For DU (and my preferred candidate) the DNC has scheduled too few debates ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

and too late. The DNC has instituted an exclusivity rule, that prevents Democratic candidates from participating in the DNC debates, should they participate in outside debates.

Does ANYONE think that would be enforceable if, both, M.O'M AND Bernie participate in an/several outside event(s)?

Though, I am not troubled by, neither, the number, nor the timing of the DNC debates, I would welcome this move by the two trailing candidates, as bold and forceful ... and far better than complaining about a "rigged system" that they are tying themselves to.

Now ... two points: This would only work if BOTH trailing candidates acted ... the DNC could exclude/punish one of the trailers, but not both, as who would be left to debate? Webb? ... Chaffee? ... who are polling in the single digits?

Secondly, before M.O'M and Bernie pulled that trigger, they could/should significantly increase their odds, if they announced their intentions behind closed doors, prior to announcing their intent publicly, or just doing it. (The reality of success favors allowing for face saving)

[randys1]

1. THey are banned if they do other debates? FUCK THAT, everybody send an email HERE

http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact

And DEMAND these rules be changed and if not insist that you will not be supporting the party.

I mean god fucking dammit, they are going to remove democracy from us under threat that I make all the time that the alternative is so bad you would never risk it?

This is making me furious.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. People writing in would help ...

But I'd rather see the candidates, themselves, get out in front of this ... you know, demonstrate leadership.

[randys1]

5. Oh yeah, I forgot to remark on what you said, I was so pissed.

All of them other than Hillary should form separate debates and that way they can tell the DNC to fuck off and that would force them to change everything.


In this types of issues we need to remember the word "hypocrisy"

Would we be OK with this highly rigged system, and that is what it is, if it was being used against our candidate.

You know me, I prefer Bernie but will work my ass off for Hillary if she is the nom, but above all I want democracy.

No

I demand it

[elleng]

13. Martin O'Malley has done this; the other(s) not so much.

Some of us know who the real leader is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Does that explain the ...

plays well with others (rumors)/Zero peer endorsement (fact)?

[elleng]

26. Something like that probably, Man.

They won't DARE endorse Bernie. At least MO'M has ONE!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Uh ... 16, include sitting TWO Congress folks; but, more relevantly ...

a several politician that served with him in State Offices.

[elleng]

29. OH GOOD! I guess I've missed some!

That's a GOOD NEWS error!!!

[delrem]

49. This guy couldn't even bring himself to agree with O'Malley on the issue.

He has been a good swift-boater, tho' -- so the several months of *that* (and where was he on O'Malley *then*) is now off-loaded.

Be careful about what you wish for.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Imagine that? Someone supporting a candidate, while ...

Not agreeing with their every position! And being willing to say so. I guess I fail the fan test!

[delrem]

62. Considering that it was your OP, yes, I would guess so!

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Ailrghty then ...

Are you saying that because I support M.O'M, I should agree with his every strategic move?

[delrem]

64. It's your OP. You figure it out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. No ... I'll just write you off as wanting to say what you are afraid to say. n/t

[delrem]

67. OK, but I said exactly what I meant to say. And you know it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. I didn't understand what you were attempting to convey, other than a tone of dislike ...

based on your equally cryptic/unintelligable remarks on other threads.

I asked you for clarification ... you declined. I asked again ... you declined.

I no longer care what the hell you meant.

[delrem]

71. OK! That makes me happy!

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Okay! That was easy ...

Say some incomprehensible crap ... refuse to clarify ... when they person you were talking at gives up trying to understand you, you become pleased.

Glad I could contribute to your happiness ... I guess.

[merrily]

54. And leave the official debate to Hillary, Chafee and Webb? Are you kidding?

[seabeyond]

2. i like the number 6. i like 3. not everyone is me. lol. i get that. so double. TOO late, i think

i think we need a couple in sept, .... then spread them out. and why after the primaries begin? we have basically aligned.

[morningfog]

3. Unless the front runner is in the debate, they would be ignored.

If Sanders and O'Malley debated, it would be good for them, as a campaign event. But, unless Hillary graced them with her presence, there would be little to no national coverage. The slight benefit would not be worth the risk. Calling the DNC's "bluff" is not a good idea. It may not be a bluff. I could see DWS holding tight and going forward with Hillary-Chafee-Webb debate. Chafee and Webb would love that as well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Not true ...

But, unless Hillary graced them with her presence, there would be little to no national coverage.

This would gin up MORE coverage ... the media just LOVES internal strife.

Calling the DNC's "bluff" is not a good idea. It may not be a bluff. I could see DWS holding tight ...

I disagree ... While DWS makes the decision, she does not make it alone.

[Fred Sanders]

7. I do not agree, as you implied, that we should purposely stir up internal strife to gain media attention.

[MuseRider]

8. What terms did

Bernie agreed to in order to run as a Democrat? I would imagine there were terms, maybe not? If he agreed to follow the rules set by the DNC then he would probably not do this. I would hope he would not do it.

Otherwise he should go for it and probably would have by now if he had not agreed to terms that would make this not an option for him.

I think this exclusivity rule is a very bad thing and the schedule is also a very bad thing. What are they thinking?

[upaloopa]

9. What would a debate between O'Malley and Sanders

be like? I think they would be only preaching to the choir. Possibly someone would tune in and decide to support one of them after listening to the debate but there certainly would not be much comparing and contrasting going on. The best they could do is give their point of view then tell how it differs from Hillary's.
I just don't see the point.

[morningfog]

12. There would be no point. They would say how their positions are different from HIllary without her

there to counter or respond. And the media would not care a bit that the event took place. It would be pointless for all involved and detrimental to Sanders and O'M should the DNC make good on their threat.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I would look for two distinguish elements ...

both of which are of great importance ... Articulation of Problem and Plans to address them; and, Temperment.

[elleng]

10. Yes, both should act,

Chafee and Webb too. Query: Would networks/cables CARRY the events? So-called frontrunner has sharp elbows, and many act/fail to act according to their perceptions of what she wants.

Bernie has backed away from the suggestion a couple of times recently, so not clear he would participate.

In fact, imo, it's Martin O'Malley the 'big 2' are concerned about, would much prefer he's kept under wraps from We the People.

Your 'trailing candidates' are tied by nature of the system (2 parties) to the 'rigged system,' not necessarily by their affirmative decisions.

[Hiraeth]

11. I am good with six debates. I think our election process/season is too long as it is. However, I

don't understand why there needs to be an exclusivity rule.

[MoveIt]

69. "why there needs to be an exclusivity rule."

Because the last thing the party and the party faithful wants is democracy.

[Armstead]

14. I actually agree with you, and wish Sanders would do that

I'm not privy to the Sanders inner circle strageizing, but my guess is that he's reluctant because he already has to overcome the "Independent outsider" stigma and doing something that openly rebellious would dd to the perception that he's an interloper and "not a real democrat."

The reactions here and elsewhere from those who oppose him would be fairly predictable:: "There he goes. Telling the Democratic Party what to do and refusing to play by the rules. Just proves that he doesn't play well with others, and thinks he knows better than everyone else."

[whatchamacallit]

15. Hmm... my spidey sense is tingling...

Why encourage your preferred candidate to do something that could have repercussions, when you don't even agree with him on the debate issue?

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Because it won't be a risk if both he and Bernie acted in concert ...

and because M.O'M has the most to gain (and the least to lose) from taking the risk.

What? Your "spidey sense" isn't commonsense equipped?

[whatchamacallit]

20. How do you feel M'OM has the most to gain

if you don't believe he's being hurt by the DNC? My spidey sense is common sense equipped, but it's the bullshit detection feature that's lighting up.

[livetohike]

16. Most voters are burned out by Election Day.

If the six debates are all on national tv, I think those are enough.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. That's why I don't have a problem with the number or schedule ...

I am confident that M.O'M will leap forward on October 15th.

[whatchamacallit]

22. Then why the pointless OP?

Why encourage the unnecessary?

[Armstead]

23. Yes, let's just dispense with campaigns altogether

[Warren Stupidity]

24. agree completely. regardless of who you support, this is a horrible debate program.

There should be at least as many Democratic debates as there are Republican. It is free air time for our party. It is a great opportunity to demonstrate to the american people, who seem to keep forgetting this, that our party is the party of responsible reasonable people who want to fix things and make things better for everyone, and their party is a bunch of hate-mongering insane buffoon-clowns who want to wreck things, would like to have a lot more war all the time, and seem obsessed with making america safe for billionaires.

[aikoaiko]

25. I really don't trust the DNC to buckle to that kind of pressure.

It would be handing two ropes to the DNC allow Hillary to debate Chafee and Webb.

Yeah, it could really happen.

[brush]

27. I like this.

It would force the DNC's hand if O'Malley and Bernie debated outside.

Good idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. At which point the peanut gallery will go "See! We told you they're not real Democrats!"

Nice try.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Well Martin O'Malley ...

IS a real, card carrying registered Democrat. But take heart ... my guy will give your guy cover.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I don't have a guy. But at least you admit what you're trying to do, here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. And what would that be ...

other than to point to the unenforceability of the DNC's exclusivity rule?

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a train wreck running the DNC.

But rather than encouraging our candidates to do an end run around her craptastic leadership, we should fix it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. And how do you propose fixing it? ...

DNC leadership is unmotivated/unlikely to step over DWS without a threat to the larger DNC brand.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Pfft. She IS a threat to the larger DNC brand.

Getting rid of her would be an improvement.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Not nessarily ...

Though it would please DU and a segment of non-core Democrats.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Oh, yeah, she's widely beloved.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. I suspect, at least liked, by the DNC leadership ...

But, they would dump her in a heart beat should the large DNC brand be truly threatened (read: by more than angry typing by folks that comprise the non-core of Democrats).

[Warren DeMontague]

40. well I'm sure you fancy yourself an expert on many things.

Like the people you talk with on the intertubes, for starts.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. I only fancy myself an expert in a couple things ...

all of which are the designation on my professional certification.

I give the people I talk to on the intertubes, little to no credence, unless I know them personally, or who are known, and vouched for, by someone I know personally.

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. All I'm saying is, you shouldn't make blanket assumptions about who is or isn't a "core Democrat"

In fact, blanket assumptions are a bad idea in general.

But I've noticed an inordinate amount of focus on Bernie Sanders's supporters (one of which I am not, at least not yet, being still undecided) among some people on DU, in leiu of actual political analysis.

I admit it seems a strange hobby, but I guess people are gonna get their jollies in all sort of ways.

[delrem]

53. It's so blatant it's unreal. n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

57. Would Howard Dean take it after the election?

She won't be fired before then, because of the boon to Bernie. But I thought Dean was good strategically and a plain spoken Yankee on TV. The good Doctor and I disagree on candidates, but I believe he would do the job with integrity and effectively.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

41. Bernie won't and shouldn't give HRC an out for not debating him. n/t

[bigwillq]

52. She's going to debate him six times.

Isn't that enough?

For me it is, and I plan on voting for Bernie.

There's too many debates, imo.


I think too many is overkill.

I wouldn't want more than 10, but I am six is still fine with me.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

56. My point was that if he went with the OP

suggestion, she would have a way to avoid debating Bernie, which would make sense for her, politically.

Given the formatting of contemporary "debates," I would prefer more. Probably not 23 as in 2008, but six is pretty low, historically.

[delrem]

43. Oh dear lord, who exists/doesn't-exist as to your preference.

"my preferred candidate" indeed.

"Though, I am not troubled by, neither, the number, nor the timing of the DNC debates, ..."

yes, right. Could any OP be more disingenuous? Or triple negatives?

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[delrem]

45. You.

[Hiraeth]

48. Ha! yep. Funny man is he. His other OP about the camps gave me a good laugh, too.

[delrem]

50. Yup! He's fooling us all! We're so dumb! n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Clearly, you are talking about me ...

I just have no idea what you were intending to communicate.

[delrem]

59. That's fine. n/t

[BainsBane]

47. They should go for it

Have the League of Women Voters hold a few debates. They can invite Clinton too and she can decide whether or not she wants to participate. My guess is she would. It would also be a good way to wrench the debates away from the parties and have the LWV run them again like they used to, when they were a lot better.

[Andy823]

65. Exactly

I agree with you, invite everyone and I too am willing to bet they all would show up. How could any of them turn down the League of Women Voters? That would be a huge mistake that none of the would be willing to make.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. They'd be thrilled to toss Bernie and/or O'Malley off the stage

Sanders will devastate Clinton in any debates. Scorched earth.

O'Malley will take chunks out of her.

[elleng]

55. Right, that's what they WANT,

reason for the 'restrictions.' O'Malley's presence will result in serious damage to all of the others.

[senz]

68. A little taste of the authoritarianism to come if DWS's candidate wins.

It's not too difficult to suss out how these people operate.

One more reason to get out the vote for Bernie.

[WillyT]

60. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!