why the delayed dem debate schedule hurts ALL dems and makes the general tougher

[restorefreedom]

great journal at dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/26/1405802/-The-DNC-s-Big-Fail-Why-Delaying-and-Shortening-the-Dem-Debates-is-Stupid

warning: this is likely to piss off the hillary supporters because of the basis for argument, but i think the points about how it will hurt the dem brand are right on target

dems need visibility NOW to contrast with the wackoness of the gop

[Zorra]

1. The DNC did not prepare for the possibility that

Bernie's message would resonate with so many Americans. Or that the corporatist propaganda campaign would backfire.

The last thing they want to see is the corporate 1% candidate Clinton go head to head with a real democratic phenomenon like Senator Sanders.

[restorefreedom]

2. and hey, if it costs the dems the general

at least they can say they had their nominee
if she wins the primaries

which she won't.

[jtuck004]

14. Isn't the DNC's responsiblity to see that Bernie wins. It's Bernie's and his supporters. They answer

to the people.It's the people they need to save, not the Democrats.

He and his inner circle made a mistake by not running as an independent.

And that may cost the ball game.

[thesquanderer]

16. Wrong about "It's the people they need to save, not the Democrats."

Pretty much by definition, the function of the DNC is to serve the Democratic party, not the people. To the extent that it benefits the people, it's a happy by-product.

[jwirr]

30. So how are they serving me? I have been a Democrat all my life. If they do not change this

debate schedule they are going to lose a lot of us. Hillary and her friend DWS can shove it. BTW I had already signed the petition so I signed my disabled daughters name as her legal guardian. She cannot vote but she can have a say.

[winter is coming]

17. It isn't their responsibility to see that Hillary wins, either.

When the GOP clown car has their first debate in early August, people are going to wonder why the Dems aren't debating. Don't their candidates have any ideas?

[jtuck004]

20. In reality, if it looks like Bernie is really threatening Ms. Clinton, then all they have to do is

sink the ship.

The current policies favor Rs far more than Ds these days, so just letting the Rs win means we continue on as we are, with a little more austerity. The only people who really care are a few that might have to switch offices.

[GoneFishin]

43. Yep. Repubs vs. Dems is just theater. The real division is HAVES vs. HAVE-NOTS. Any right winger

from either party will serve the 0.1% equally well.

Neither of the parties' leaderships will be happy to see Bernie in the White House.

[zeemike]

18. Nope not a mistake at all.

The game is rigged in favor of the 2 party system...and besides Bernie has true Democratic values...it's time to take back the party of the people for the people.

[jtuck004]

27. In the early 1900s, there was this union called the IWW. They were for worker control of assets,

knowing that control of the assets is EVERYTHING. They thought ALL working people should be in one big union, which would give them the power. Just a note - when they said ALL, they meant that black folk were just as welcome as anyone.

If you read their writings they weren't Socialists, they said they didn't like their ideas, didn't fit this country. They also didn't get along with Communists - the communists wrote letters home about how hard a time they had with these "wobblies", didn't think they fit well.

During the Red Scare and before the members were painted with both of these, although it was untrue.

But I digress. Across the way was another union, a business union who thought the wobblie approach was wrong, that the business people needed to be in charge, and that unions needed to resemble a top-down business with leaders who knew better than others what to do. They didn't allow black folk.

And they really didn't care if you were "just" a working person - you had to be in a craft, such as cigar making, steel making, etc. Otherwise you were just dirt to them. It was called the American Federation of Labor, and it's founder, Samuel Gompers, could often be found at the tables of the wealthy, his friends and customers.

They AF of L attacked the IWW, withholding support, perhaps even committing crimes and framing them, worked with companies to break the strikes they went out on. In general they were a "union", but in bed with business.

I am finally getting to my point -> As they killed off the IWW, many IWW members thought they could go inside and "change" things, make it the union of the people. "Them and Us: Struggles of a rank-and-file union," by James Matles and James Higgins (both were IWW orgnizers) details this, and tells how the leadership of the IWW told it's members that they COULD NOT CHANGE IT FROM THE INSIDE, and it would be the death of the Worker's Union, the IWW.

They told them that the sweet words of the opposition, even though they used the same terms of "union" and "worker", meant far different things.

So the people joined and tried to changed it from the inside. Today unions are in more trouble and weaker than they have ever been in the history of this country.

I see the same thing playing out again. November 2016 will tell us more than people know.

[zeemike]

33. I totally agree

And you described it well.
But revolutions can take place if the leadership cannot be bought off...and there lies the problem. Too many of our leaders are in it to be bought off.

We need fundamental change, and the only one I see around that can pull that off is Sanders.
The rest seem to be in it for the money and power.

[jtuck004]

35. "the only one I see around that can pull that off is Sanders." < this.

[still_one]

32. and Bernie is running as a Democrat, so he is part of the two party system.

[zeemike]

36. Well that is the only way to change things.

[still_one]

37. My point exactly, and Bernie made that clear when he started his run

[BuelahWitch]

25. It IS their responsibility to see that all their candidates have a voice

That includes O'Malley, Chaffee and Webb as well as Bernie.

[jtuck004]

29. Well, at least you think so, and in an ideal world I would think so too. But I don't

think the people who write the checks agree, and never will.

[Maedhros]

53. That's just stupid.

Are you aware of the tidal wave of condemnation Bernie would have experienced had he tried to "split the vote" by running as an Independent?

/ignore.

[Gothmog]

3. Why are six debates not sufficient?

Do we want to be like the GOP in 2012 and make sure that we have a candidate that is too weak to run in the general?

[restorefreedom]

4. it is not only the number of them

but the timing. by his time in 08 there had been several. the date for the first one has not even been scheduled. it says aug/sep but says tentative

this is ridiculous and makes it harder for the candidates with less name recognition to get their ideas out

and which ones are those? chaffee, sanders, omalley, webb

[kenfrequed]

23. Too true

Bernie will pick up steam, to be honest it is the other three candidates that are truly being crushed by the lack of debates. All of this seems to have the effect of reducing the possibility of free media from getting word out and allowing anyone else to develop name recognition.

Kind of sad, really.

[restorefreedom]

26. The other three are being hurt badly

but the mainstream media, after realizing that they can't keep pushing the Hillary inevitability theme, is almost accepted the fact that there's going to be at least one significant challenger who could take the nomination. But I really get the feeling they don't want to be bothered with the others, because there were too many people over the clown car.Plus mainstream media generally supports Republicans anyway so they're not gonna do anything to help a dem get elected.

[jwirr]

34. You have one well known candidate and 4 relatively unknown candidates. The limited number of

debates and the late start for these debates favors the well known candidate which I am sure you approve of because you support that candidate.

However it does not allow the other candidates airtime to the nation. And that does not in any way gain the approval of us Democrats who are supporting those other 4 candidates. What we see is a corporate owned DNC ignoring many of us.

The DNC has set up the coronation but they better find a way to force us to attend.

[NCTraveler]

5. Big time Hillary fan here.

Other than the reference to '08 being the best way to go, I fully agree with the overall tone of the write up.. I have stated many times here that I think DWS should not be in the position she is in. I also believe what she is doing does benefit Hillary. Six debates are fine with me. Not knowing every single aspect of said debates at this point is not acceptable. We should know exact times, locations, and specific topics if it goes that route. It should have been done by now.

[ibegurpard]

6. DWS has been a disaster

After the last election cycle she should not be where she is. Has she even been that successful on the fundraising front?

[JDPriestly]

22. Absolutely. I won't give any money to anyone other than Bernie Sanders personally.

My local Representative gets elected by huge margins and doesn't need it. Neither of my senators is running in 2016.

It's not that I have that much money to give. The DNC won't miss it, I assure you. But the DNC completely messed up in 2014. Why in the world would anyone give the Party money in 2016? They should have done much better than they did in 2014.

Look at Bernie's crowd in Louisiana. It wasn't bad at all. 4,500 by some counts. Sure, they are the party faithful and probably came from far and wide. But there were a lot of young people in that crowd.

Democrats not only need an early and firm debate schedules that we at least get our party's story on the TV and on the maps, but we need a 50-state strategy as Bernie and Howard Dean have proposed.

Why, as Bernie says, have we written off half the country?

Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and her buddies live in a bubble. They don't seem to understand that those of us not in the bubble want to know what is going on.

I hardly see anything of Hillary. She doesn't seem to be in the news. She doesn't seem to have much of a profile. There is an occasional "nice" story about her. She isn't raising much dust. That's for sure.

We need debates, and we need them to start sooner not later.

We have a great group of candidates. They need to be heard. The people of America are being cheated out of hearing really good discussions of Democratic ideals and proposals. The debates aren't just about who will win. They are about telling the story of Democratic Party values to the American people. The DNC is leaving a void. We are not telling our story.

Stupidest thing ever -- no 50-state strategy and not starting the debates early enough and not having enough of them. How are Democratic candidates going to get their profiles in the minds of the American people?

Of all the dumb things, this really takes the cake.

And another word about the 50-state strategy.

The lack of a 50-state strategy is in my view an acquiescence, a giving-in, to the racism that dominates so much of the white South. And Democrats cannot do that. Not now. Not in 20015. Not in the face of so much racists police violence and so much voter suppression.

This is the time to fight for black rights because one of the most important values of the Democratic Party is that Black Lives Matter.

The battle for Black Lives Matter takes place across America. But the headquarters of the foes of Black Lives Matter are in our southern states. And those headquarters need to be put on notice that Black Lives do Matter and that no matter who the Democratic candidate turns out to be, we are not going to put up with more voter suppression or police violence toward Black people. No more.

And the best way to fight for the BLM movement is to campaign strongly on Black rights and Black Lives Matter in the South. Regardless who is the candidate we have to go into the South strongly and tell the people that their racism is holding the whole country back and they have to wise up. We are all equal and that is that.

Enough is Enough. We need a Southern strategy that shames the racists.

[ibegurpard]

31. I still get the "sky is falling" money requests from them

What are they going to do with it now? The time for action was the last election with hard hitting campaigns and forceful candidates. They cant run on anything other than platitudes because they've sold the party to corporate interests that will have their pound of flesh.

[jwirr]

40. Thank you so much. Just what needed to be said.

[restorefreedom]

7. that is what upsets me

you go on the page and it says aug/sept tentative with no venue, moderator, or exact date...and august is coming up pdq.

if it was anyone else, I would think for sure favoritism. but dws is such a screaming incompetent, it is hard to know for sure...

honestly hard to fathom how she is still in that position

[NCTraveler]

8. I agree and have made a point to talk about it.

It's not acceptable. Great power comes with the control over debates. It is being abused. That in itself should have DWS out.

Thanks for the op. Reccing.

[restorefreedom]

9. thx! nt

[NCTraveler]

10. Going to follow this up with an op containing contact info for DWS. nt.

[restorefreedom]

11. excellent!

i saw a reference to it on another website. i think it was in a comment. good for people to have it.

[JDPriestly]

38. Maybe no one else wants the job?

Or she is the only one the party bigwigs can agree on?

Or she really wants the job and the Party bigwigs don't want to hurt her feelings and take it away from her.

Hard to believe that after the results of the 2014 mid-terms, the party bigwigs think she is doing a good job. Cause she isn't.

[jwirr]

41. Who appoints the head of the DNC?

[restorefreedom]

44. supposedly the dnc elects them

but traditionally the president chooses. ws was chosen by pres obama. this and tpp are my two biggest presidential complaints.

[jwirr]

45. Okay, not much we can do about that.

[restorefreedom]

52. i guess if there was enough of an outcry

he could replace her. but sadly i think it will take a dem thrashing in 2016 to get her out. and then it will be too late.

[jwirr]

54. Yes, because her strategy will get us Hillary without the Senate. She already lost us the House

in 2014. And Hillary without the Senate will mean more obstruction and triangulation will not get the kind of people we need in the SCOTUS.

If we want the Senate we need the 50 state effort. And if DWS continues to act this way she is going to push voters away.

Give us a level playing field DWS.

[restorefreedom]

55. you are much more optimistic than i am

i don't think she can win a general, which means a possible r sweep.

[jwirr]

56. Oh, that would not surprise me. There is a reason she is hiding out and giving out a soundbite

every now and then.

[snot]

12. Meanwhile, the herd of GOP candidates are repeating their talking points 5,000 times,

which of course makes them "true."

Yeah, some of them are shooting themselves or each other, but the smart ones are biding their time.

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Not just that. They will also be controlling the framing

Simply having to respond to their lunacy legitimizes it.

[snot]

15. Yes!

[thesquanderer]

19. Yes, good post. Dem debates need to start when Repub debates do.

Non party-aligned voters need to see a rational alternative while they are starting to make up their minds.

[restorefreedom]

28. thx have to send the nod to

the poster at daily kos. made some good points, not the least of which is what you said. People need to see that there's an alternative to the craziness and they need to see it as soon as possible.

[Cosmocat]

21. Look

DNC is generally worthless and no one is going to try to defend DWS.

They SHOULD be schedule, for sure.

What we are seeing is a pull back after the overdone debates in 2012. The Rs were a running train wreck, and even with how many there were in 2008, the democratic candidates were bored with them.

This thing about how the democratic debates will look so awesome compared to the republican debates is a fantasy.

They will be framed by the media like things are always framed - breathless wonderment over the republicans and boredom over the democrats.

Six is plenty ... Anything past that people are tuning them out anyways.

[restorefreedom]

24. its not just the number of them

The first one hasn't even been scheduled yet, the list says August or September, but it says it is a tentative date. There is no venue announced and there's no indication that its even going to happen in August or September. If they want to only have six fine I'm not happy with that but with so few candidates they might only need six but at least announce the freaking dates already and get it over with.

[Cosmocat]

47. oh yeah

its half assed at this point ..

[A Simple Game]

39. What you said.

They will be framed by the media like things are always framed - breathless wonderment over the republicans and boredom over the democrats.

The media may be able to pick out sound bites from individual candidate appearances and spin them, and they may be able to spin parts of a speech to make it sound like they want it to. But the thing with debates is that the television and internet public can view it for themselves and judge for themselves.

As for the number? More is better, many people work shift work, have kids ball games, vacations, etc. the more debates the more likely they can catch one. And what about breaking events? More debates allows the public to hear what the candidates would do in that situation.

Too many debates bore you? Then just don't watch them all, nothing is simpler. Candidates bored with the number of debates? Probably shouldn't be running for President. When it isn't the most exciting job in the world being President is probably the most boring, the practice would be good for them.

[Cosmocat]

48. Six is ample

The media may be able to pick out sound bites from individual candidate appearances and spin them, and they may be able to spin parts of a speech to make it sound like they want it to. But the thing with debates is that the television and internet public can view it for themselves and judge for themselves.

No shit

As for the number? More is better, many people work shift work, have kids ball games, vacations, etc. the more debates the more likely they can catch one. And what about breaking events? More debates allows the public to hear what the candidates would do in that situation.

There is the internet, you tube, DVR, rebroadcasts ... If people really WANT to see the debates, they can see them any time they want pretty much. 6 is plenty for anyone to get all the information they need and to make a decision if they are really that interested in putting that much thought into it.

Too many debates bore you? Then just don't watch them all, nothing is simpler. Candidates bored with the number of debates? Probably shouldn't be running for President. When it isn't the most exciting job in the world being President is probably the most boring, the practice would be good for

So, you didn't actually care to read my post, just went off on your high horse. I didn't say I was bored with them, I said the candidate were by the end, and they were.

[A Simple Game]

50. High horse? I don't even have a pony!

As for the "you" that meant people in general, it's not always about you (scrolling down to see posters name) Cosmocat. But you definitely give the impression, now in two posts, that you wouldn't watch them all if there were more than 6 so the advise seems to include you also.

Where I live not everyone has access to the internet or cable and where there is access and many can't afford it or the download speeds are too slow for streaming. Many only have broadcast TV. The vast majority of this country is rural and this is not uncommon. If a persons only option is broadcast TV then the first Republican debate is not available to them, this could happen with other debates on different networks also. I do have cable but the only broadcast channel that comes in well in my area is CBS.

And if it is possible to watch it after it's air date how many would do that if they have already read or heard the sound bites from the talking heads?

So let's make it personal this time, if there are too many debates for Cosmocat to watch, then don't watch them but let's make as many as possible available for everyone else to have a choice, it's that simple.

[Cosmocat]

57. Jesus christ

This isn't about Cosmocat as much as you want it to be about Cosmocat.

It reaches a point of no return, and in the end debates are only one countless forms of information people can draw from to make a decision - watching other events with the candidates, watching the candidates at events, reading informaton on them from media sources, looking up voting records and other informaton on their policies.

Candidates can better spend their time running their campaigns, going out the states they need to be boots on the ground campaigning, etc.

This world that there are so many people who only have antenna tvs and no internet vs people with internet access is like 1 to 100 ...

Its "that simple," everyone will have ample access to the six debates that will be held, with the six debates being plenty to provide discussion of issues in that format, which is only a PORTION of the overall information people can or will access if they so choose to make a decision.

My last go around on this ...

[A Simple Game]

61. Debates are only one form of information, yes for once we agree.

But the one where the voters can compare candidates to each other, might be the most important. As for the other forms? Reading information on them, voting records and other information are all good ideas.

As for watching candidates at events, and watching candidates in other events... whoa, how many events do you think a person should have to watch? People have better things to do with their time than watch multiple events. These events by the way are showings that are controlled by the candidate and don't give much info into how the candidate may or may not perform under pressure. The losing team in high school football also had a pep rally and that is about all these events are, rah, rah, and talking points.

And if by some chance there are more than 6 debates, make sure you don't watch all of them, you could overdose on too much information. It happens all the time, hospitals are full of victims in election years.

[jwirr]

42. Two points - you talk about the Rs and their train wreck - I don't think any of us care. Then you

say the Democratic candidates were bored with them? Well I really don't care about how they feel about it either. The debates are for us not them. The people of the USA have a right to know what their candidates position is.

You are correct about being framed by the media - once we let the DNC understand that we want a real debate it will be their responsibility to arrange for good media representatives - ones who are actually Democrats. This is our debate why would we want someone like morning joe or chuck Todd as a moderator?

What we need is more debates spread out over the entire primary season and starting now.

[Cosmocat]

49. Six is plenty

DVR, rebroadcasts, you tube ...

99% of the population can see any debate now at any time.

EVERYONE was bored with them by the end the last two cycles, you have a few million viewers by the end.

They should definitely be scheduled, with a reasonable spread relative to the actual primaries.

Rs haven't had one yet, either.

This whole phenomena of mass debates started in the last 10 years, when we have had more access to viewing them than ever.

[MisterP]

46. like a Latin army, their reaction to being contradicted by reality is to get more vocal

in order to seize the rules of how reality's defined, to double down and seize the epistemological high ground

and the more they lose control of how people talk and think and act the angrier they'll get: they've had the levers of power within the party for decades (heck, scratch the surface and the Dems have always been a WalMarty political machine in the absence of any strong personalities or dynasties like the Roosevelts or Kennedies): regular people will hear from us wonks about their primary shenanigans, veal pens, bait-and-switch, chummy bipartisanship, corporatism, and see Sanders as a way to crack that monolith built to keep us normals out, that iron voice that tells us that everything is our fault and they're perfect

[druidity33]

58. I'm not worried...

We're looking at a difference of 2 or 3 weeks. Bernie is gonna kick ass regardless. His dome of white haired frizzy forthrightness will dispel all doubt! Once people get to see him on the same stage as the other debaters they will bow to his unruly locks!



Really though, i'm not sure the timing will matter all that much. I certainly don't think there's some kind of Hillary backed conspiracy here. And of course, there is the clown car derby to entertain us in the meantime...

[restorefreedom]

59. a canoe of calm

in a sea of nerves and angst (including my own)!

yes he will kick ass!

[CrispyQ]

60. The dems have been behind the 8 ball since Reagan dissed the word liberal.

Now so many are on the same gravy train as the repubs, it would surprise me if dem party leadership would prefer a repub prez to a democratic socialist one.