Bernie Sanders And Martin O’Malley Should BREAK DNC Exclusion Rule, Do Unsanctioned Debates

[Segami]

As a proud Wellstone Democrat, I have been pushed to my limit this election cycle with how top-down the Democratic Party nomination process has been. The deck has been stacked in one of the most un-democratic tilting of the playing fields that I can remember and it is a potential disaster for our entire party. While there are many ways in which the establishment is fixing this contest, today I will only be discussing the rigged debate process. 8 years ago, debates started in April and there were over two dozen of them. This cycle, only 6 were scheduled, and they started so late into the season that it allowed the insider with the strongest name recognition and political machine to consolidate their early lead by depriving Democrats (and prospective Dems) the opportunity to get adequate exposure to each of the candidates. It’s the same reason a certain someone skipped Netroots Nation, the BET Presidential forum on Racial Justice, and the Moveon.Org online forum on Tuesday.


To add insult to injury, the few debates that were scheduled before the first contest (Iowa Caucus) were hid on the lowest visibility broadcast times possible, like on Saturday nights, the busiest xmas shopping day, and piggy backing the NFC Division NFL game. When other DNC members complained about this rigged process that cheats real democracy, they suffered retribution. Although I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter (disclosure), Martin O’Malley actually summarized it best when he blasted the crony DNC Chair for this crooked scheme. MUST WATCH, and scroll ahead to the 4:22 mark of the video to cut to the chase.


For those that are unaware, the entire debate process falls under the executive power of the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She used to co-Chair Hillary Clinton’s Campaign in 2007-2008. DWS imposed the shadiest, most crooked debate schedule possibly in the history of the Democratic Party that was clearly designed to protect the early lead of Clinton. To add insult to injury, there was an unprecedented “Exclusivity Clause” imposed on all the Democratic Candidates whereby if they engaged in any debate not sanctioned by the DNC (precisely DNC Chair DWS), they would be excluded from all future debates. This was mostly targeted at Bernie Sanders who had expressed a wish to bring ALL the candidates from many parties together on the same stage to have a real discussion about the future of our nation.


Since Bernie and Martin are the only 2 left outside of Clinton, they should BOTH buck the exclusivity clause and start scheduling debates now. Possibly even schedule some with a few Republicans and the Green Party’s Jill Stein. The worst that could happen is they would not be allowed to participate in the remaining few DNC debates. Would a “debate” still go forward if only one candidate was invited? Even if it did, would anyone bother to watch it? Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, unite on this. Call Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s bluff. Give America the debates it wants, not those that establishment cronies dictate we should have.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/25/1454323/-Bernie-Sanders-and-Martin-O-Malley-should-break-DNC-Exclusion-rule-do-unsanctioned-debates

[JI7]

1. O'Malley already said he would but Sanders is against it

Sanders gets nothing out of it so there is no point for him to do it.

[Segami]

4. Not against O'Malley but against Republicans...

Sanders has already expressed himself on this issue and thinks it would better serve the voters.

"......Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who recently announced that he is running for president, proposed that Democratic candidates debate the Republican candidates before the general election.

"In a sense, the Republicans get away with murder. They have an absolutely reactionary agenda," Sanders told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow about his proposal.

Sanders said that if Americans saw Democrats and Republicans debate the issues earlier in the election cycle, they would better understand Republicans' views....."

"If we can confront them and debate issues, rather than allow the media to get into political gossip and polling and fundraising, but talk about the issues — I think their agenda does not reflect more than 15 or 20 percent of the American people," he said. "The more we have that clash of ideas, I think we win, I think people become more engaged in the political process."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-republican-debates

[Segami]

9. Sanders vs. The Clown Party....

Bernie Sanders vs. ANY of the present clown mates to a debate on issues.

Bernie would mop the floor with ANY of these selected clowns.

I believe primetime viewership could be high......or should I say H-U-U-U-U-G-E............

[hill2016]

2. they could do the debate

but nobody is going to watch them.

[bvf]

5. Strange as it might seem to you,

you really don't speak for everyone (unless by "nobody," you mean you yourself).

[TransitJohn]

14. Well, nobody's watching the current ones

so what has anyone got to lose?

[hill2016]

19. the networks might not cover this debate

just like they don't have to cover every campaign speech by a candidate

[JonLeibowitz]

31. I can assure you a Trump-Carson-Rubio-Sanders debate would be on air in primetime

[99th_Monkey]

3. I agree we need more debates and that the DNC has rigged the process. Thanks for the OP

But if O'M really wants to defy the DNC effectively and un-rig the Primary, he
could withdraw -- instead of berating Bernie for "not being a life-long Democrat
-- and throw his full support to Bernie, perhaps becoming a prime VP candidate.

It's this very issue, of Bernie not being technically a 'life long Dem" that has
Bernie skating on thin ice with the DNC, that agreed to let him run in the
Primary without challenging his cred as a Dem. So it would be most fitting
for O'M to withdraw & support Bernie if he's serious about NOT having Hillary
as the nominee.

I'd rather have Warren as Bernie's VP, but it would definitely shake things up,
make the news big-time, and embarrass the hell out of this Establishment DNC,
and perhaps, just maybe, give Bernie the extra boost he needs to actually win
the Democratic nomination.

[Ken Burch]

15. It's possible some insider Dem funders are bankrolling O'Malley's continuing campaign...

...because he splits the progressive vote with Bernie.

If it becomes a straight two-way race, HRC can't assume her current level of support will hold(and it may not hold anyway).

[Kalidurga]

26. It's very likely a lot of O'Malley votes will go to Bernie

during the primary/caucus process. In any case I don't think it's a serious split. I want him to hold on for a while anyway, I think he is very good at talking about some very serious issues.

[moobu2]

6. Bernie doesn't do very well in debates

after every one he's been in so far his poll numbers have dropped like a rock. But please proceed Bernie.

[MrMickeysMom]

10. That claim is not backed up by these two debates...

But, by all means, please continue to show yourself. It's coming off pretty clear.

[AZ Progressive]

18. You weren't seeing the same debate I was. HRC seemed to be the most uncomfortable to debate

She did that shady 9/11 card, and other times she was dodging questions left and right.

[AgingAmerican]

22. Lemme guess, 90% of Hillary supporters don't know about the internet yet?

They are still stuck in landline land, right?

[brooklynite]

7. Is it your imagination that undecided voters are yearning for unsanctioned debates?

Or is it just a desire by Sanders supporters to have something to cheer about?

[shenmue]

11. I'm guessing the latter

[Kentonio]

17. Each debate produces press coverage

Press coverage reaches new undecided voters. Simple as that.

[AgingAmerican]

21. Make Hillary debate alone

Let Clintons FORMER CAMPAIGN CHAIR kick her competition off the debates, leaving her debating herself. Show the world how corrupt the Democratic party has become.

Brilliance.

[JonLeibowitz]

32. In all fairness we could have a pretty good debate just by using her previous positions on issues

[AgingAmerican]

39. They could put a gigantic mirror in front of her....

And she could argue all night long

[nsd]

8. Regular voters don't care about primary debates.

Political junkies do, but plain old voters, even in Iowa and NH, do not. People watch the first couple and then they lose interest.

The payoff for Sanders and O'Malley of debating each other would be minimal, but there would be a huge cost to going it alone: they would be painting themselves as second stringers, minor leaguers, understudies. Debating without Clinton would be like sitting at the kids' table. It would be admitting that they define themselves with respect to her.

For Sanders, that would be ridiculous because he's already established himself as a starter, a major leaguer, as Clinton's equal. I don't think he can beat Clinton, but he's already established that he and his ideas must be taken seriously. Opening himself up to ridicule by engaging in some gimmick debate would be stupid.

For O'Malley, it would also be self-defeating, but for a different reason. He's not going to be president in January 2017, but he might be vice president. Or maybe a cabinet secretary. In any case, he's young enough to have a long and bright future in the Democratic party. Going too far outside the lines won't help him in the long run.

[HereSince1628]

30. your're right, "regular voters" only care about pundit commentary that stems from debates

and shows up for -days- after a debate.

Also, huzzahs for creative use of the 'they've got nowhere to go cuz...' form of Dem establishment argumentation

[Eric J in MN]

12. It's a question of who would broadcast it.

If ABC says it would broadcast a debate between Sanders and O'Malley twice a month on weeknights at 8PM for months, then Sanders and O'Malley should do that.

But if they'd be debating each other un-televised then it wouldn't be worth it.

[Chef Eric]

25. But Sanders' idea of including Republicans eliminates that question.

Trump and Sanders on the same stage? The media would consider that to be "must-see" TV.

[Eric J in MN]

42. True. If Trump were one of the participants, then

...the networks would be eager to show it in a good time slot.

Getting Trump on board should be the first step if Sanders and O'Malley try a route for having unsanctioned debates which people tune in for.

[Live and Learn]

13. I think they should think outside of the box and do something a bit different together.

Not a debate but an issue oriented strategy audience oriented question and answer session or something. Not so much as rivals but as candidates coming together to come up with real progressive solutions. The two of them together could do a great job.

[ibegurpard]

16. Yeah I'm finally going to have to agree

Let Hillary debate herself buried on holidays and weekend time slots.

[AgingAmerican]

20. I agree completely

Make her stand up there alone, because her former campaign manager kicked off all the competition. Would peel away the layers of the onion, revealing the rot that lies just below the surface for all to see.

[NCTraveler]

23. Time to do this was months ago.

At this point in time it's just another reason in a long line of excuses as to why Sanders won't win.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. Indeed we should all thank DWS for the very democratic process we have.

[NCTraveler]

34. Yeah, DWS sucks.

And a whole bunch of fair weathered folks had no clue who she was until Sanders announced. Those are the ones still bitching today.

[JonLeibowitz]

36. So what? I didn't know about the evils of predatory lending until i read a book on the subject.

Predatory lending was still always a bad practice.

As one becomes aware of the poor strategies of a leader one can critique them. Very few of us know everything at birth or at any time in our lives. Reasoning allows us to process new information. It does not make one a fair weather friend.

[mmonk]

35. That pesky little thing called democracy.

We'll see how well trying to get rid of it works for the party going forward.

[Funtatlaguy]

24. Sanders, MOM, Paul, and Fiorina

Would like to see these four on the same debate stage.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Given how few people actually watched the second debate, they probably could do better if they

could find a forum on a major channel willing to air it at a decent time of night.

At this point, the real question is could they find any such, willing to risk the wrath of the DNC's corporate puppetmasters?

Wasserman-Schultz is not the only one with an interest in making sure the nominee is Hillary, after all.

[Jester Messiah]

28. Call it a "discussion" rather than a debate.

Do a series of them, release them on youtube. Hil can join or not as she pleases.

[mmonk]

29. The lack of debates will hurt the party

in the end. It will alienate the politically aware. It's a huge status quo gamble for lasting control that is going to have consequences for the party.

[Old Codger]

37. It seems to me

They maybe have a problem with "debates" but they can have all the "forums" they want.....

[Scuba]

38. K and effing R

[pinebox]

40. They should

and Hillary can sit on the stage and do question and answer sessions the entire rest of the election by herself.
Sorry, but it's time to throw the DNC by the wayside.

[Zorra]

41. Recommend!!! Maybe they will, sometime between the 4th, and the last, debate.

The thing is, though, Bernie and Martin are on the same page on a majority of issues. However, it is possible that this would be advantageous for both of them, as they could both easily distinguish and distance themselves from the policies, and the past, of Hillary Clinton. Not only that, the media exposure would be absolutely sensational.

Looks like a total win-win to me, the veritable "straw that breaks the camel's back" of the Clinton campaign

[riderinthestorm]

43. K&R! Yes please! More O'Malley and Sanders! nt