Dem Debate Schedule is a Bad Joke.

[EKublai]

And there will be blood over it.

While a mere two debates has resulted in two Republican candidates dropping out of the race, the DNC continues to belittle the importance of debates to this democratic process (and disingenuously, fyi, they know exactly how important debates are to democracy and that is why they are belittling them)

This isn't conspiracy theory. This is an opaque attack on the process.

The democratic debates are October 13 on CNN (Okay, so far so good), November 14th on CBS (Why a weekend? People are out on Saturday nights... No one's going, too...), December 19th (The WEEKEND between Hannukah and Christmas? Wait, that decision couldn't possibly have been made in good conscience), January 17th (Another weekend?!?!? AND WHY ON A SUNDAY!?!? THE FREAKING NFL PLAYOFFS ARE ON!!!!),

Is the Democrat Primary Debate Schedule rigged in order to crown a particular candidate? It's a reasonable question that turns into a ridiculous question when you consider these factors.

It isn't just the sheer dearth of sorely-needed debates, it is the systemic information suppression at work here. The fact is, is that both party committees love it when the voter turnout is low. That means millions of less votes are at stake, and millions less need convincing.

The debates are inexplicably scheduled on weekends (the lowest tv ratings blocks as opposed to Weeknight primetime). Why? It does not take a genius to see why. It takes someone completely manipulated to see why not.
This is a clear effort to suppress democracy in the party by Howard Dean and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and, sorry to my friends, but I will not stop bringing it up until it's set right.

[The-Great-One]

A lot of Democrats like Bernie Sanders. A lot of people like Bernie Sanders. There are also those who still like Hillary Clinton. The Democratic party LOVES Hillary Clinton and know that if she runs against Donald Trump, it is an automatic victory.

I'm no conspiracy guy myself, but the Democrats have less debates than the Republicans have and not as many people running for president. This party wants Clinton as their nominee, plain and simple.

[MasterStalker]

At 9/23/15 01:35 AM, The-Great-One wrote: A lot of Democrats like Bernie Sanders. A lot of people like Bernie Sanders. There are also those who still like Hillary Clinton. The Democratic party LOVES Hillary Clinton and know that if she runs against Donald Trump, it is an automatic victory.

I'm no conspiracy guy myself, but the Democrats have less debates than the Republicans have and not as many people running for president. This party wants Clinton as their nominee, plain and simple.

Not necessarily. Bernie is catching up to Clinton, and both of them are being very mindful of each other. Mud slinging will most definitely cost the one who throws the first stone at this point. And knowing Hillary, she is very capable of attacking. Look at her Vs Obama in past years. I don t mind her as a candidate, but I know what she's capable of. That's actually where Bernie gains ground too; People trust him more than her because of past political assaults. The other thing Bernie is doing winning him supporters is running his campaign entirely off average Joe donations, and not accepting private interest money.

Nationally the only thing holding Sanders back is being a self admitted socialist. That's great for the mid to farther left, but no one who identifies as a Republican will vote for him, and a lot of moderate and independent's might not side with him for that alone.

But I digress. I do think the debates should have peak viewership and that schedule is trash. But like The-Great-One said, The candidate pool is really small. Each debate is going to look fairly similar no matter when they hold them. Unless someone pulls Romney-esque flip flops. I really only think I'd need to watch 2 debates at best to see which of the two I prefer. And I will have to vote Democrat because my republican candidate isn't going to win. He's not even in the top 5 in any polls.

[Feoric]

At 9/25/15 09:49 PM, MasterStalker wrote: And I will have to vote Democrat because my republican candidate isn't going to win. He's not even in the top 5 in any polls.

I just have to ask: are you one of the legendary Pataki supporters?

[MasterStalker]

At 9/25/15 10:14 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/25/15 09:49 PM, MasterStalker wrote: And I will have to vote Democrat because my republican candidate isn't going to win. He's not even in the top 5 in any polls.

I just have to ask: are you one of the legendary Pataki supporters?

Actually John Kasich. He's very much still a hard-line republican, but he's at least way more sane than the rest of the bunch. And he's also done things like expand medicaid that help his constituents rather than follow many other R governors in the opposite direction. Plus He's from Ohio and I'm from Pennsylvania so I feel like he knows through experience what my demographic wants and needs. My demographic being blue collar, lower not necessarily poverty level income constituents.

I dont expect any person to match my views entirely so I'd gladly vote for a guy I don't necessarily like as long as he's qualified and at least has perspective on what people really need. He fits this bill for me better than the rest. If he ran, I'd even like Jeff Flake, Senator from Arizona because he's the most willing to reach across the aisle and as a moderate, I value that a lot. Arizonans probable doesn't like that though

[Feoric]

At 9/25/15 10:40 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Actually John Kasich.

Ah! If Jeb keeps imploding and Rubio keeps sweating a lot during televised appearances I think Kasich could be in the top 5 -- maaaybe even top 3 list for GOP candidates. The hardest part for him until that point is keeping his campaign alive and having a consistent degree of media exposure. Once the field starts to narrow a few months from now I think he'll suddenly gain a lot of momentum.

Btw, I have yet to encounter a Pataki supporter. I'm convinced they're like ghosts -- they're not real, but if they are, you can't see them.

[E-U-R-I-C]

It may be that they prefer the debates to be seen mostly in the form of 30 seconds recaps. That gives them more control over what people hear.

[MasterStalker]

At 9/25/15 10:51 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/25/15 10:40 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Actually John Kasich.

Ah! If Jeb keeps imploding and Rubio keeps sweating a lot during televised appearances I think Kasich could be in the top 5 -- maaaybe even top 3 list for GOP candidates. The hardest part for him until that point is keeping his campaign alive and having a consistent degree of media exposure. Once the field starts to narrow a few months from now I think he'll suddenly gain a lot of momentum.

Btw, I have yet to encounter a Pataki supporter. I'm convinced they're like ghosts -- they're not real, but if they are, you can't see them.

LOL I still have no clue who he is, let alone a person who wants him in office. I cant understand people with such low numbers entering an already congested race. Jindal for example destroyed his state, and more Louisianans would vote Hillary over him in his own state. A VERY red state at that. Why are people like this running?

[Feoric]

At 9/25/15 11:10 PM, MasterStalker wrote: LOL I still have no clue who he is, let alone a person who wants him in office. I cant understand people with such low numbers entering an already congested race. Jindal for example destroyed his state, and more Louisianans would vote Hillary over him in his own state. A VERY red state at that. Why are people like this running?

That's not even the best example, Jim Gilmore is literally polling a whopping 0.0%. Slow down, buddy!

There are several reasons that can explain why the GOP field is so congested, but I think it's mainly due to the fact that 1) 2016 has no incumbent president to run against and 2) there's yet to be a strong (and serious) frontrunner. There are other considerations like SuperPACs -- individual millionaires can bankroll individual candidates who otherwise probably wouldn't be in the game (think Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich, or Foster Friess and Rick Santorum). Also 3) Republicans really really don't like Hillary Clinton. Couple all that with the division within the party, and you wind up with a whole lot of people running for office.

[MasterStalker]

At 9/25/15 11:24 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/25/15 11:10 PM, MasterStalker wrote: LOL I still have no clue who he is, let alone a person who wants him in office. I cant understand people with such low numbers entering an already congested race. Jindal for example destroyed his state, and more Louisianans would vote Hillary over him in his own state. A VERY red state at that. Why are people like this running?

That's not even the best example, Jim Gilmore is literally polling a whopping 0.0%. Slow down, buddy!

There are several reasons that can explain why the GOP field is so congested, but I think it's mainly due to the fact that 1) 2016 has no incumbent president to run against and 2) there's yet to be a strong (and serious) frontrunner. There are other considerations like SuperPACs -- individual millionaires can bankroll individual candidates who otherwise probably wouldn't be in the game (think Sheldon Anderson and Newt Gingrich, or Foster Friess and Rick Santorum). Also 3) Republicans really really don't like Hillary Clinton. Couple all thatg for office.

All extremely good points. I'd love to see less money in the system in general. The Koch brothers are easily the worst abusers of the system since citizens united became a thing. As for the Hillary thread, they would have a better candidate if the moderates did better in primaries. RINOs will never make it to a general election again despite them being the best shot a being the next great republican president. Hell, even Reagan couldn't get elected today and the base holds his pedestal fairly high.

What we need, no matter what party wins is someone who can unite the parties. I just dont see that happening until more people hold their congressmen accountable. Look at the mid terms. Historically lowest approval ratings, 97% re-election rate. More rational people need to be invested in the process. Again, look at the last mid terms. Lowest recorded voter turn out ever. It really comes down to we the people not caring enough. And when most of us do care its for ourselves more than the good of the country as a whole. America will always have the potential to be great again to play off Trump's slogan, but its the in fighting and overlap of agendas shredding us over the last few decades that stunted our growth as a nation.

[The-Great-One]

At 9/25/15 09:49 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Not necessarily. Bernie is catching up to Clinton, and both of them are being very mindful of each other. Mud slinging will most definitely cost the one who throws the first stone at this point. And knowing Hillary, she is very capable of attacking. Look at her Vs Obama in past years. I don t mind her as a candidate, but I know what she's capable of. That's actually where Bernie gains ground too; People trust him more than her because of past political assaults. The other thing Bernie is doing winning him supporters is running his campaign entirely off average Joe donations, and not accepting private interest money.

Yes people want Bernie. The people trust Bernie. The Democrats do not though. Not many people know how Primaries work though. Check this out.

Nationally the only thing holding Sanders back is being a self admitted socialist. That's great for the mid to farther left, but no one who identifies as a Republican will vote for him, and a lot of moderate and independent's might not side with him for that alone.

Yeah no die hard Republican is going to vote for Sanders based on him being a socialist and there are many Democrats and Libertarians who don't like Bernie Sanders either. He is gaining ground and is more trusted than Hillary. The youth vote (who liked Obama) will vote for Sanders.

But I digress. I do think the debates should have peak viewership and that schedule is trash. But like The-Great-One said, The candidate pool is really small. Each debate is going to look fairly similar no matter when they hold them. Unless someone pulls Romney-esque flip flops. I really only think I'd need to watch 2 debates at best to see which of the two I prefer. And I will have to vote Democrat because my republican candidate isn't going to win. He's not even in the top 5 in any polls.

Who is your favorite in the Republican party?

[MasterStalker]

At 9/26/15 12:18 AM, The-Great-One wrote:
Who is your favorite in the Republican party?

Huh, weird. Could have sworn I responded to this the other night.

I'm favoring Kasich right now. I'd like to see Flake from Arizona run, but Kasich is the only contender who I don't see as horrible, insane, or faking it.

[Old-Soldier]

At 9/26/15 12:18 AM, The-Great-One wrote: Yeah no die hard Republican is going to vote for Sanders based on him being a socialist and there are many Democrats and Libertarians who don't like Bernie Sanders either. He is gaining ground and is more trusted than Hillary. The youth vote (who liked Obama) will vote for Sanders.

I respectfully disagree.

Vermont is known as a conservative state and in 2000 when Bush and Cheney signs were posted up in yards, it wasn't out of this world to see Bernie Sanders signs sticking to it.

Although Republicans have different views on Social Issues, they share many views with Sanders on the economy. I think his biggest selling point, IMO is attempting to overturn Citizens United.