2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBacking out of debates? Well, yeah.
History has shown that chickens should be wary of men named Sanders.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Kalifornia Fried Clinton, anyone?
She did, expressly, agree to a California debate against Sanders, back in April.
-app
George II
(67,782 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Clinton, Sanders agree to debates in Michigan and California
By HADAS GOLD 02/03/16 02:52 PM EST
The campaigns for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have agreed to additional debates in Michigan, California and another unspecified location.
"Yes. To the best of my knowledge we have. We didn't get all the commitments I wanted. We got California and we got Michigan, that's good," Sanders said in an interview on CNN on Wednesday, adding that Clinton did not agree to a debate in New York but they are discussing a possible debate in Pennsylvania.
A person familiar with the negotiations confirmed that an agreement had been struck on Wednesday for the additional debates. The Michigan debate, to be held in Flint (the city in the midst of a water crisis), will be take place on March 6, two days before that state's primary on March 8. No date has been set for the California debate, though the Sanders campaign has proposed May 24. Additionally, no media partners have been determined yet for any of the additional debates, the person familiar with the negotiations said.
Sanders and Clinton have been involved in a days-long back and forth over debates after MSNBC offered last week to host an unsanctioned debate ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Sanders said he would participate only if Clinton agreed to three future debates. The Clinton campaign agreed in principle, and said they'd show up in New Hampshire no matter what, leading Sanders to say on Wednesday morning he'd attend the debate that had been tentatively scheduled for Thursday of this week. The DNC, after indicating they would sanction the debate once both candidates signed on, officially sanctioned the debate only on
DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz confirmed the news of the additional debates in a statement:
I'm pleased to share exciting news on behalf of our two candidates. As with our previous debates, town halls and forums, voters will have several more opportunities to see them share their vision for how to build on 7 years of progress and keep America moving forward. Our Democratic candidates have asked the DNC to sanction and manage additional debates in our primary schedule, including one this week in New Hampshire ahead of the First in the Nation primary, in conjunction with the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Having our candidates in agreement on their desire to add debates to our sanctioned schedule, the DNC has sanctioned an MSNBC debate on February 4th at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.
The candidates have also agreed to participate in three newly scheduled DNC sanctioned debates to be held in addition to the February 11th PBS News Hour, and March 9th Univision debates already planned. The first of these new debates is confirmed to take place in Flint, Michigan on March 6th, with the remaining two taking place in April and May with times and locations to be determined. We will continue to work closely with both campaigns as we finalize the remaining details.
George II
(67,782 posts)I don't see California anywhere in there.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Clinton has backed out of ANY debate.
I suspect if she had agreed to debate in Maine in May, Bernie would have agreed to it. She backed out of the pre-agreed schedule. You can't deny that basic fact.
George II
(67,782 posts)Did Sanders offer any alternate sites to California? No. As usual, he wanted to dictate the "rules".
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Once again she proved that she doesn't follow through on her word.
She agreed to a debate in May. She backed out. There was no "discussion over a location." She just refused to adhere to the agreement.
Typical. That's why many of us don't believe a word that comes out of her.
George II
(67,782 posts)...to debate in California.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Maybe I missed something.
If you have proof that Clinton offered to debate in May, but not in California, and that Bernie refused, feel free to post it. If you do, I'll retract what I said.
George II
(67,782 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)You asked for proof that they ahd agreed to a debate in May. I supplied it. You are now deflecting from it.
Your "bottom line" is just an admission that Clinton can't be trusted, unless you show valid proof that she offered and Bernie refused.
I will admit I was wrong if you do that. Otherwise the plain and simple fact is that she agreed to a debate in May, and she reneged. Which adds one more straw to the "How can anyone trust her?" pile.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)If I recall, Hillary and Obama last debated in mid-April, back in 2008.
mac56
(17,569 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's over when it's over. The process dopes not end when one side decides it has won.
We're not in the habit of cancelling Presidential General Elections in the last month or so, if one candidate has a strong lead.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Anything is possible until that happens.
Yes I know...."Large margins," most likely scenarios......not much of a chance. .......But those are no kore "official" than if there were a seemingly insurmountable gap between a GOP presidential candidate and Dem candidate, based on polls and all other indicators.
Sanders is very unlikely to get the nomination. But he has the right to make his case until the final votes are cast, and it becomes official.
The process continues to its official end. That's the way democracies are supposed to work.
I know it's not conveeeeeenient. I have to admit as an Obama supporter in 2008, I realllly wanted Clinton to bow out sooner than she did. Just because....well, I don't like her, and didn't want to have to think about her any more. And wanted to see Obama with an unobstructed path......But that's not the way it operates. She had the right to contest as long as she wanted, as does Bernie. Abd the process should not shut down until then.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)The election is over. Sanders is not going to carry the remaining states at a 68% clip, nor are the superdelegates going to jump ship for the candidate who did not win the pledged delegate count.
The sooner you move onto the acceptance stage of the Kubler-Ross model, the sooner you can get better.
mac56
(17,569 posts)pick out the typos.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)So, a little potshot plus a deflating of the #berniemath.
You'r welcome.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)As to your dismissive little crap there.
Well, I can't say what I'd like to without risking a hide.
It has something to do with suggesting you go forth and attempt to procreate with yourself. .
Tarc
(10,476 posts)If the Democratic Party had some winner-take-all states, or some other GOP oddities like winning all the precincts gives you bonus delegates, i.e. Missouri, perhaps this would've been a lot closer. But, we're strictly proportional. For every state Sanders didn't hit his target, it increased the target in the remaining states, til it got to the snowball-rolling-downhill effect after New York.
It's just the way the math is.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)significant number of primary voters who chose Sanders.
Cute little digs about grief and an Annie song aren't going to help with that math.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Please don't delude yourself into thinking that you BoBs need to be courted.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Since you like cute songs....
George II
(67,782 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)
Five of them were just one on one.
pandr32
(11,588 posts)Hillary Clinton will move from presumptive nominee to nominee before votes from California are even tallied. It is prudent to save the money for the GE and not waste it on a sideshow.
Go ahead and suggest Hillary is a chicken if it makes you feel better. The truth is she is smart enough to know better.
mac56
(17,569 posts)Curious that you would go there.
pandr32
(11,588 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)barrow-wight
(744 posts)at least do it well.
mac56
(17,569 posts)There's really no point with the eight days we have left.
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)She also "plays by the rules"......when she wants to.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I suspect it's because she's afraid that legitimizing him by allowing a final debate she would be weakening herself.
So her pre-agreed plan for that got ignored -- just like most promises she makes.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)brooklynite
(94,598 posts)I DO understand however that, when you funds are drying up, free media is always nice.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They don't rally care about most of the process....Heck, many won't care about the General until that last week or two -- and many not even then.
So what's your point?
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...candidate may decide to reorient their focus, especially if they feel the voters won't care.
Sort of like agreeing to release your tax returns and then not doing it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and why people don't trust them. It's both political expediency and -- more disturbingly -- on policy positions and actions in governing.
She was a big pusher of the TPP, as Sec o S for example....But then when she became a candidate and needed union and progressive support....."Well, I've changed my mind. Maybe it's not so great after all."
Which leads to the logical question....If elected, will she once again "reorient her focus" and say "Well, after all that TPP isn't really so bad. I'm all in for it" in yet another flip flop?
As for the sanders tax returns. They have released enough to show their net worth and income. I actually agree that for appearances sake they should have released others, but those are not likely to show a lot of change....There's no comparison between issues of Big Politics and Big Government and the minuate of the boring finances of the sanders family.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)UInbcluding the 40-45 percent of primary voters who have chosen sanders....That's a whole lot of a bigger bag to fill than just Democratic Clinton loyalists.
Maybe she'll pull it off and get into the WH... But there's also the matter of governing after that.
barrow-wight
(744 posts)Either would have about as much relevance to the election at this point.