Why not end run DWS?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

The exclusivity rule is a bad precedent. Plus we should have more than six debates.

What if a reliable person, e.g. Bill Moyers, simply hand delivered an invitation to debate to HRC, Bernie, MOM, Chafee and Webb? The condition of anonymity in response would hold unless one or none responded positively. In other words, if two or more candidates declined, the results would not be revealed. But if one or none declined, then the results would be revealed and the debate would be held.

If, e.g., only Webb declined, the debate would be held. The DNC could not enforce exclusivity then. This thing reminds me of the way the NCAA abuses student athletes in order to maintain power.

[GoneFishin]

1. Does the League of Womens voters still exist?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

2. Yes, and great idea. n/t

[GoneFishin]

6. When control over the debates was taken over by the Republican/Democratic party the rules

guiding format, questions, etc became a negotiated horse trade between the two parties, and essentially turned the debates into a choreographed stage managed show.

If the Hillary really does want more debates and is not controlling DWS then Hillary would attend some of 6 or so debates hosted by reputable third parties.

It would have to be at least 5 or 6 because if DWS pulled the plug on the others out of protest (considering that she would probably like to have zero) we would still want a robust debate schedule.

[MisterP]

25. it's *ahem* "sponsored"--ie just another way to keep the money circulating in the big fur farm

(we're the anally-electrocuted mink in this case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

[GoneFishin]

27. That Wikipedia entry shows what a screw job the public is getting from those a-holes.

[Babel_17]

50. "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

Yowzah!

[Babel_17]

48. Thanks for the link! (nt)

[mmonk]

9. We, as a nation, should go back to them for debates.

But we, as a nation, are just about totally different now.

[Chan790]

3. Because DWS is an extension of Hillary's arm.

Hillary can say whatever she wants publicly, if she wanted more debates...DWS would give her more debates. She doesn't want more debates so DWS is carrying the water for her and taking the hit...she doesn't care, if Clinton wins (and I still don't think she's even 1% electable. If she's the nominee, we're getting a GOP President. It's game over if she's the Democratic candidate.) she's getting a shiny new job as WH chief-of-staff.

Best case scenario, you'd get a debate without Hillary and Hillary's supporters would scream bloody murder that she was excluded, ignoring that she self-excluded herself.

[HereSince1628]

4. This is a job for the meaning of -IS-!!

The format of presidential debates "is" not -really- debate. They could perhaps do something that "is" not called debate

But in addition to a name, the candidates need the corporate media to cover its "is-ness" under whatever label sticks.

Who knows what sort of an agreement exists between the DNC and the corportate media? Maybe they've already entered into an exclusivity clauses with the DNC.

[Jim Lane]

37. I think the DNC rule covers any joint appearance.

For example, if an environmental group held a teach-in about prospects for the Paris summit on climate change, and the panelists, in addition to various academics, journalists, and activists, included any two of the Dem candidates, that would be deemed a violation of the exclusivity rule.

The exclusivity rule could be busted if all four trailing candidates agreed. They should all show up for an unsanctioned debate. If DWS stood her ground, then the sanctioned debates would be Hillary Clinton press conferences. The four others could go off to multiple debates, each with an empty podium with Clinton's name on it to emphasize that she's dodging them. The problem is that, if even one of the four breaks ranks, then the sanctioned debates would have at least some semblance of debate (even if it's only Clinton versus Webb) and wouldn't be so obviously farcical.

[HereSince1628]

47. Maybe...but all the candidates showed up for the happy IA dems recognition dinner

back in early summer. That wasn't a debate

[djean111]

5. I believe Debbie is now waiting to see how she can kick Bernie off whatever ballots she can. JMO.

I think that all along, Bernie was just accepted by DWS because she figured he would fizzle, but he would instruct his supporters to support Hillary. For Bernie to mess with the debates would be giving Debbie DINO an excuse to overtly try to get rid of him.

[GoneFishin]

7. Agree somewhat. But I think she will pull out all the stops anyway out of desperation.

I don't think that there is any "good will" or "fair play" dynamic happening. Excuse or no excuse, she will throw everything she has at Bernie.

This scam she is running with the debate schedule is proof that she is shameless.

[brooklynite]

8. There are no secrets in politics.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. And I have a bridge for sale...

[KoKo]

10. If all the Dem Candidates could get together with a Debate Sponsor

then they should be allowed to have their own Debate.

I hope this gets pushed forward in the coming days. Thanks for Posting this~

[left-of-center2012]

11. Why not have some "forums"?

Someone could invite Democratic candidates to one or more forums,
where the candidates could sit and discuss topics asked by audience members.

A conversation, not a debate.

[NorthCarolina]

12. Hillary would never agree to any such debate

so the point is moot. She will do the six tightly controlled debates and no more...UNLESS or until such time as the media labels Bernie as the Democratic Party front runner at which time she will scream for more debates.

[SonderWoman]

13. She already agreed for more debates.

[NorthCarolina]

15. Because she knew that

the arrangement behind the scenes made with DWS was rock solid. It was just lip service for public consumption because she knew full well she was safe to do so.

'I would like to see more debates' followed by a wink and a nod to DWS. Pretty transparent really.

[SonderWoman]

16. Care to provide a link to your claim?

Thanks in advance.

[Chemisse]

52. Really? I'm not anti-Hillary,

But this was pretty obvious.

[NorthCarolina]

17. How do you link

to common sense?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

18. ROFLMAO. Good one. n/t

[MADem]

29. You are replying to yourself, you know. And I'd like a link too because that is one helluva

accusation to put forward without an iota of proof behind it.

[morningfog]

23. No she didn't. She gave lip service "open to it."

If she had any integrity, she's join Sanders and O'Malley in non-DNC debates. They said they would, she won't. Because she is afraid and she doesn't speak honestly. The woman is a fraud.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Hillary Clinton has not agreed to more debates. If you think she has can you

provide information as to when those debates have been scheduled?

[SonderWoman]

33. She said so last week.

She's energetically and enthused to have more debates.

[PoliticAverse]

34. So she's "energetically and enthused" but not willing to schedule. Ok then. n/t

[SonderWoman]

38. She doesn't make the schedule.

[PoliticAverse]

39. In other words she's "open" to more debates if the DNC schedules them but if not she won't

do anything on her own to actually have more debates.

[arcane1]

53. She cleverly avoided expressing an actual opinion. Again. n/t

[arcane1]

51. She did no such thing.

[GoneFishin]

14. If every alternative debate opened with a pointed disclaimer that Hillary was invited but declined

to participate then every debate she skipped would cost her. Bernie's and Martin O'Malley's messages stand on their own. They don't need drama or conflict to be understood.

The exclusivity clause is a bully tactic. I think the others should have taken a tough stand against it.

[PoliticAverse]

28. It's been done before: "President Carter chose not to participate"

When Jimmy Carter refused to participate in a presidential debate with Reagan and Anderson.

[MADem]

31. Ooops. !!

Was that before or after George Will used Jimmy Carter's stolen briefing book to prep Reagan?

So much for debates being 'free-wheeling' expressions of anything.

[Chan790]

36. I feel compelled to point out that it worked terribly for Carter.

I would strongly suggest Hillary not follow his lead in this.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

19. If she declined, simply have the debate

as set forth in the OP. The DNC would then either have to renege on exclusivity or cancel all the debates.

[Lucky Luciano]

21. This only works if the media covers these debates like dnc sponsored debates.

That the media would do that is debatable.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

22. If we hold it, they will come.

I have never seen the media boycott a presidential debate, have you?

[MADem]

32. Yes, actually--and recently, too.

The fall campaign always clashes with two other popular American pastimes—baseball and the new TV season—and politics, even the presidential debates, doesn’t always win out for air time. In past years, contractual obligations have required networks to broadcast baseball playoff games instead of the debates. In 2000, many NBC stations aired baseball in place of two of the three debates, and Fox even chose to bypass a debate in order to air the premier of “Dark Angel,” a science fiction series co-created by director James Cameron and starring Jessica Alba.


http://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-u-s-presidential-debates

[Admiral Loinpresser]

35. You cited contractual conflicts not boycotts. n/t

[MADem]

44. Parse away. The airing of Dark Angel was clearly a choice. The end result is the same.

[pangaia]

54. I find baseball considerably more interesting than political "debates."

[Babel_17]

49. Never been a boycott

Even when some have declined as it would have meant losing money/breaking a contract, there were others to pick up the slack. So, no, Americans never had "the media" deny them the ability to view a presidential debate.

[NobodyHere]

24. The candidates probably don't want to create division w/in the party.

The media would love it though.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. There is almost unanymity regarding more debates. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

40. Have Chafee and Webb called for more debates? n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

41. Even if they did, no one would notice. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

43. You're one of those anti-metric-system people, aren't ya? n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. LOL. I firmly believe

the world would be a better place if all speed measurements were made in furlongs-per-fortnight!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

42. I imagine Chafee would participate.

I have no idea what Jim Webb is doing other than hanging around to be VP.

[Babel_17]

46. So both Sanders and O'Malley can't be on camera together on CNN?

What if one is in another studio? This isn't totally hypothetical, the media will want as close to real time as they can get from the candidates.

"Can you hold on, Senator Sanders, Governor O'Malley is posing a question for both you and Secretary Clinton in an address he's giving."

"Good speech Governor O'Malley, Senator Sanders had this to say ..."

"Well, Senator Sanders, your thoughts on that?"

Depending on the rules as seen by DWS, they instead might have to refuse to be on camera at the same time. And it's not like there won't be demand to hear from the candidates riffing off each other.

Dear DNC, expect to reap the harvest of your mishandling of the debate schedule. This is going to look bad for our party. "Why are the Democrats hiding their candidates away?"

On the other hand, maybe the Republicans won't sink so low as to suggest that. Or if they do, maybe the media will do a good job of refereeing, and point out all the nuance to the situation. lol