What the hell is going on with the democratic party debates

[bigdarryl]

No word yet on the first debate

[daleanime]

1. Some times the question....

is the answer.

[arcane1]

2. "Delay and discredit" n/t

[AtomicKitten]

25. In 2007, we had had FIVE debates by this point.

DNC primary debate schedule:

2015:
* Sometime in August/September in Iowa
* Sometime in August/September in New Hampshire
* Sometime in October/November in So. Carolina
* Sometime in November/December in Nevada

2016:
* Sometime in January somewhere
* Sometime in January somewhere

[daybranch]

35. No one could describe it better.

Thank you!

from the riff raff, just another member of the needy class fighting the greedy class.

[virtualobserver]

3. the real question is: why would they want to have a debate? n/t

[mmonk]

70. They don't. They want to run out the clock and control narratives.

But sooner or later, they will have to have one.

[restorefreedom]

4. dws is desperately trying

to stop the clinton freefall by postponing as long as possible. pathetic, really.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. How does postponing the debates help stop Hillary's freefall? She falls a bit more every day, each time she makes a misstep and trips on the issues....

Debating Bernie will only accelerate Hillary's continued decline and eventual withdrawal from the race. As I see things, it's just a matter of time, but the result will be the same.

Go Bernie Go!!!

[CTyankee]

68. I just watched her give a couple of good speeches.

I esp. liked her attack on Jeb's "rise" campaign slogan.

On Kornacki's show, there was a discussion about her fighting back against the NYT and how she's got nothing to lose by going on the offense and "working the refs."
It was an interesting conversation.

[brooklynite]

21. Postponing=waiting until August/September as promised?

Clinton freefall=polling in the high 50s like she has for the past year?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Actually since December 2, 2012

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary


You should ask your interlocutor if he wishes to back up his bravado with a wager.

[brooklynite]

58. Yeah, but then he'd claim I was being a Mitt Romney wannabe...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. You could make the wager in the form of a donation.

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. It's smart to wait until after the ...

Train wreck that will be the gop debates, to even mention Democratic debates.

[cascadiance]

6. Not if we nominate a train wreck without having any debating of the issues...

... and wait too long for people to have heard out our candidates on them and making an intelligent choice on who to represent them rather than just submitting to who they are "told" to have represent them. Americans want to hear who will help them fix the many issues facing us today. They don't want to hear that they have no control over who makes those choices on what to do.

Postponing the debates hurts us rather than helps us. It keeps putting the GOP circus on the front page, and people pay more attention to that than anything the Democratic candidates have to offer now.

[winter is coming]

7. I don't see anything wrong with waiting until after the first GOP debate, but

that's next week and we still haven't set a date. The longer we delay after that, the more people are going to wonder if the Dems don't have any ideas to put out there.

[HooptieWagon]

8. Some Dem candidates have ideas.

It's just one that is mesmerized by a spinning wind vane.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. The people likely to vote Democratic don't give a damn about the gop debates ...

except for laughs. And the people watching the gop debates (other than for entertainment) aren't likely to give a damn about Democratic idea.

[winter is coming]

29. We need the casual Dem voters, not just the die-hards.

And the casual voters are going to wonder why the GOP is putting their candidates out there are we aren't.

[still_one]

11. So you don't believe the Democratic debates will take place in September, and will include Bernie,

Hillary, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee, and they won't discuss the issues? Interesting perspective.

Also, the republicans going first does not hurt us, but just the opposite. What the republicans do in their debate will be brought up in the Democratic debates, and that is why going their going first is an advantage.

However, it is a valid issue that the Democratic party should have a debate schedule by now. The best thing we can do is contact the DNC and express our dissatisfaction that the Democratic debates have not been scheduled yet. That is the only way they will get the message, and get off their asses and do something.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Do you really think the Democrats aren't going to have debates? ...

I'd bet the Democratic debate schedule will be announced within a couple of weeks after the first gop debate.

[still_one]

13. I agree it is to our advantage to go after the first republican debate, however, the Democrats

should really have the debate schedule finalized by now.

[ibegurpard]

9. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Would really prefer not to have any.

[Aerows]

10. Disappointing in her

track record and leadership is an understatement.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. Why do you say that?

[still_one]

18. So are you saying there won't be any debates because Schultz says so? That is definitely what your

implication is, and you know that is bullshit, there will be at least six Democratic debates.

The DNC should be criticized for not having the Democratic debate schedule finalized, and should be contacted, and our displeasure displeasure expressed to them for not having their act together, but everything else is just hyperbole, but if it allows a cathartic experience go with it. A far better approach is to contact the DNC. If enough people do that should motivate them to get off their ass and post the schedule.

[ibegurpard]

44. No I'm saying she doesn't want them

And will drag it out as long as possible to try to benefit Hillary.

[still_one]

62. ok. Personally I do not believe this benefits Hillary. If anything it benefits the other

candidates, especially Bernie because they keep bring it up that a schedule has not been arrived at.

As other mentioned in this thread, that the republcans will have their first debate before the Democrats should offer an advantage to the Democrats in general. However, as you implied that advantage will be erased if too many republican debates occur without a comparable Democratic debate to offset the media coverage.

However, I think at most up to two republican debates may occur before the first Democratic debate. If that doesn't happen, there will be a lot of pressure, especially from the other candidates and supporters to get the debates going

[jwirr]

71. Many of us have been contacting them. Has anyone heard anything back? We have both contacted

the DNC and DWS and neither have bothered to listen. Many of us have indicated our displeasure by refusing to donate to any of the official sites: DNC, DSCC and DCCC. But still no answer. Exactly what do you suggest we do now?

This organization we supposedly all belong to is not answering for whatever reason. DWS managed to run a losing program in 2014 and she is heading that way again.

I see you think this does not benefit Hillary - when you have relatively unknown candidates running against a well known one the debates level the playing field. The longer they stall the debates the better for Hillary.

[bigdarryl]

34. she was on tweety show yesterday he never asked her about debates

[restorefreedom]

12. one article said

The debates could be big opportunities for Clinton’s opponents.

and there's your answer.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. I agree with that statement, but I thought it's been agreed to have at least six debates - there should be more - but it's just a matter of time.

In any case, can there be any doubt that Bernie will shine in the debates?

[restorefreedom]

19. no doubt

The problem is that the dates and venues for these debates haven't even been announced. If you go to the page it says that the first debate will be August or September. But all of the debates have an asterisk next to them and it says that the date is tentative. So they can just keep moving it and pushing it back as long as they want to and Debbie will.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. But why is that necessarily bad? (Not sayin it's good either.)

[elleng]

23. He'll do well and

Martin O'Malley will GLOW!
DWS would rather delay, to cater to hrc's interest, imo.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. Not sure it benefits Hillary to delay. If anything, it looks like she's scared to debate, which, in fact, is true and, thus, hurts her.

[elleng]

26. At least it puts off more direct comparisons with her;

might be all she wants.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Where is this evidence Hillary Clinton is scared to debate...

Where is this evidence Hillary Clinton is scared to debate or do you just throw around calumnies like guests at a wedding throw around rice after the couple takes their vows and departs for their honeymoon?

[jwirr]

72. But by delaying they keep Bernie and O'Malley relatively unknown.

[virtualobserver]

31. This delay hurts Martin O'Malley even more than Bernie

The later that he gets national exposure, the better for Hillary.

[elleng]

32. Yes, Martin O'Malley's hurt every day

by lack of exposure.

[longship]

16. What's the fucking hurry?

Perpetual presidential campaigns give us all exactly what we are getting. We are really, really lucky to have President Obama, a sane President, right now. This especially considering who he replaced.

Why would anybody want a presidential election season to be more than a very few months? (Hell! How about like the UK who regularly does it all in six weeks!) Only in the USA is it any different. It sucks!

It is no wonder the GOP has everything except the White House. We are all patsies to a 24 hour media who feed on continuous political strife. It makes us all stupid!

Relax. Smoke a Jay. Have a martini, or two. Make love with your spouse or your best friend. Go on vacation. Look at the stars at night.

When 2016 hits, then you can start wondering about who's running and who's not, and when the debates might be. The worrying about comes much later, when said events actually matter.

Otherwise folks are just running around with their hair on fire.

[jwirr]

73. If you happen to live in Iowa or New Hampshire it is a little too late if you wait for 2016. Iowa's

primary is in Feb. and New Hampshire is right behind that.

Just curious - does the UK have primaries?

[longship]

74. I don't think there are primaries in UK.

If the PM loses a vote of confidence in Parliament, his government falls and the have a parliamentary election in a matter of weeks. In 1940, with war on the UK doorstep, a new government was formed in 48 hours, putting Churchill in. So sometimes it is done without election.

For a parliamentary election the head of the party that has the most seats becomes PM. When there's no clear winning party, a coalition government is formed.

It isn't perfect, but at least there's not perpetual campaigning, like it is here right now.

I am not a Brit, so I would appreciate corrections if I got it wrong.

My regards.

[delrem]

22. Absent the debates, big money is the sole determiner on the MSM. n/t

[longship]

30. When unlimited money is allowed in campaigns...

...how better to redistribute that money to those at the top than to make campaigns perpetual? The public be damned. They don't vote anyway, especially the Democrats. All the better for the GOP.

We are being played. And I see a line drawn from Citizens United to perpetual campaigns where the campaigning is just another column on the balance sheet. The public be damned.

We are being played.

[jfern]

33. Hillary doesn't want them yet

And the party is doing exactly what she wants.

As of August 19, 2007 in the 2008 primaries, there were already 9 debates. Since none have been scheduled yet, it's pretty likely we'll be at 0 at that date, in 3 weeks.

[Buns_of_Fire]

36. It's taking time for DWS to formulate a proper set of questions:

"Senator Sanders, we have placed a small time bomb under your podium. Render it inoperative. You have three minutes or until it detonates, whichever occurs first. Please explain your steps in detail as you are performing them."

"Governor O'Malley, would you agree or disagree that the plot of Shakespeare's King Lear accurately depicts the ongoing struggle in Rwanda? Please cite dialogue references to prove your point. You have three minutes."

"You, the other guy over there, please explain Einstein's Unified Theory of Relativity as it relates to current government spending levels, in the form of a haiku. You have three minutes."

"Secretary Clinton, are you merely awesome or extremely awesome? Take all the time you need."

[LWolf]

37. That's familiar.

Unfortunately.

[brooklynite]

38. The only thing worse than bad satire is lazy satire...

..Hillary Clinton had no problems with the debates in 2008; she'll have no problems this time.

[Romulox]

39. Um, she lost the nomination. So she had a few problems...

[brooklynite]

57. Not because of her debate skills...

...she ended up getting the same number of votes as Obama did; her mistake was in deciding which States to campaign in.

[Romulox]

59. Not debate skills, per se, but because of people "getting to know her" more generally. Same dynamic

is in play this time.

[Buns_of_Fire]

47. Sorry. I don't reach Maximum Snark until after lunch.

But now you see why I don't darken the doorsteps of ANY of the candidate's "safe rooms" here.

[Buns_of_Fire]

64. Oh, and just so there's no hard feelings...

That wasn't a swipe at Hillary so much as it was a swipe at her BFF Debbie, who I'm convinced will do whatever she can to help one particular Democratic campaign above any others (short of something really blatant like mandating that only candidates whose last names begin with "C" will be allowed to use a microphone).

[brooklynite]

66. And you're convinced based on no evidence at all (other than "we all know" assertions...)?

[Romulox]

40. Hillary's popularity plummets as people get to know her and her positions. So the DNC is stalling. nt

[leftofcool]

41. Really?

That seems odd since she is still leading by double digits in all states. But, you know, polls are meaningless.

[Romulox]

42. Check the latest polls. :( nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Done

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[Romulox]

48. She's losing to Jeb, though. You guys forget Bernie isn't her GE opponent. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Once she summarily dispatches of the Vermont independent she can set her sites on her GOP opponent.

She's losing to Jeb, though.

In one poll and much to your apparent delight.

Once she summarily dispatches of the Vermont independent she can set her sites on her GOP opponent. In order to play for the championship you have to win the playoffs first.

[Romulox]

52. "dispatches"? Bernie is really inside y'alls' heads. nt

[Adrahil]

50. In ONE poll with a bad sample. Don't Panic (tm)

[Romulox]

51. The trend line of her eroding popularity and support is present in virtually every poll. nt

[Adrahil]

54. Yep, and it'll get worse before it gets better.

If you think Bernie won't get smeared by the right wing propaganda machine if he were likely to win, then you're kidding yourself. They will smear him like no tomorrow.

But this poll clearly has a bad sample. Dig into the details. I'm willing to bet that the polls out over the next few days show this as an outlier. Same as the YouGov poll all the Bernie supporters were touting a couple weeks ago that turned out to be an outlier (as some of us pointed out).

[Romulox]

55. Overall, she's as vulnerable as she was in 2008, and perhaps more so in the General Election. nt

[Adrahil]

56. We shall see. I don't think so. nt

[brooklynite]

61. Let's look at that trend line, shall we?

[whatchamacallit]

53. It cracks me up when I hear HRC supporters ask "why would you need more than six?"

Did we suddenly wake up with the collective epiphany we've been doing it wrong, and six is the magic number? Nope. Was there a scientific study establishing the optimal number of debates for voter information saturation? Nope. Is it that fewer debates rob the inevitable one's competition of desperately needed exposure, helping her remain "the only game in town"? yup.

[winter is coming]

63. +1. The upside of all the debates the Dems had during the '08 primary season was that

voters in different states with different primary schedules could catch a debate whenever they tuned into the process. Also, you had time to see a candidate multiple times and do some research or follow them in the news to see if their rhetoric matched their actions.

[fadedrose]

65. Not definite yet

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/guide-to-the-2016-presidential-election/

[Qutzupalotl]

67. Move up the debates. Sign the petition here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128032078

[Gloria]

69. Why interrupt the GOP and Trump? Let that play out

then the enemyy can be targeted via debates that involve rational ideas...

I'm not getting the sense that there isn't any air right now with Trump...is the public clammering for Dem debstes right now? No...the media is full of Trump and GOP insane rhetoric, which is good! It may be useful later on to taint Bush, Rubio, and Walker ...