Here is my amateur political analysis of the state of the race as it stands now.

[totodeinhere]

Notice that in states like Iowa where Bernie has been campaigning a lot his polling numbers are better than his national numbers. Obviously the reason for that is Bernie is better known in Iowa because he has spent so much time there and when people get to know him they like him. But nationally Bernie's name recognition is not nearly as high as Clinton's. She has almost 100% name recognition. So it's my theory that as Bernie gets better known nationally, and he will, his numbers can go nowhere but up.

And it's no coincidence IMO that the DNC seems to be procrastinating about setting up debates. The DNC is in Clinton's pocket, and they fear that once Bernie gets up on that debate stage next to Hillary his support will skyrocket. Bernie will tell it like it is and he won't be afraid to take controversial positions. The public will see that and they will appreciate it and Bernie will benefit tremendously.

I think the debates are one of the things that the Clinton campaign fears the most. But they won't be able to put off organizing the debates forever. I can't wait.

[winter is coming]

1. I sent Rachel Maddow an email last week, telling her that I've enjoyed her coverage

of the upcoming GOP debates, but that I'd like to see something about the vaguely promised Dem debates. I hope she covers it.

[longship]

2. Well, IMHO, there's no urgency for Dem debates.

I would prefer that they happened later than sooner. Why play into the perpetual campaign meme?

Just my opinion. I am sure some will disagree.

Happy to R&K

[totodeinhere]

3. I respect your opinion, but the reason why I want the debates to start sooner rather

than later is because I think as I said before that Bernie will shine in the debates and it could give a big boost to his fundraising. And it will increase his name recognition and give great momentum to efforts to organize around the country. This sort of thing can take time and that's why I'm impatient for it to start.

[daleanime]

4. I think quite a few will disagree.....

continuing to put off the Democratic debates allows the MSM to cover only the republican side of the race, which they want to do anyway, and makes Bernie's window of opportunity smaller. Neither of which are good things.

[merrily]

6. The campaigns began months ago. Debates have nothing to do with the length of campaigns.

Bernie needs all the national TV coverage he can get, especially of the even-handed variety.

[longship]

7. Why would a campaign for 2016 begin months ago?

Because too many people have bought into perpetual presidential campaigns.

Myself, I don't give a fuck about who is running for president just after an election. In fact, I get weary of it all.

Now we are worrying about presidential debates 15 months before an election???

And are infighting about the prospective Dem nominees????

Both are worthless enterprises.

[merrily]

8. Again, when debates begin has nothing to do with anything in your post.

The campaigns are underway, in Hillary case, for years now. The only thing delaying debates will do is disadvantage Bernie, not shorten campaigns.

[longship]

10. I respectfully disagree.

Look at what is happening with the GOP. They are melting down before our very eyes. Why, oh why, would Democrats not just sit back and let them melt down. As Snagglepuss might say, "Self inflicted Bar-B-Q, they cooked their own goose. Exit stage left."

The GOP is an evil theocratic cabal. Let them stew in their own juice. Meanwhile, the extent to which Dems play into the same narrative is the extent to which we lose. And we are losing. The only office we currently hold is the White House, and barely SCOTUS. Both houses of Congress, governorships, and state legislatures are in the hands of the GOP.

The reason that the GOP promotes perpetual campaigns is because it favors their narrative. We tread there at our collective peril.

We are being played. Too many here are buying into the narrative which will be our undoing.

I know that many here disagree, especially those who throw chairs into every thread supporting a specific Dem candidate for 2016. The fact that this has been happening here since Obama was elected for a second term speaks loudly that my evaluation might be correct.

To make things concise, the extent that we infight over our great candidates is the extent that the GOP can win. Especially this far out.

I will vote for whoever gains the Dem nomination next year. Note: NEXT YEAR!!!

[merrily]

11. The Ready for Hillary campaign began several years ago.

The meltdown of the Republicans vis a vis the debate is due to the unprecedented (in modern times) size of the field and the fact that FOX is controlling everything. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[longship]

13. Meh! When ready for whomever formed is just another example.

What this is about is...

When were there any presidential debates this early in any campaign? I know. Never.

When were so many candidates expressing their candidacy this early? I know. Never.

When, in the past, were candidates declaring their run for the presidency as early? I'll let people look this up. But let's just say that the 2016 election will take us into unprecedented territory in that regard.

In short, there is no hurry when your opponent is melting down.

[merrily]

14. Which proves that when the debates start has nothing to do with when campaigns start.

[aspirant]

17. Look up the 2007 Debates

Start by looking up the dates of the Howard U, The Citadel, and CNN?YouTube debates.

Your in the Bernie Sanders group.

[aspirant]

16. How many debates had already occurred by now

in 2007 with Hillary participating?

[TexasBushwhacker]

5. I think the GOP is having their debates early

to thin the herd. It would be a mess if the still had 20 candidates on the ballot next February. I think they also want Donald Trump to have a steady diet of shoe leather in hopes that his poll numbers will come down.

[merrily]

9. And the reason the DNC is limiting debates and requiring exclusivity is to aid Hillary.

Last edited Tue Aug 4, 2015, 05:09 AM - Edit history (1)

[longship]

12. That argument is utter rubbish.

The reason why there are no Dem debates is because:

1. The GOP is melting down before our very eyes. To have debates so early may be their Waterloo. Plus, they have so fucking many candidates that clown car doesn't come close to describing them.

2. Why would Democrats play into the same narrative? Why wouldn't they sit back and enjoy the show? What is the fucking hurry? When did any party have debates this early? When did any party have 17 fucking candidates running for president? Doesn't one think that sitting back and watching the GOP meltdown is precisely what one ought to do? After all, get a bowl, a spoon , and some milk. They are all cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[merrily]

15. The limits and exclusivity pre-date, and have nothing to do with, the GOP meltdown.