Obama refused to debate Clinton after mid-April in 2008.

[moriah]

The last debate for 2016, April 25th, is later than any dates Obama accepted, despite still having 692 pledged delegates left to vote after the last debate
and only having a 120ish delegate lead.

Once NC and PA had voted, he flatly refused any more debates.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/nc-debate-officially-cancelled/?_r=0

https://usaonlinetoday.com/the-sanders-clinton-debate-flap-explained/

If Bernie wants to pay Trump the $10 million for a debate between the two, more power to him, but the reason Hillary isn't debating anymore is because she doesn't need to. Neither did Obama.

I must say it's amazingly ironic how Bernie is using nearly every one of Hillary's desperate talking points as she was losing in 08.

[Matt_in_STL]

1. Is Hillary Obama? Did Obama lie about having a debate?

She lied to get what she wanted. Can't spin that.

[moriah]

6. Explain where she "lied", because my Google-Fu isn't helping on that.

There were more debates added to the schedule, but Faux offered to host said debate, and not that long ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-fox-debate-california/

If disagreeing about forums and dates is "lying", then Obama "lied" when they couldn't work out a good schedule for a NC debate.

[Matt_in_STL]

7. She isn't disagreeing about the forum

She has said she flat out refuses to debate, regardless of the venue or date/time. She lied to get the NH debate. Should have been expected though, she couldn't tell the truth if she wanted.

[highprincipleswork]

30. Could it be this? Link included.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-debates-michigan-california-218691

Yes, to get to do Michigan she agreed to California. I guess it's all just what's expedient. That's why she has the numbers she has in terms of being trustworthy.

[Segami]

56. Aaaah,....errrrr,....uuuum,....Ooops!

[JimDandy]

8. And they had debated 26 times by this date in May 2008!!!

[moriah]

13. You mean by April, the last debate, but true.

A lot of the ways procedurally this primary has turned out smell of overreaction and overcompensating for perceived 2008 problems.

Fighting the last war isn't the best strategy.

[Matt_in_STL]

14. And honestly, if it was just her not wanting to debate, no problem

But she promised and I expect promises to be kept. She's earning that 19% honesty rating.

[moriah]

29. I still would appreciate a link to a "promise" vs an agreement like the 2008 NC debate.

It was one of those scheduling/hosting questions -- Obama wanted an earlier date, but it coincided with Passover. Clinton proposed a later date, which he rejected because of scheduling and probably polling results indicating he didn't need the debate to win. And he refused a May debate. They also had only six 1-on-1s.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/nc-debate-officially-cancelled/

Earlier articles indicated a planned date for California this year for May 24th, but Faux only offered to host it "late last week".

This definitely stinks of poor planning somewhere. Was Faux really the only network that wanted to host?

[Matt_in_STL]

33. Hillary agreed to 3 more debates, as long as she got a NH debate

She was give my the NH debate and the first two debates were held. She refuses to schedule the third, going back on her agreement.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/03/media/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-debate/

[moriah]

34. Okay, but why was, if the debate was to be May 24th, did...

... only one network, Fox, offer to host it, and less than two weeks before?

Something stinks here.

[Matt_in_STL]

38. Nothing stinks, Bernie would work with her to come to a compromise

She refuses to debate. And the short notice is not anything sneaky. She agreed to debate before the California primary - she knew a debate was yet to be held. Other debates have been held with equally short notice (i.e. NH where she lied to get what she wanted).

[scscholar]

44. But did that promise include a statement if there was still a primary?

It's over so there's no need for another debate.

[Matt_in_STL]

46. There was no condition set like that

She agreed to the debate. Either she lied about it then or she is going back on her word now. Either way, it just continues to show a lack of integrity and a disdain for anyone who tries to hold her to her word.

[SFnomad]

15. They also started debating 6 months earlier in 2008.

By the time they started debating in 2016, they had already had 13 debates in 2008. I honestly don't understand why they have so many debates and start so early. It gets to the point where you're not going to learn very much new ... all you're really looking for is a Rick Perry "Ooops" moment where a candidate really screws up.

[thesquanderer]

17. Also, the contests started sooner. Iowa was Jan 3 that year instead of Feb 1.

So in that sense, we're as many months into the contest today as they were a month earlier in 2008.

In 2008, the last debate was April 16. Based on the start of the voting in Iowa, that corresponds to mid May this year.

[JimDandy]

25. That was the last debate date in 2016 also--1.5 months earlier

than during the comparable time in 2008's election season.

[JimDandy]

18. I firmly believe Trump got traction because DWS and Clinton wouldn't allow any Dem debates

in order to quash the public's exposure to Bernie. America has suffered from that decision. It ceded all media attention to the Republicans and the media then became enamored with that party's highly entertaining shitshow.

2008 may have had too many debates and started them too early, but 2016 had way too few, and way too late. And Democrats, specifically, suffered from that decision because Trump grabbed a large share of the disaffected Independents, which depressed voter turnout for Dems.

[SFnomad]

20. We had 5 debates that started more than 3 months before the Iowa Caucuses

there is NO need to have more debates or have them ANY earlier. It's the job of the candidate to get themselves exposure, it's not the DNC's job to do that for them. The debates are there to give you us an ability to do apples to apples comparisons of the candidates ... if that can't be done in 3 months and 5 debates, there is something VERY, VERY wrong.

I bet you when it comes to the 2020 election, that the Republicans will cut the number of debates and start them later. They've now twice had it turn into a circus of epic proportions. I've also heard rumblings that they may have a lot more closed primaries next time around.

[JimDandy]

32. That is way too few and they must occur simultaneously with the Repubs

or Dems will continue to get low voter turnout.

Closed primaries and late and fewer debates by the Democrats and Republicans in 2020 will undoubtedly be to the advantage of the newest US political party, the United Progressive Party, which is expecting to be the first major 3rd party that will be truly competive with both of them.

[SFnomad]

35. Ok, if you think so ... but I doubt it n/t

[moriah]

36. As I said, much of this primary process seems like overcorrection of 2008.

Maybe we'll figure out a really Democratic process before the next time both parties have active primaries.

[slipslidingaway]

58. +1 nt

[pnwmom]

61. She never confirmed any arrangements for a debate. She merely said she would

consider one in California.

And it would have been obvious that she would never say yes to one on Faux news, where no Democrat has debated for 12 years.

[MADem]

2. Some people get special consideration.

And Trump's people told CBS that he was "only kidding" when he proposed that debate.

What was sad is that Sanders was so gullible that he took that con man Trump at his snarking and conditional word. You'd think he'd have a touch more sophistication but his eagerness overcame his judgment.

[thesquanderer]

16. Not gullible. He smartly used it to try to pressure him to actually going through with it. (n/t)

[MADem]

19. The eager "Game on" tweet made it clear BS wanted it more than Trump did.

Donald's people were telling everyone early on that this was just "Trump being Trump" and not for real. Political theatre, as it were.

If you think he'll rock back on his heels and suddenly make like he's on the defensive, re-think that. Donald will tell anyone who doesn't like what he's saying to pound sand and then he will laugh at them, and call them a loser.

And the press won't call him on it, they'll cover him--because he's a train wreck, like an adult Honey Boo Boo being all "outrageous" and tolerated, when he deserves to have his TV privileges taken away, his video console unplugged, and sent to his room with no dessert.

[thesquanderer]

21. No doubt Bernie wants it more than Trump.

In fact, the whole exchange began when Jimmy Kimmel passed along Bernie's request for a debate. So it's no secret that this is something Bernie wanted and initiated.

[MADem]

26. Trump is certainly an asshole, and a goader/baiter.

But he didn't miss a trick when he picked up that ball and ran with it.

He was playing the Sanders camp like a fiddle; and using the entire interview for laughs. He got a large and long platform, too, because the musical entertainment bowed out as they didn't want to associate themselves with Trump even tangentially.

Kimmel had to come up with another one of those (admittedly hilarious) Trump Children's Books to fill the time. Kimmel asked some pretty pointed questions, but he asked them in such a pleasant fashion that Trump had no trouble deflecting them.

[morningfog]

23. Laughable assessment. Bernie simply said

He'd do it.

[MADem]

31. No...he said "Game on" right out of the gate. He telegraphed eagerness for the exchange.

He was proposing venues - that's not "Eh, I'll do it."



Bernie SandersVerified account
?@BernieSanders
Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/735689625407131648


https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/735915713404260352

[morningfog]

43. Lol. He's taunting him and calling his bluff.

Bernie has nothing to lose. It's all win for him. Trumpy either debates him and gets his ass handed to him. Or he backs out like Hillary and looks like a coward.

[MADem]

50. You do know that's not how Trump will play it. You have to know this.

I can almost hear the mocking tone:

"What, did he think I would SERIOUSLY debate a LOOOOOO-SAH? Like I would go to the TREMENDOUS effort to prepare for a debate--not that it would take much work (imperious wave of short fingered hand) to put that LOOOOOO-SAH in his place!! Donald Trump doesn't debate LOOOOOO-sahs! That's why I won't do ANY debates--because I am a WINNER!"

Or words to that effect....it doesn't really matter, the quality of bullshit will be on those lines.

And he'll probably try to use the same argument to avoid debating HRC in the general.

[Number23]

64. Thanks for showing that, MADem. That is just beyond desperate and embarassing. Trump made a fool

out of Sanders on this.

[tazkcmo]

3. Thank you for this.

I won't vote for him either.

[moriah]

11. Won't vote for Trump? Yay!

Seriously, that's my only "purity test". I have my own opinions about our candidates and everyone is entitled to theirs, but just as long as no one is pulling the lever for Trump, I am happy.

[tazkcmo]

12. O.K.

Not Trump or Obama. Or Clinton.

[AzDar]

37. ...

[geek tragedy]

4. What goes around comes around nt

[timmymoff]

28. Once a PUMA

[Luminous Animal]

5. He's not asking Bernie for 10 million. Jeesh. Trump claims the network will raise that much in

revenue and should donate it to charity.

“I’d love to debate Bernie, he’s a dream," Trump said to reporters Thursday in Bismarck, N.D. But, he added, the debate would not come cheap: “I’d love to debate Bernie, but they have to pay a lot of money for it."

How much is a lot? "Something over $10 million," Trump responded. The money raised would come from the TV networks profiting off the ratings.

“If we can raise for maybe women’s health issues or something, if we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity," Trump said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/26/clintons-nightmare-trump-and-sanders-say-they-might-debate/84963488/

[moriah]

9. Either way, more power to him.

But Hillary doesn't need more debates to win. Honestly, if they do find a forum and date quickly for a pre June 7 debate, Bernie could end up being the one to regret it. I don't dislike Bernie, but when he focuses too hard on his easiest issues and Hillary starts demonstrating her extensive knowledge of, among other things, foreign policy...

[MADem]

39. On Kimmel, he said Bernie would have to pay him.

Later, he shifted it around and the number of millions got larger.

Here's the precise exchange:

"Hillary Clinton backed out of an agreement to debate me in California before the June 7 primary," Kimmel asked on Sanders' behalf, imitating Sanders' voice for part of the question. "Are you prepared to debate the major issues facing our largest state and our country before the California primary? Yes or no?"

Trump responded, "Yes, I am. How much is he going to pay me?" Kimmel said, "You would do it for a price? What would the price be?"

The next day, he told media he'd do it for money from the networks to charity, but all the while his own people were telling the very same networks that he was only kidding:

On Thursday morning, the Trump campaign had told CBS News it wasn't a serious idea and wouldn't be happening -- Trump was just joking.

Typical Trump being Trump--chain-jerking and using the media for free publicity....and of course, they accommodate him. While he was coyly suggesting to the media that he might do it, his own staff were putting the ka-bash on the idea. And will Trump be excoriated for his duplicity? No--because for some reason, he can lie his ass off and always get a pass, because he's .... "colorful."

His primary objection, however, is Sanders' dim nomination prospects.

"The biggest problem I have is that Bernie's not going to win," Trump said, referring to the fact that Sanders trails Clinton by so much at this point that it's close to impossible for him to win the nomination.

"I'd debate him anyway if they want to put up the money," he shrugged. "We've actually had a couple of calls from the networks already."

These excerpts are found here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-donald-trump-debate-bernie-sanders/

[Luminous Animal]

52. Left off the last part. TYPICAL.

Citing the high ratings he forecast for whatever network carried the hypothetical debate, Trump said he would if the proceeds could be given to "some worthy charity" -- he counter-offered, "If he (Sanders) paid a nice sum toward a charity, I would love to do that."

"What if the network put up the money...?" Kimmel asked. "That could happen also," Trump replied.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-donald-trump-debate-bernie-sanders/

[MADem]

57. I provided you with the link--as it was, I was over the 4 paragraph limit.

You obviously found it, like you think the pronouncements of Trump actually MATTER.

That is what is amusing about this--that you're taking it seriously.

This is theatre--bad theatre.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Of course. Because you don't know how to use your own words.

[smiley]

10. Hillary is definitely no Obama.

And she still has desperate talking points.

[morningfog]

22. Obama didn't renege on an agreement.

[Joob]

24. Debates!! We need Lots of Debates!! Always! Democracy is about debates!

I don't see why anyone would not want to debate for the American people, especially for the most important job in the world!!!
Americans deserve as many debates as possible and it should be about issues!!!

I understand there's people who think there's no advantage for "Hillary" or some here say that. But that's false!! If Hillary is the right candidate showcasing it in front of the American people over other candidates is clearly ALWAYS the best advantage!

Debates debates debates! There really is no reason you can't debate for this job as much as it takes to prove you're the best!

[bjo59]

27. All I know is that no one made Clinton agree to debate Sanders 4 more times after

in exchange for him agreeing to debate her in New Hampshire and that she reneged on her commitment. That is all I need to know about the debate issue. She broke her commitment without even an apology.

[JimDandy]

40. + 1

[reddread]

41. after how many debates?

[moriah]

42. Four one-on-ones and a town hall, along with all the others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008

This time there have been five one on ones and at least one just Bernie/Hillary town hall, along with several other interviews back to back.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

[jillan]

45. So? Is Hillary Obama?

[moriah]

48. No, but the strategy reversal is rather intriguing from either side of GD Pee, I should think. Nt

[jillan]

49. She agreed to the debate when more debates were added to the schedule I believe in New Hampshire.

She backed out of an agreement.
President Obama did not do that.

[Todays_Illusion]

47. She can't afford another debate they make her numbers shrink.

[pnwmom]

63. Oh, right. Like that Brooklyn debate really hurt her 15 point win in NY. n/t

[Todays_Illusion]

66. I wouldn't mention NY if talking about the HC campaign.

[pnwmom]

67. Yes, it must pain you. Bernie was so sure that he was the real NYer,

after he left it 50 years earlier and never looked back.

[Todays_Illusion]

69. It is a pain to remember when we only accused Republicans of voter registration stripping.

[bigwillq]

54. There was enough debates, now and then, during the DEM primary

There was really no need for more between the DEMs in 08, and no need for anymore between the DEMs in 16.

[Baobab]

55. Drama Queen

Now I understand Obama... interacting with Hillary is a real ordeal.

[Vote2016]

59. Obama didn't break a prior agreement to debate - big difference, don't you think?

[pnwmom]

62. Please show me the precise promise that she broke. All I remember is her saying

she would consider one in CA, depending on negotiations.

[Mnpaul]

65. She agreed to the debate

and DWS confirmed it

The candidates have also agreed to participate in three newly scheduled DNC sanctioned debates to be held in addition to the February 11th PBS News Hour, and March 9th Univision debates already planned. The first of these new debates is confirmed to take place in Flint, Michigan on March 6th, with the remaining two taking place in April and May with times and locations to be determined.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/24/hillary_clinton_declines_bernie_sanders_california_debate_proposal.html

[riversedge]

68. Hillary learns well.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Hillary in April 2008. This is what your candidate honestly believes, according to her....

“Honestly, I just believe this is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere."

Why lay it on like that then if it's just politics? And if it is just politics, why is there always a special rule book for Bernie? Hillary did it, but if Bernie does it it's scandal, horrible, unthinkable.

I do wonder why that is so often the case here on DU......