed. Demonstrating that DWS did actually create the rules to help Clinton.

1) requires DWS to admit she made a very large mistake, and is not doing a good job in her position.
2) requires DWS to admit the party really is "in the tank" for Clinton, greatly damaging the claim that all those party endorsements are actually on the candidate's merits.

Or DWS sticks to the rules to try to save face, angering Clinton.

[bigtree]

21. ffs, tiddlywinks

...inspiring

[jeff47]

38. Yes, DWS and Clinton have been playing small-ball. (nt)

[bklyncowgirl]

4. DWS by trying to bubblewrap Hillary has really created a mess.

I agree with Senator Sanders that more debates would be a good thing. The Democratic candidate has to be able to stand on stage and debate whoever the Republicans put up. Moreover we are having a debate about the future of our party--surely something that should be out in the open.

[99th_Monkey]

7. After that MSNBC "Forum" I can see why Bernie is saying this.

no more secretly planned, last-minute, DNC/M$M-owned, campaign events with planted questions,
immoderate "moderators" who attack ANY pf the candidates like a rabid jackal ... last I heard the
League of Women Voters, and other civic groups who used to sponsor and organize debates are
still around, and available to serve their country by insuring that debates have a level playing field,
and treat all candidates respectfully, and hold candidates to stay with issues and a modicum of
decorum.

[Melissa G]

46. +1 n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

8. Too Late for Iowa and NH Hillary.

[JudyM]

9. Perfectly played. He is playing by DNC rules, in a way that hurts. His negotiation/out for DNC is

that he will get more debates, and with him and MOM having a say in their scheduling.

[morningfog]

13. That's how I see it.

[Gregorian]

10. This might be the last corporate election this country has.

One can dream.

[lasttrip]

11. NY IL CA OH

sounds good.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Bernie makes some good points.

Thanks for the thread, morningfog.

[demwing]

15. Please let their be a Florida debate!

Please????

[Skwmom]

17. I love it.

Of course, I'm sure the Establishment are thinking it will help future candidates they put in the race.

[Go Vols]

18. Yes

[Motown_Johnny]

22. Bwahahaha! Perfect!! Lets hold debates in states where Hillary is leading!!!

This is a brilliant move by a brilliantly run campaign.

[KittyWampus]

25. Hypocrite. He just turned down a debate w/Clinton and O'Malley

[morningfog]

27. Actually, he is honoring the agreement he entered with the DNC.

The other two are the hypocrites at this point. If DWS waives the exclusivity clause or sanctions it, he will join.

Furthermore, HIllary is all bluster. She won't participate if not sanctioned by DWS. She is a hypocrite twice over.

[CharlotteVale]

29. So why doesn't DWS just sanction the debate the Hillary now suddenly wants?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and makes Hillary look so desperate.

[morningfog]

30. Good question.

[Go Vols]

39. It does stink,and she is desperate

As a general rule debates are bad for front runners. No front runner ever wants more debates. The Clinton campaign is the 900 lb. gorilla in the Democratic race. If they wanted more debates, the DNC would have scheduled more debates.

It was great of Maddow to ask the question that has been on the minds of most Democrats. The debate schedule has clearly been designed to minimize viewership. Hillary Clinton’s answer was a dodge that passed the buck to the DNC.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/19/rachel-maddow-asks-hillary-clinton-buried-democratic-debates-tv-siberia.html

[winter is coming]

43. That's the real question. If she sanctioned the debate, Bernie would be there. n/t

[99Forever]

37. ....

FEEL THE BERN.

[Nitram]

40. Fifty debates! Really?

[morningfog]

41. That's not what he said at all. Not sure where you got that.

[Nitram]

42. "Debates should be in every state the candidates campaign in or none at all."

Candidates could potentially campaign, if only for a few hours, in every state.

[morningfog]

44. He never said that. Again, not sure where you got that.

[Nitram]

49. I was replying to Post #1.

[oasis]

45. No debates necessary after Super Tuesday, 3/1. Valuable time will

be wasted which could be devoted to fundraising. "Series of Debates" get real, this ain't a vaudeville road show.

[frylock]

48. It would be a waste of time after Hillary gets rolled on 3/1.

[frylock]

47. Bwahahaha! Well played, Senator!