announced candidate. Early bird and all that.

How many included Dennis Kucinich?

The downside to letting the media organize the debates is that they got to chooser who participated. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that having the Party organize them can actually protect the lesser-known candidates.

That should make them worth watching.

and it's absurd to claim that this protects lesser known candidates. How does it make any difference? All it does is give voters LESS exposure to lesser known candidates. Period.

...and let's both admit we have no idea what the rules are. All YOU have is "an advisor" who presumes what they are.

As for the number, that would be a debate about every 1 1/2 months until the start of voting. How many do you want, and how much time do you want your candidate preparing for them as opposed to campaigning.

There were 26 debates in the course of the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Both Kucinich and Gravel participated in 12 of them. There were 3 more in which Kucinich participated but to which Gravel wasn't invited. As the cycle went on, there were debates to which neither was invited although he was still in the race.

Should a debate include anyone who says he or she is a candidate? A debate, especially for the Presidency, could attract so many publicity seekers that the voters would get to hear almost nothing from the serious candidates. Therefore, it's not at all uncommon for a debate sponsor to apply some criteria for participation.

In the 2008 cycle, there was no single set of rules determining who could participate in debates. Some of the debates were organized by the Democratic Party, but most were organized by media outlets, and a few by various NGOs (such as the AFL-CIO, the Yearly Kos Presidential Leadership Forum, and the religious organization Faith in Public Life).

A notable feature of the proposed exclusionary rule for 2016 is that it would impose one Master Control administered by Democratic Party functionaries. At least with the current system there are different criteria. For example, on September 20, 2007 there was a debate in Iowa that was a joint venture between the AARP and Iowa Public Television. One rule for participation, set by the AARP and agreed to by IPTV, was that the candidate must have at least "one paid campaign staff representative" and "a campaign office" in Iowa. Kucinich and Gravel were both excluded on that basis. The next week, however, both participated in a debate at Dartmouth College on MSNBC.

Sources:
* 2007-08 debate calendar
* sponsorships and other details
* criteria for AARP debate

My main objections to the current DNC proposal are:
1) Drastic reduction in the number of debates;
2) Imposition of one uniform set of rules, resulting in the total exclusion of some candidates; and
3) That one set of rules will be written by the DNC, which is clearly biased in favor of Clinton.

It's just naive to say that "we have no idea what the rules are." Would you feel comfortable with a system in which all debate rules were established by polls on DU? I wouldn't blame you for rejecting such an idea out of hand, because it would be turning the rulemaking over to a body that, overall, is supportive of a candidate other than your candidate. Well, some of us react the same way to the prospect of total DNC control of the process.

In most of the debates in 2007-08, the candidates who were perceived as the major contenders were given more opportunity to present their views.

That was a consequence of how the debates were set up. What we call "debates" are more like joint press conferences, in which a moderator or a panel of journalists can exert too much control. It's unfortunate that this has become the standard format. Even aside from the issue of the DNC's proposed restrictions for this cycle, I'd like to see experimentation with formats that would facilitate more actual debate between candidates. (This would be easier to do in a debate with only two contenders.)

Women Voters.

Also since Hillary is well known and the other candidates are not as well known limiting the number of debates does hurt the other candidates by giving them less time to get their message across. Having said that I think Bernie is going to do just fine in getting his word out. He is the talk of the town right now. It is others like O'Malley who is less known who need more debates.

Plus with the kind of corporate media we have sometimes the debates are the only way to get out the message for some candidates. I do not want the MSM to have anymore power than they already have.

and imho they do a far better job than any of the networks.

that is. Six debates is ridiculous.

it's kind of telling that picking the democratic nominee for president is worth what? Six hours of discussion between the candidates.

who stated in Willy T's thread #63 that "I don't agree that this benefits one candidate.....what other debates do you expect them to take part in"

Is this the Sanders Group position on 6 debates?

You are even allowed to have yours. The fact that you didn't even read my post shows me that all you are interested in is using my post to attack another DUer.

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Now you state every person is entitled to their opinion and then say my opinion is an attack one.

How many classifications of opinions are there?

"all you are interested in" How do you know all of my interests?

Now I can conclude that it is your ANGRY opinion stating that I offered an attack rather than an informative opinion.

If you want to respond to what I posted in this thread then respond to my post. If you want to respond to Agschmid then do so here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026626985#post165

Should that be the Sanders Group Mantra or should Bernie supporters have opinions all over map.

To elect Bernie should we be united in our principled goals and agree "less exposure is most likely the goal"

just appoint her. Not sure why you are attacking the Bernie Group.

and by "lesser" I mean "outside the mainstream corporate structure," is included in a debate, they don't get the same questions or the same talk time. They are marginalized right on stage for the entire nation to see.

Any debate that really wanted the public to learn about all the candidates would provide a list of questions that every candidate got to answer, and equal talk time for all.

That doesn't happen.

boring without them.

This time Candidates should simply refuse to participate in those six debates IF that rule stands that they cannot participate in any other debates or they will be banned.

That is ridiculous.

No one is forcing Hillary to participate in other debates, but if O'Malley, Sanders and whoever else enters the race want to debate each other, then they most definitely should not be threatened for doing so.

So, let them have their six debates, WITHOUT the other candidates who will be busy having real debates so the people can hear where they all stand.

I'm not worried about Bernie in ANY debate, or in hundreds of them. Why is the Dem party worried about this?

Yes, that's a ridiculous suggestion. But saying that the DNC has no bias is also a ridiculous suggestion, however don't take it badly we still like you anyway.

Or is that what primaries are for?

1. They want the fewest possible people to hear Bernies message.
2. They want to end the debates before Hillary self destructs.

Having fewer debates furthers these goals

Oh wait, that actually never happened. So I'll ignore #2.

As thing currently stand, it looks like we won't have nearly as many candidates in 2016 as we did in 2008. So it should probably not be a big surprise that they'll have fewer debates. And the debates are not the most critical way a candidate gets their message out anyway. Most of the 2007-2008 debates were forgettable minutes after they ended.

Obama beat Hillary by getting a strong ground game in place in the caucus states. Beating her in Iowa was huge. Bernie is going to need to win a number of the early state primaries. If Hillary kicks his butt in those early states, his support will erode.

First and foremost, the DNC wants a Democrat to be the next President after Obama. Most Democrats want that too.

Which means Bernie and his supporters are going to have to convince other Democrats, particularly those who'd be perfectly happy to elect Clinton, that Bernie would also beat ANY Republican candidate that comes out of their clown car.

All Obama had to do was stand there and shake his head in disgust. It was hers to lose, and she lost it.

I suspect she will have better advise this go round.

Having said that, I think she would have been a better president than Obama. One thing nobody can deny about Hillary, she has guts. She wouldn't have conceded anything to the GOP.

For some one to fall apart, it has to happen earlier. And Hillary has been under almost endless attack for about 25 years. I don't see her collapsing, ever.

As for being a better President than Obama ... moot tangent, and also not likely ... her positions and Obama's positions were almost identical in 2008. We'd have probably stayed in Iraq longer. ACA would be about the same. And the GOP would have been foaming at the mouth either way.

Regardless of all of this ... Bernie's campaign (and supporters) still have the problems I mentioned earlier. And Hillary is not going to ignore the caucus states this time around.

Democrats. But we know they do because they are corrupted by big money.

It was assumed Hillary would be the candidate then, too.

but he simply isn't part of the Democratic machinery.

That said, six debates is six debates. Sanders does well in reasoned debates and is an excellent communicator.

Bernie needs to find a great campaign manager and strategist and work it out.

He clearly isn't serious for that reason alone.

since you cannot register for ANY political party.

I think this has been explained a few times. You can google the secretary of state page for the state and find this out. It's been posted here repeatedly.

What he said, and Vermont does not apply, is that he will file as a democrat in places where you need to register, let's say my state of California. The way the current rules work in my state, they should go the way of Vermont anyway.

By the way, so we are perfectly clear I support no candidate in any primary. Who I vote for is my business. as it should be yours. But when this has been posted repeatedly and it is at the registrar of voters in their FAQ, at this point this is stubbornness.

On the bright side, you are right up there with some national media outlets that cannot be bothered to do that google search either. (Ahem, CNN)

And since I do not expect that google search to be done, here from the FAQ

Do I have to register as a Democrat, Republican, Independent or some other party in Vermont?
No. There is no party registration in Vermont.

All registered voters can vote in the primary election—but can only vote on one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin. Which ballot you chose to vote is private and not recorded (except during the presidential primary, where voters must publicly take one ballot or the other, and their choice is recorded on the entrance checklist).

This isn't about party registration IN VERMONT. Just like Patrick Leahy he can call himself a Democrat. The fact that so many Sanders supporters do not grasp this concept tells me they don't really understand the political system in this country.

and the fact is that he cannot register. What he calls himself is his business not mine. It is also a fact that he intends to register for the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY where required. He is not running a third party plank. He is running in the DEMOCRATIC party.

Those are facts.

As to why Leahy calls himself a D, might have to do with internal reorganization of the parties in VT every two years, also in the SOS website. I found that tidbit interesting, from purely a political science perspective. After all, parties are not supposed to have to do that, this often, in other states.

Now if you think just stating pesky facts is support, well that is your issue, not mine. But I can tell you that anecdotally when a woman who's first language is not English but she can tell you everything on the Morena Party in Mexico and she intends to vote and work for Bernie, should scare you. It is not like my local Spanish media is doing much with the elections...

I have only seen this kind of excitement once (and I admit to having been suckered into it), and that was 2008.

It is early, but politics is the best show on earth... and silly season is guaranteed to be lots of fun here.

edited for clarity

And I am not the least bit "scared" of him running. That canard needs to go into the dust heap.

Nothing about Vermont laws prevents him from "being known as a Democrat" which is what the DNC rules require. We absolutely should NOT set a precedent that allows non-Democrats to enter our primaries. Even for Bernie.

he is RUNNING AS A DEM.

Sorry, that is the way it is.

And by the way, have fun MaggieD, this will be a fun race to watch. Will the little candidate that could beat the money machine that is expected to raise 5 Billion JUST FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL by the time this is all said and done.

For context, that is my County budget for a year, give or take a few million here or there. This is what should be worrying partisans on all sides, not whether you are going to have a progressive, running as a DEM, emphasize this again. who has actually raised that issue.

There is a certain freedom in not being a partisan... and before you ask, No I am not registered in the democratic party. You want to know why? 2009. I expected the President who promised to fight for single payer as a candidate, to do such. Yeah, yeah I get the politics, that does not mean I did not go to the registrar and changed that and became a decline to state voter. (Then there is the harassment here, did not help to make me think happy thoughts about many democrats)

Here is a bigger shocker for you. Let's assume for a second Bernie Sanders does win the presidency and gets sworn in. You know how many changes I expect in foreign policy? ZERO, BUTKUS, NONE. You know how many I expect internally? A few, mostly window dressing. Some red meat for the base.

I vote to remain in practice, not becuase I expect the political system to be responsive. See about those 5 billion. Hell, this crap is now in city council races and mayoral races. People are indeed buying politicians, and I don't have that kind of money. That is what the reality is. I don't expect partisans on either side to understand this.

It is called oligarchy.

So it is the best show on Earth...

But that does not mean I misconstrue facts.

Edited for clarity

He should have no problem changing the designation after his name to (D) from (I) - right? When he does that he will be "running as a dem."

Until then, no, he is not running as a dem. Pretty simple.

And chiefly non partisan. We can read the SOS page and chiefly understand it. Do carry on governor.

And for good reason.

Bernie is not being honest if he claims to be "running as a dem" but continues to advertise himself as independent. If he can't bring himself to call himself a Democrat then he should not be running in the DEMOCRATIC primary. Period.

Perhaps you can enlighten them as to how they are misreading the SOS page.

The DNC just isn't taking Bernie seriously? I don't think I need to take it to the DNC. They already get it.

allowing Bernie to break their own rules. If this was the case you would be hearing it by now, Which tells me, you got nothing and they are not too concerned about breaking rules.

This is not about the OP, but your concerns. And you do think he is breaking the rules

Here is the contact info

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

And here is the home page, with the two candidates on the home page.

http://www.democrats.org/

You should contact them like yesterday... because their home page looks to me like they are taking his words of running as a democrat as a freaking fact, and you MaggieD have a duty as a Democrat to correct this error on their part.

Me, I just report this shit. I find politics to be entertaining as hell, but in the grand scheme of things... I just vote to remain in practice, as I already told you. I expect like zero changes in the large scale regardless of who gets elected, since there are people actually buying politicians.

I do notice that you never addressed that issue. You are in good company, my tea party friends (sources) also never address citizens united either, but the chairman of the local republicans was incensed that limits, GASP I KNOW were put in place for the County Board of Supervisors,. He was not a happy camper, but Kevarik is never a happy camper.

So what is your view that The Hill and a few other observers expect a cool 5 Billion to be spent in the Presidential? For the record I expect at least 20 million for the 53 district of California for the US House. It was $17 last time and it is one of the 10 competitive districts. I find that quite obscene too. But then again, I focus on issues, not politicians.

He can designate his party affiliation as a dem. Period. So let's stop with the "There is no party registration in Vermont" baloney.

Noted

But I am capable of understanding the quirks in the Stare of Vermont. I am sure you will be shocked to learn that the way primaries work right at the moment in my state... they are effectively open.

This is a state quirk. Just because it works one way where you live does not mean it works this way everywhere. The U.S. effectively does not have one national election but State Elections. Each state has it's own rules they are far from uniform.

Moreover why is the DNC not making the same demands you are? Perhaps because they read the SOS site and unlike you, they understood it. After all it is written in plain Englush. What we have though in you is a stubborn partisan that is not understanding, willfully, that party affiliation in VT is separate from party registration. The two actually sort of mix during the general when people actually have to publically declare party so they can be given the proper ballot.

Until that point, as I said, your willful lack of understanding of a fascinating political process is just that, willful. Have an excellent day. And I am not defending a politician, so we are crystal clear. I understand the process.

Not a blessed thing.

https://uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws.pdf

notice what two politicians are ON THE HOME PAGE?

http://www.democrats.org/

Here is the STATEMENT ON THE BANNER:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are officially in the presidential race. If you’re in too, add your name to make sure we elect a Democrat in 2016.

I urge you to contact them.

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

Isn't the complaint that they aren't taking him seriously? I am suggesting they have no reason to take him seriously at this point.

And I am quite sure you will find party bosses in various states not lifting a finger to help him either for the same reason. I support that. He wants to run in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY and be taken seriously? Then he needs to brand himself as a DEMOCRAT. Pretty simple.

he is violating the rules. You should contact them.

This is one of those moments of put up or you know the rest.

I am just a lowly member of the local media, and we cover mostly local politics, We keep our distances from the parties, beyond requesting interviews and credentials. But if you believe that he is not a democrat, he is on the freaking BANNER

I will post once again what the BANNER SAYS and once again give you the proper links.. after all I think this is the evidence you were looking for that he is indeed RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT... or perhaps I got the wrong domain name.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are officially in the presidential race. If you’re in too, add your name to make sure we elect a Democrat in 2016.


http://www.democrats.org/


CONTACT US

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

Read the bylaws. Article 8 section 1.

The very fact that the DNC is not going to get into a pissing contest about it is your very proof they don't take him seriously. Sure, they need more than HRC to have a primary contest, so he is useful. But no one at the DNC thinks Bernie is going anywhere. And you can take that to the bank.

again, here contact info

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

And thanks, but I don't need the contact info for the DNC. I am well acquainted with the proper people.

And obviously you do... I am no democrat, or republican, or Greene, or Libertarian... so I don't play that game. So go ahead, you obviously need it.

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

(And I have yet to see you address 5 Billion, but at this point I should not expect actual partisans to care about silly shit like that)

Trust me, I have no trouble getting them on the phone.

here you go once again



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

... I can only imagine how much political power Dems would hold. SMH.

I am not partisan and run a non partisan news service. So try that with actual partisans.

So once again Maggie. here you go, and will you answer that Citizens United question? Or should I mark you as a non answer like a few of my local tea party sources? They also avoid it like a plague. In their case, given it is a Lincoln Club creature (Orange County to be specific) I get it if it could get a tad embarrassing.


And once again, here contact info

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

.... No difference between Gore and Bush - remember? There was a USSC world of difference. Thanks to the purists that believed that crap we got CU.

At the very least, the people that helped make it happen should not bitch about it. Don't you agree?

I am not playing that game remember? Also, once again, I did not know that California, speaking about naiveté, had a tinkers damn to do with Florida. For the record, Gore took California.



Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2000

again, here contact info

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

You brag that you are NOT a DEMOCRAT. One of us is in the wrong forum, and it's not me.

party in California, the few the fast growing decline to state "party," and there is a saying that as California goes so does the nation.

The TOS also states that as long as I do not advocate for a Republican, Libertarian et al I am clear. I run a non partisan website, We do not advocate for anybody. We just cover what they do and what they say.

But you are still using an excuse

And since you are a democrat and you are complaining that Bernie is breaking the rules, I once again urge you to contact the party. If I was still a Democrat I would, starting with my county chair. We talk to each other from time to time. Getting Kevarik though, our head of the RNC... is like pulling teeth. Like most republicans he will not talk to anybody but very specific press (KOGO anyone?)

And here you go

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

Edited for clarity

Maybe you can stop lecturing me about the DEMOCRATIC party. I can assure you I couldn't care less what you think about a party you are not a member of.

As I have explained to you multiple times. He is useful to the party right now. Best of luck improving your understanding of how the political party system works in this country. You seem to have quite a bit to learn. But keep going - you'll get there eventually if you keep trying to learn.

either you want that precedent gone or you don't... speak about naive.

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

... if they intend to let him run in the DEMOCRATIC primaries without changing his party affiliation. I won't need to contact THEM. They will most certainly be contacting me. They love their big donors.

But let's get back to the subject of the OP. Yes, the DNC favors HRC. No, they aren't doing jack for Bernie except trying to build their mailing list off of him. And there is a reason for that. Apparently you do not want to accept that, but it is reality.

don't give them a dime... he is running as a democrat. It is on their site and everything.

Don't worry, I won't give any money to any candidate... and damn there are a few locally that I wish we could , but we are non partisan, remember that?

So of course you won't donate to any Democrat. I get you -- you're just here to flame the party, not assist it. Duly noted.

he has impressed me in City Council. But we are NON PARTISAN. As old time media we cannot do that.



You tend to assume a lot.

The other is running for a non partisan office... again you tend to assume a lot.

You've made it clear that you are not a Democrat, and do not donate to Democrats. Which makes me wonder why you are here.

TOS

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

I implore you, remove Bernie from the ballot as a democrat, or weak minded naive people will create another 2000 scenario.

In your case, I mean it, no sarcasm needed 

To the rest of the class, as a member of a decline to state, aka independent, you can give money to whoever you want to in the state of California. Hell, as a dem you can give money to a green candidate, republicans, peace and freedom, independent (an actual party) and decline to state. The law does not prevent those donations.

We just don't, since we are truly running a non partisan news service. that tends to concentrate on policy and a tad on local politics. Far more old fashioned journalism than she seems to remember, people like Cronkite finally voted only after they left journalism. And you would never know he was a republican from his reporting. Our goal is that none can tell a bias from our reporting.

The politician in question ran on a non partisan ticket to the city council (in theory they remain non partisan, in practice that is another story) and has been termed out. Instead of running for Mayor, he is running for the state assembly, which is a partisan office. and he happens to be a democrat. I happen to be very impressed with him.

they even say so. And that is a fact that you can spin all you want. But the democratic party is saying he is running as a dem, and so is every political reporter I know, INSIDE and OUTSIDE the beltway. That includes us.

This is a pesky fact you can spin all you want, but you cannot change. Good luck with that.

That should be your first clue. But you go on believing they do if it makes you feel better. LOL!