Actually, I’m with you, but having many debates did seem to build enthusiasm for the Party and inform the electorate.
Bernie Bros have mastered the art of whining and victimization pretty well. You would almost think they were Republicans.
9 Likes
The debate sch was reduced as at the time it didn’t seem like there was going to be a race still going on, they always said that they would add more if needed.
3 Likes
They always give money to both candidates, carlos.
But certainly more to republicans than democrats in many cases.
I guess we need to overturn Citizens United and have the Supremes walk back their “corporations are people,” too.
We need a democrat in the Oval Office in November.
9 Likes
Apparently they didn´t think so, in that he got a D- rating from them.
But I´ll admit that an F from those fuckers would have been preferable.
4 Likes
In this respect, I am with you.
2 Likes
Good, a democrat is what we need.
1 Like
He voted on many key votes for them, and even recently has been praised by them. Getting a D means he didn’t vote on every insane thing that came down the pipe, but on a few issues that matter he did side with the NRA, there is no hiding that.
4 Likes
"If I want to see two grumpy old Jewish (or Jewish equivalent) people yelling at each other, "
Agreed max but it’s NY and NY deserves a debate. And when Bernie wins WI and NY, Hillarious will be demanding a CA debate. And then Bernie will hunch his shoulders a bit, put up his arms, palms open, contort his face a bit (like he has hemorrhoids) and say, with feigned effort, “I’ll see what I can do.”
3 Likes
Yeah just how like how he won NC and FL and Ohio and etc etc etc.
3 Likes
Actually they slashed the number of debates all the way down to six. Then in January, when Hillary was anxious for an additional debate in New Hampshire (hoping for a knock-out blow, which she failed to deliver), she agreed to four more, bringing the total agreed to to ten, of which 8 have been held so far.
But as far as her on-again / off-again reluctance to debate, I think it’s mostly just the usual dynamics where the front-runner – even if they’re a good debater like Hillary is – has less to gain and potentially more to lose from debating. Look at it this way – even if you think you have a good chance of “winning” the debate, say 80%, if you’re already way ahead, then why take the 20% chance? From a strategic point of view, you probably wouldn’t – except if refusing to debate looks like it will cost you more than you want to pay, in terms of public relations, and ultimately in votes.
And of course backing out on any further debates even though you’ve already agreed to two more debates is sure to raise that cost. And I think that’s what’s happened here. They launched a trial balloon about maybe breaking their promise to do the debates, and offered an excuse and watched to see how well that might go over, and of course it went over like a lead balloon, so they had to backpedal.
7 Likes
Quite an ironic claim in this context, given that it’s Team Hillary that was whining about “tone” and threatening to back out on debate promises on that flimsy basis – strikingly similar to Trump’s position.
5 Likes
Of course, professor, that’s the conventional wisdom of a front-runner. But in this case, I believe the Party was ill-served by adopting the Clinton campaign’s priorities from the get-go – they left the field to the Republicans, provided no alternative vision for many, many months, and have suffered lackluster interest (outside Sanders’ activist horde) and reduced voter participation as a result. Wasserman Schultz’ subordination of the Party’s interests to the Clinton campaign’s has been an albatross for Democrats.
7 Likes
Very sly there chelsea. eztempo posts a powerful argument and you divert to ‘why 26 debates?’
Well done.
5 Likes
Tone? I know you’ve read that latest email from the Sanders campaign asking for money.
Please.
3 Likes
…unless he brings his attack sparrow.
5 Likes
and he answered the question.
Who else but the media, btw, wants that many debates on either side?
As that jerk from CBS certainly brought home…
it’s money in their pockets.
3 Likes
Ok, endless whining about Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I don’t know if there are rules governing how the Democratic Party deals with candidates who ride our ticket but who aren’t Democrats, but I really don’t know why Debbie owed anything at all to Bernie Sanders. He is not a Democrat and he has done nothing for any other Democratic candidates, nothing for the party. So why did she owe him any obligations to give him every damn thing he demanded, to start with? Hmmm?
9 Likes
The Sanders campaign has received nearly $54,000 from individuals in the oil and gas industry. Reading comprehension, it’s so difficult.
6 Likes
No, I read all that. So the defense of your candidate is that while people in the oil and gas industry give to her campaign and her superpacs, the lobbyists who raise millions for her and her superpacs not only work for the oil and gas industry, but they have other clients as well, so therefore who can say that they might have influence? Look, the point is that Sanders agreed not to take any more money from the oil and gas industry when asked by Greenpeace, whereas Clinton did not. That´s what the Greenpeace activist was talking to HRC about, and HRC, rather than responding with an honest answer, accused Sanders. She apparently is unmoored to the truth as some of her supporters (cough, cough) answerfrog.
4 Likes