Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:13 AM

After watching the Republican debate, I'm floored the Democrats aren't starting their debates.

So, I have an idea:

Why don't we all begin calling Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office AT LEAST ONCE EVERY DAY until debate dates are moved forward. October 13th is too late.

Her number is 202-225-7931, and I bet if 50 or 60 thousand people called every day, the debates would get scheduled.

What do you think?

226 replies, 8141 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

226 replies	Author	Time	Post
After watching the Republican debate, I'm floored the Democrats aren't starting their debates. (Original post)	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	OP
Um, I think you should check out yesterday's news.	FSogol	Aug 2015	#1
What about yesterday's news? That the first one isn't 'til Oct 13? That's too late, I'm thinking.	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#3
You call for the debates to be scheduled. They were scheduled yesterday. A debate in mid-September	FSogol	Aug 2015	#8
Your candidate complained about the schedule	Armstead	Aug 2015	#40
So?	FSogol	Aug 2015	#96
If you can't just be outraged over a thing, then you must actually argue your point. Outrage is all	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#46
The whole GOP message is based on fear.	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#215
Why is Oct. 13th too late?	DesertRat	Aug 2015	#179
I'd like to know, that, too. This gives time for GOP mass stupidity to sink in with the public.	ancianita	Aug 2015	#187
who do we have to call to get rid of	pscot	Aug 2015	#2
Chuckles...nt	jonno99	Aug 2015	#5
the Hillary National Committee, previously known as the DNC n/t	virtualobserver	Aug 2015	#9
+1	JackInGreen	Aug 2015	#13
Does 411 have that number?	KeepItReal	Aug 2015	#59
A common mistake is thinking whatever that was by Fox last night was a "debate".	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#4
4 debates. Not 6.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#7
Wait....I thought there were going to be 6 debates	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#73
The last two are scheduled for after 16 states vote.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#94
So there are 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#97
Only if you pretend the last two will not be canceled. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#101
So the last two are already scheduled to be canceled? Link? nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#104
Already explained above.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#106
So there are still 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#109
If you think tax cuts always create a booming economy, yes.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#110
So there are 4 debates. Do you have a link? I want to know why the DNC cancelled two of them. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#111
Perhaps you could pull out a calendar and try to follow along.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#114
The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. Link? nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#115
So, you can't handle basic math then?	jeff47	Aug 2015	#117
If the DNC changed their mind, I would like to know about it. Link? nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#118
Why do you think the DNC changed their mind? I never said they did.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#122
So there actually are 6 scheduled debates. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#125
Nope. There are 4 debates. There are 2 more meaningless debates.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#126
Yesterday the DNC said 6. Do you have a link to where they changed it to 4? nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#127
Yes.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#129
Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#131
Oh, well maybe this one will.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#132
Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#133
Oh, well maybe this one will help explain why.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#135
Still nothing saying DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#136
Oh. Well maybe this one will explain the problem.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#140
The DNC said they will sanction 6 debates, not 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#141
And there's a problem with their schedule. As explained by this link.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#142
Nothing @ that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates. Still @ 6. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#143
Hence the word "problem".	jeff47	Aug 2015	#144
You said there will be 4 debates. The DNC has said there will be 6 sanctioned debates, not 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#146
Despite what the DNC is currently claiming, there will be 4 debates.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#151
DNC said 6, not 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#153
Holy crap, I'm the DNC?! Oh wait...I'm not.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#156
The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#158
Except repeatedly in this thread. Complete with a discussion of how the DNC	jeff47	Aug 2015	#167
There is no actual proof in this thread that the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#169
Good thing I never claimed they did!!	jeff47	Aug 2015	#170
You said there will be 4. DNC said 6. You have no link to back up your claim. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#172
I would only need a link if I was claiming the DNC said 4.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#173
You said the DNC will only have 4 (no proof provided). DNC says 6. Who to believe?	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#174
How 'bout the one who actually shows you a schedule	jeff47	Aug 2015	#175
DNC says 6, and they will release additional details. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#176
They have released details. Their details do not allow enough time to get all 6 in.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#177
Details so far:	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#178
And I pointed out there is not enough time in February to fit in 2 debates.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#180
Who to believe, the DNC or an anonymous poster on the interwebz. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#182
Well, who's got the better track record?	jeff47	Aug 2015	#192
You're nothing more than an anonymous poster with no proof to back your claim. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#195
Then it would be so easy for you to show where those two debates fit in.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#197
DNC says 6 sanctioned debates, not 4:	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#201
And their schedule does not allow all 6 to occur.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#204
Yet you provide no proof the DNC has cancelled any of the debates. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#205
Do you not understand the difference between future tense and past tense?	jeff47	Aug 2015	#207
Do you not understand the difference between 6 and 4? nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#208
Your patience is astoundingly admirable with dealing with CT, Cali!	Cha	Aug 2015	#202
Thank you. I try my best	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#206
"Basic math"	OilemFirchen	Aug 2015	#181
Would only be relevant if "throwing them away" caused them to not exist.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#185
It's not an analogy.	OilemFirchen	Aug 2015	#186
Yup.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#189
First, counting is still math.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#191
You still have no real proof the number of DNC-sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#193
Do you have a time machine? 'Cause that's about the only way to fit them in. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#194
Still no real proof the number of sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#196
I'm kind of stupid let's see if I get what you are saying	SwampG8r	Aug 2015	#198
Almost. I'm saying the last two will be canceled after Super Tuesday. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#199
OK I hadn't taken an outright	SwampG8r	Aug 2015	#203
The notion that two will be cancelled is nothing more than speculation with a little CT	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#210
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Aug 2015	#148
Oh, she knows. She's far too smart to not understand.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#150
Looks like your buddy just got banned. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#188
Yup.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#190
Welcome to DU.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#152
Jury Results.	AtheistCrusader	Aug 2015	#154
Yeah, it became pretty obvious she was clicking alert on each one. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#157
Not anymore. (For the next 24h anyway)	AtheistCrusader	Aug 2015	#159
Wasn't my alert. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#162
I haven't alerted a single one of your posts in this thread. Also, I'm a he. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#161
My apologies. I had you confused with someone else. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#165
Apology accepted, but still no link proving the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#166
But, he was soooooooo Sure.. just like the "4 debates instead of 6" theory	Cha	Aug 2015	#214
Making personal again...	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#155
I don't mean to jump in here between you two but there is no need to be obtuse.	Juicy_Bellows	Aug 2015	#116
So there are 6 scheduled debates. nt	Cali_Democrat	Aug 2015	#120
It's a mistake to believe she doesn't understand. She's fishing for a hide. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#121
Well I tried.	Juicy_Bellows	Aug 2015	#123
Thanks for trying. (nt)	jeff47	Aug 2015	#124
Betcha it felt real nice to get that insult in.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#138
that's their MO.. must think it helps getting their point across.. when actually is says everything	Cha	Aug 2015	#217
plenty enough for Hillary	virtualobserver	Aug 2015	#12
Common mistake thinking last night was a "debate". Seriously, it is early August, 2015. 2015.	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#15
The exclusivity rule is totalitarian, not Democratic	virtualobserver	Aug 2015	#23
Good point	7962	Aug 2015	#95
Cattle calls?	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#16
You think last night was a "debate"? On Planet Propaganda, maybe!	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#18
Are you lost?	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#20
I think	SwampG8r	Aug 2015	#200
Their reply really gives a glimpse of the thought process of some...	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#22
eh?	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#30
Just going to leave this one stand. No comment necessary. nt.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#31
See ya	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#32
"I notice you always come out on the short end of debates with me, so I don't blame you for hiding."	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#37
You must wonder	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#47
I won't take time to educate adults about free speech on a progressive message board.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#52
How many times have you replied to me in posts?	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#57
"How many times have you replied to me in posts?"	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#62
Yes it is	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#65
+1	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#71
I am tired of it	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#74
+1	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#75
Not significant?	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#83
"I am renting space in your head, it is obvious. "	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#85
You got that right	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#86
I missed my personal attacks.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#87
You deny what is right here?	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#90
Not just cheap, possible free to the right tenant.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#92
Link goes to deleted thread	7962	Aug 2015	#98
I know. nt.	NCTraveler	Aug 2015	#102
Indeed. Me too...no reply necessary.	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#36
Yeah, we get it	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#51
Neither of those posters are making the slightest bit of sense.	ieoeja	Aug 2015	#91
That's how I see it, too	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#93
As bad as it was, it affected the campaigns and candidates...	Armstead	Aug 2015	#48
100 Models being called in to cull the numbers to 1 or 2 is called a cattle call too.	Sheepshank	Aug 2015	#68
You may be right	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#77
"6 actually debates is plenty enough"	whatchamacallit	Aug 2015	#34
Is this an adult opinion forum or a crib for juvenile thinking? The GOP clown train needs to shed a caboose	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#42
The quality of your metaphor	whatchamacallit	Aug 2015	#55
Why do you go from one extreme to the other?	frylock	Aug 2015	#119
You know, Jeff47 makes a pretty good point below.	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#216
First Dem date is schedule for October.	winter is coming	Aug 2015	#6
I think it's great strategy to let the 17-member nut panel play itself out	frazzled	Aug 2015	#14
By the time we start, they'll be bored with debates, period.	winter is coming	Aug 2015	#17
There are no swing voters	frazzled	Aug 2015	#19
This is the primary not the general.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#33
Yeah, it is a big deal. There would be no need for an exclusivity clause	winter is coming	Aug 2015	#49
IMO nothing turns off voters than rediculous debates like we saw last night.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#53
No, nothing turns off you. You are not "voters".	jeff47	Aug 2015	#168
Your darned right! The exclusivity clause really sucks.	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#212
That's just a lousy idea. Let the GOP have the spotlight! Don't distract from this Klown Kar Krash	MADem	Aug 2015	#10
Right...	kenfrequed	Aug 2015	#56
There's so many of them--we're not talking about a two week snack on the GOP, we're	MADem	Aug 2015	#63
That doesn't even make sense	kenfrequed	Aug 2015	#66
If people are talking about what a big mouth Trump is, or how nervous Jeb! was, or how truculent	MADem	Aug 2015	#79
These arent general election debates.	kenfrequed	Aug 2015	#89
I still don't understand what you are griping about.	MADem	Aug 2015	#130
Ok...	kenfrequed	Aug 2015	#147
My "agenda" is getting people excited about Democratic candidates close to elections that matter.	MADem	Aug 2015	#164
We are not only waiting another 2 1/2 months for our First debate.....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#11
You think that was an advantage?	whatthehey	Aug 2015	#21
Are people talking about Democrats or republicans today?	daleanime	Aug 2015	#25
Republicans...	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#39
If you don't use it.....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#69
We are. No biggie.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#134
Lots of coverage on GOP candidates, leading up to and following the debate,	winter is coming	Aug 2015	#27
Amen.....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#70
Whether an advantage or not has to do with how was done and the candidates	Armstead	Aug 2015	#50
It is kind of strange...	daleanime	Aug 2015	#72
I really don't see this as an advantage for the GOP	Sheepshank	Aug 2015	#24
I see no advantage for us....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#26
political strategy isn't like boxing or basketball	Sheepshank	Aug 2015	#29
How many times was Bu$h the lesser elected?	daleanime	Aug 2015	#67
This is a PRIMARY election. NOT the general I don't understand why people...	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#41
Because we now spent twice the time in the primaries....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#76
How is what happened last night an advantage...	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#35
So who has the spot light....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#81
The answer is idiots.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#113
I think the "advantage" is for Democracy. The gop is exposing their idiots early	Cha	Aug 2015	#218
Thank you for also not having amnesia, Cha. Amnesia is a real big problem in American politics.	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#221
because dws wants hillary to get the nom no matter what	restorefreedom	Aug 2015	#44
Unfortunately....	daleanime	Aug 2015	#82
Because almost NOTHING said today will be remembered 12 months from now nt	7962	Aug 2015	#139
Well, since there are 16 declared GOP candidates, the DNC has 5 major candidates, the GOP is holding	Thinkingabout	Aug 2015	#28
having seen how much Hillary flip flops on issues, the committee decided it's better to	Doctor_J	Aug 2015	#38
All our candidates sent tweets, emails, texts last night.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#43
Cool! So, where does she stand on the TPP?	Le Taz Hot	Aug 2015	#222
So that wasn't even a question the Republicans had to face.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#223
. . .	Le Taz Hot	Aug 2015	#224
Those two issues weren raised.	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#225
the timing of dws announcement was no accident either	restorefreedom	Aug 2015	#45
I'm floored that people here are actually arguing against the democratic process n/t	Armstead	Aug 2015	#54
They want a coronation	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#58
I am "floored" Bernie supporters are calling DWS a "shit" in the protected group!	Fred Sanders	Aug 2015	#60
+1,000! It's incredible. nt	MADem	Aug 2015	#64
I'll agree with you on that one	Armstead	Aug 2015	#108
No they really aren't	mythology	Aug 2015	#88
Just sayin'...Seems to be a pattern	Armstead	Aug 2015	#107
Just FYI...	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#145
You'll note that BOTH of the more visible candidates are on the bottom row	Armstead	Aug 2015	#183
Yes usually the top tier candidates are on the top row...	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#184
But, but, but...	R. Daneel Olivaw	Aug 2015	#61
The Clowns put on a circus...	liberal N proud	Aug 2015	#78
Wrong Number call DNC #202 863 8000	Vincardog	Aug 2015	#80
Yes, 202-863-8000 is correct	cp	Aug 2015	#112
Thanks for the correction.	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#211
We still have over a year to go	Politicalboi	Aug 2015	#84
I have an idea	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#100
Your embarrassing yourself.....	Historic NY	Aug 2015	#220
Hillary debated Obama and lost	RobertEarl	Aug 2015	#226
No, we have 6 months to go.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#137
That was true in 2007 as well, when we had ALREADY HAD eight debates n/t	eridani	Aug 2015	#219
"if 50 or 60 thousand people called every day, the debates would get scheduled."	George II	Aug 2015	#99
Does DWS WANT Dems to Lose? (again) n/t	fredamae	Aug 2015	#103
... Obama?	Agschmid	Aug 2015	#149
She's got a good track record	d_legendary1	Aug 2015	#160
Why interfere with that GOP garbage fire from last night?	DinahMoeHum	Aug 2015	#105
To keep the Overton window from drifting to the right.	jeff47	Aug 2015	#171
Kick. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Aug 2015	#128
Initially I was in agreement with you, BUT, after last night, I'm leaning the other way.	napi21	Aug 2015	#163
The typical argument is	DonCoquixote	Aug 2015	#209
Yes. That's it.	PatrickforO	Aug 2015	#213

Response to PatrickforO (Original post)

Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:15 AM

FSogol (40,686 posts)

After watching the Republican debate, I'm floored the Democrats aren't starting their debates.

1. Um, I think you should check out yesterday's news.

3. What about yesterday's news? That the first one isn't 'til Oct 13? That's too late, I'm thinking.

8. You call for the debates to be scheduled. They were scheduled yesterday. A debate in mid-September

40. Your candidate complained about the schedule

96. So?

46. If you can't just be outraged over a thing, then you must actually argue your point. Outrage is all

215. The whole GOP message is based on fear.

179. Why is Oct. 13th too late?

187. I'd like to know, that, too. This gives time for GOP mass stupidity to sink in with the public.

2. who do we have to call to get rid of

5. Chuckles...nt

9. the Hillary National Committee, previously known as the DNC n/t

13. +1

59. Does 411 have that number?

4. A common mistake is thinking whatever that was by Fox last night was a "debate".

7. 4 debates. Not 6.

73. Wait....I thought there were going to be 6 debates

94. The last two are scheduled for after 16 states vote.

97. So there are 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt

101. Only if you pretend the last two will not be canceled. (nt)

104. So the last two are already scheduled to be canceled? Link? nt

106. Already explained above.

109. So there are still 6 DNC-sanctioned debates. nt

110. If you think tax cuts always create a booming economy, yes.

111. So there are 4 debates. Do you have a link? I want to know why the DNC cancelled two of them. nt

114. Perhaps you could pull out a calendar and try to follow along.

115. The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. Link? nt

117. So, you can't handle basic math then?

118. If the DNC changed their mind, I would like to know about it. Link? nt

122. Why do you think the DNC changed their mind? I never said they did.

125. So there actually are 6 scheduled debates. nt

126. Nope. There are 4 debates. There are 2 more meaningless debates.

127. Yesterday the DNC said 6. Do you have a link to where they changed it to 4? nt

129. Yes.

131. Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

132. Oh, well maybe this one will.

133. Nothing in that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt

135. Oh, well maybe this one will help explain why.

136. Still nothing saying DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates from 6 to 4. nt

140. Oh. Well maybe this one will explain the problem.

141. The DNC said they will sanction 6 debates, not 4. nt

142. And there's a problem with their schedule. As explained by this link.

143. Nothing @ that link says the DNC changed the number of sanctioned debates. Still @ 6. nt

144. Hence the word "problem".

146. You said there will be 4 debates. The DNC has said there will be 6 sanctioned debates, not 4. nt

151. Despite what the DNC is currently claiming, there will be 4 debates.

153. DNC said 6, not 4. nt

156. Holy crap, I'm the DNC?! Oh wait...I'm not.

158. The DNC said there will be 6 debates. I heard nothing about 4. nt

167. Except repeatedly in this thread. Complete with a discussion of how the DNC

169. There is no actual proof in this thread that the DNC changed the number from 6 to 4. nt

170. Good thing I never claimed they did!!

172. You said there will be 4. DNC said 6. You have no link to back up your claim. nt

173. I would only need a link if I was claiming the DNC said 4.

174. You said the DNC will only have 4 (no proof provided). DNC says 6. Who to believe?

175. How 'bout the one who actually shows you a schedule

176. DNC says 6, and they will release additional details. nt

177. They have released details. Their details do not allow enough time to get all 6 in.

178. Details so far:

180. And I pointed out there is not enough time in February to fit in 2 debates.

182. Who to believe, the DNC or an anonymous poster on the interwebz. nt

192. Well, who's got the better track record?

195. You're nothing more than an anonymous poster with no proof to back your claim. nt

197. Then it would be so easy for you to show where those two debates fit in.

201. DNC says 6 sanctioned debates, not 4:

204. And their schedule does not allow all 6 to occur.

205. Yet you provide no proof the DNC has cancelled any of the debates. nt

207. Do you not understand the difference between future tense and past tense?

208. Do you not understand the difference between 6 and 4? nt

202. Your patience is astoundingly admirable with dealing with CT, Cali!

206. Thank you. I try my best

181. "Basic math"

185. Would only be relevant if "throwing them away" caused them to not exist.

186. It's not an analogy.

189. Yup.

191. First, counting is still math.

193. You still have no real proof the number of DNC-sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt

194. Do you have a time machine? 'Cause that's about the only way to fit them in. (nt)

196. Still no real proof the number of sanctioned debates fell from 6 to 4. nt