Sanders: "I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible"

[HTFOff]

Democratic presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders are not happy with the Democratic National Committee after it announced its schedule for the six presidential debates the party will host between this fall and early next year. The DNC announced in May that it would hold only six debates, a decision the underdog candidates have been protesting for months.

On Thursday, the DNC released new details about the plans for its six debates. CNN will host the first debate, slated for October 13 in Nevada, one of the four early nominating states. Next up, CBS News, The Des Moines Register, and KCCI will team up to host a debate in Des Moines, Iowa, on November 14. That will be followed by an ABC News/WMUR hosted debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, on December 19.

NBC News will host the final sanctioned debate before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, scheduled for January 17 in Charleston, South Carolina, another early state. The event will be co-sponsored by Congressional Black Caucus Institute. Following the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, Univision and The Washington Post will host a debate in Miami, Florida, sometime in February or March. And PBS will host one in Wisconsin during those two months as well.
The Democratic State Parties in each state will serve as co-hosts for debates in their states as well.

“These six debates will not only give caucus goers and primary voters ample opportunity to hear from our candidates about their vision for our country’s future, they will highlight the clear contrast between the values of the Democratic Party which is focused on strengthening the middle class versus Republicans,” said DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Schultz said candidates have to reach at least 1% in three national polls in the six weeks leading up to a debate, which could be a challenge for former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, who has failed to reach that threshold in some polls, and possibly other candidates as well.

The debates process has been controversial since the DNC announced several months ago that it would sanction only six debates, down from the roughly two dozen held in 2008. And the party will penalize candidates who participate in unsanctioned events. Underdogs O’Malley and Sanders want more chances to face off against Hillary Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-announce-debate-lineup-south-carolina-nevada

6 debates huh. Adorable. That's down from 26 in 08'? So cut the debates by 75% so we can give ol' email guru as little resistance as possible, chicanery be damned. It seems the primary debates for team blue are just a formality at this point. Filthy rich, white, entitled, hilariously arrogant and corrupt and of course, old. The quintessential republican. :sneaky:

 

[nageov3t]

6 is actually more than the number of debates the DNC held in '08 (they scheduled 6, but ended up canceling the last one).

the difference now is that the candidates are barred from attending unsanctioned debates... the problem is that it was becoming a debate arms race, where every special interest group had to have their own debates, and candidates not attending was seen as a snub.

6 may be too few, but 26 was far, far too many.

 

[cabri]

Less debates, less chance for the anointed to slip up or be held up to the spot light.

 

[HTFOff]

6 may be too few,

May? Stop. It's a joke.

 

[Genx87]

Surprised they even bothered to schedule 6. Who needs to debate ideas in the party of ideas?

 

[nageov3t]

May? Stop. It's a joke.

how much do they really need to discuss the like 3 things they disagree on anyways?

 

[Tombstone1881]

It is the Republicans who held 26 debates, not the democrats.

The republicans want far fewer debates this time around, as they believe (falsely) that it will prevent them from looking so much like the idiots they are.

Republicans never have any ideas on how to govern, and the fewer the debates, the more they can get away with that little weakness of theirs.

Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...
Unfortunately for the republicans, they won't be able to keep totally silent, but the more the RNC can keep their candidates mouths shut, the better for them.

 

[HTFOff]

how much do they really need to discuss the like 3 things they disagree on anyways?

You're kidding right?

It's about exposure and answering tough, poignant questions in front of the cameras. There is a socialist and a plutocrat on top the polls for christ's sake. I'm sure there are relevant questions to be asked by journalism majors.

It is the Republicans who held 26 debates, not the democrats.

All told, there were 26 debates (D) candidates participated in in 08'.

 

[werepossum]

how much do they really need to discuss the like 3 things they disagree on anyways?

lol +1

It is the Republicans who held 26 debates, not the democrats.

The republicans want far fewer debates this time around, as they believe (falsely) that it will prevent them from looking so much like the idiots they are.

Republicans never have any ideas on how to govern, and the fewer the debates, the more they can get away with that little weakness of theirs.

Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt...
Unfortunately for the republicans, they won't be able to keep totally silent, but the more the RNC can keep their candidates mouths shut, the better for them.

Oddly enough, the one Presidential candidate going out of the way to remain silent and especially unquestioned is the Hildabeast. Odd that didn't work its way into your screed, eh?

You're kidding right?

It's about exposure and answering tough, poignant questions in front of the cameras. There is a socialist and a plutocrat on top the polls for christ's sake. I'm sure there are relevant questions to be asked by journalism majors.

All told, there were 26 debates (D) candidates participated in in 08'.

I can't really remember the last time a tough, poignant question was asked and relevantly answered in a Presidential debate. Debates are little more than beauty contests where moderators try to cast their favorites in the most flattering light and everyone tries to avoid anything that will cost him or her votes. The way to properly select a candidate is to look at what they have done before beginning to run; everything in the election cycle, including debates, is what each candidate believes will get himself or herself into power.

 

[Sonikku]

6 debates just for the Primary isn't nearly enough? How the hell did we ever get by in the past? I miss when the election cycle wasn't one and a half years long, had billions of dollars invested, countless debates, and we still managed to have more sane and less nutty and extreme candidates. *sigh*

 

[smackababy]

I agree. 6 isn't nearly enough for me to be amazed at how many questions aren't actually answered.

I wish I was a moderator. I'd score it and penalize every candidate for each question they don't actually answer.

 

[sandorski]

How many Dem Candidates are there? I could see needing more than 6 if the field of candidates was as vast as the Rep selection. However, if it's just a handful(I'm only awareish of 3) of Candidates 6 Debates should cover every conceivable issue. Hell, I'd go as far to say that 6 is already too many.

This isn't the 19th Century where National TV or the Internet didn't exist, after all.

 

[pete6032]

You're kidding right?

It's about exposure and answering tough, poignant questions in front of the cameras. There is a socialist and a plutocrat on top the polls for christ's sake. I'm sure there are relevant questions to be asked by journalism majors.




All told, there were 26 debates (D) candidates participated in in 08'.

Most of the debates do not feature tough, poignant questions. That's the real problem.

Watching last night's debate should be sufficient evidence that these debates are not worthwhile in their current form.

 

[werepossum]

I agree. 6 isn't nearly enough for me to be amazed at how many questions aren't actually answered.

I wish I was a moderator. I'd score it and penalize every candidate for each question they don't actually answer.

lol Good evening everyone. Before I begin the debate, I'd like to draw your attention to a small format change. I have installed a powerful electric coil in each of your seats. You may answer each question any way you wish, but if you choose to answer some other question, I am going to light up your asses.

Governor Perry, I will make allowances if you honestly cannot remember exactly what it is that you are promising to do.

 

[sportage]

I'd LOVE to see Sanders debate Trump or Jeb or Rubio, but I expect it will be Hillary doing all the debating.
How about a debate with the top three republicans and the top three democrats.
Or the top two.
Or Bill and Hillary vs three republicans.

Why do we need to wait until it boils down to the final two, the republican vs the democrat?
Three democrats, and three republicans. That would be something completely different.
MSNBC? FOX? R U listening???

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The republicans want far fewer debates this time around, as they believe (falsely) that it will prevent them from looking so much like the idiots they are.

The Republicans would probably be better off having zero debates.

Oddly enough, the one Presidential candidate going out of the way to remain silent and especially unquestioned is the Hildabeast.

She seems to know what she's doing. If Bernie is going to slay the Hildabeast, he and his fans are going to need the power of the Internet.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'd LOVE to see Sanders debate Trump or Jeb or Rubio, but I expect it will be Hillary doing all the debating.

Sanders would happily take you up on that, but the DNC has forbid candidates from participating in non-DNC sanctioned official debates. That is just nuts! (The establishment DNC desperately wants Hillary to win the nomination.)

 

[Moonbeam]

I propose that the progies, I hope I spelled that right, take over the government and the nationalize the media such that the only thing you can watch on TV or listen to on radio is unending, commercial free broadcast of news, cultural and artistic endeavors, science and environmental programming, interviews with world thinkers like TED programming, and political debates followed by psychological deconstruction for brainwashing and psychological manipulation of the speakers by independents. There will also be interviews of ordinary people broadcast during legislative sessions of congress that a quorum will have to watch before voting on legislation. Private contributions to elections will be illegal.

 

[trenchfoot]

I propose that the progies, I hope I spelled that right, take over the government and the nationalize the media such that the only thing you can watch on TV or listen to on radio is unending, commercial free broadcast of news, cultural and artistic endeavors, science and environmental programming, interviews with world thinkers like TED programming, and political debates followed by psychological deconstruction for brainwashing and psychological manipulation of the speakers by independents. There will also be interviews of ordinary people broadcast during legislative sessions of congress that a quorum will have to watch before voting on legislation. Private contributions to elections will be illegal.

That sounds like about the easiest way to get rid of every Tea Party Repub in Congress.

Now, what to do about those gerrymandered bastards that are "dug in deeper than a Alabama tick". They're the very ones that are obstructing gov't totally without risk of losing their seats. They're the political jihadists that miraculously come back from the dead every time they blow themselves up in the name of their party. 😉

 

[feralkid]

You're kidding right?

It's about exposure and answering tough, poignant questions in front of the cameras.

I don't think "poignant" means what you think it does.

 

[Ken g6]

I don't think "poignant" means what you think it does.

I think he means "pointed".

 

[Moonbeam]

I think he means "pointed".

I think he means mentally interesting, as in poignant.