Sadly, they’ll throw their few percentages of support behind Byedone, if that is, Byedone hasn’t flamed out by then. And every time he opens his mouth, the flame out gets closer.
Sanders Campaign Co-Chair Nina Turner Calls for All Democratic Candidates to Unite Against DNC Over #ClimateDebate
For a long time and especially in the last presidential election, the DNC has been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The American system of delegates is just inviting corruption and indeed corruption is rife. The system should be scrapped.
Thank you for that context. I was aware of their being an issue with the polls, but as I said, hadn’t really followed up on it. From my understanding, the DNC has moved to give candidates an opportunity to address this in an October debate.
My understanding is that many campaigns were consulted on the rules and all were aware what they would be in spring. And candidates are permitted to participate in unsanctioned forums and town halls, just not unsanctioned debates where they address one-another side-by-side. The reason per what I’ve read is because campaigns themselves did not want to spend an inordinate amount of time debating. The compromise was more debates this time, but not debates all the time.
I actually think that it’s difficult to set up rules that a large field are all going to be in agreement on, especially for low-polling candidates trying to bring attention to their campaigns. My suspicion is even the fairest process would be criticized. Someone’s bound to feel left out, get angry about it, and punch at an easy-to-punch bag.
What does the DNC do to justify its existence? Who pays for it?
Name them, so we can go talk to them
The frontrunner campaigns who would easily qualify regardless of the rules are the ones that had a voice - so things favor them. Gabbard’s campaign was not one of those.
Here are a couple of key problems with the town hall format:
- There is no ability for the candidates to challenge each other. They all have stock answers and standard deflections ready for pretty much anything a citizen audience or a standard news anchor moderator will ask - so the interesting discussions only come in responses to stuff other candidates say.
2)The sequential town hall format means that the audience doesn’t really see all candidates. Candidates that have prime time slots are seen more than candidates that don’t. Candidates tend to draw an audience that is primarily their own supporters so there is little chance to change opinions of viewers who favor other candidates. Watch for the data on audience size on the different town halls after the fact and see if you think all candidates got a fair shake.
I don’t really think the debates so far have been very different, have you? They’ve basically been performance art, tossing well-prepared quips in 30-second sound bites. I actually sort of resent the sporting event feel they’ve had, with each candidate looking for that gotcha television moment. It is what it is, obviously, and I think that’s just part and parcel of so many candidates on one stage.
Precisely why a full three hours dedicated to climate change will be such a huge improvement over the current type of general debate where you can’t get beyond the rehearsed quips.
Preserve the status quo, which favors Multi-NaZional Korporations over Us. (‘Us’ being ‘We, The People’.)
Said Multi-NaZional Korporations (Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Wall Street, the MIC, For-Profit Prisons, For-Profit Schools, etc., etc.)
Three hours? I’ve read the “plans.” They aren’t worth three hours—if you’ve read them, you know they aren’t. We’ve got a town hall coming. Let’s see how the candidates do in that forum first. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
Fuck the DNC
Your vote will thus prove the effectiveness of the corporate duopoly’s Lesser Evil Gambit and help convince it to continue the strategy of drifting (now driving) farther to the right with each successive presidential election. Only a realistic threat of losing millions of current Democratic voters has any chance of changing the DNC’s behavior. The only other choices are voting them out of power or ways to stop them from operating–boycotts, blockades, and other direct actions.
I’m not sure what plans you are referring to - I was only discussing the relative merits of the format of a very long sequential set of town halls versus the format of a debate format where candidates can interact (i.e. the topic you raised). I think it’s important for candidates to question each other as you have in a Lincoln-Douglas format. If I designed a large multi-candidate debate it would have just a few theme questions, and alternating time for candidates to speak on their ideas on the theme and time for the candidates to ask questions of the other candidates (to manage a large number of candidates I would have a draft lottery in advance where candidates pick who they will question).
I did mention Christine Pelosi’s back-up plan that suggested 3 to 6 two hour debates on the chapters of the Democratic Party platform. I do think that also has merit - and I still hope it happens next year when the field is narrowed to under five candidates.
For the record, I don’t disagree on having issue centered debates, but I’m skeptical that a climate debate right now would be any different in outcome than others with so many candidates. My feeling is we may get more from a town hall, and one is scheduled. When the field is winnowed, then I think there’d be more merit to a debate, especially after candidates have more time to figure out what their own plans actually say.
And by “plans,” I mean basically the political statements some candidates have posted. I’m with Kevin Drum on them. Some are better than others but here’s a tell from the Sanders plan that screams the political wordsmith shop did the legwork for it:
With a $300 billion investment, we will increase public transit ridership by 65 percent by 2030. We will ensure that reliable, affordable public transit is accessible for seniors, people with disabilities, and rural communities. In addition to expanding transit service to communities, we will promote transit-oriented development to link this service to popular destinations and vital community services. For too long, government policy has encouraged long car commutes, congestion, and dangerous emissions.
The last portion of the comment is the only part with any substantiative truth to it, the rest is a mix of straight up nonsense and happy talk designed for Sanders to say to ignorant audiences he’s the most progressive on GHG emissions. It’s political speak, nothing more. My suspicion is Sanders has zero idea of what performance metrics need to change for highway funding, how state level transportation planning needs to change (some states barely do it), and the nature of the challenges that entails to do in . . . 10 years. We are looking to pass a five-year Highway bill this session! His 10 years is shot with renewal of the current Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, which states are lobbying for.
I don’t mean to cut on Sanders specifically here, but I want to actually hear what candidates have to say before I listen to them preen about iffy laundry lists while getting in tit-for-tats over them. It’d be far better for candidates to participate in one-on-one climate focused interviews with knowledgeable people if we really want understanding.
small comment on all of that: I think you might be overly focused on transportation because of your work and expect candidates to be more into the details on that one thing than could reasonably be expected.
I am obviously a pretty details oriented guy - but for politicians I want them to have a good grasp of the big picture and to know how to surround themselves with excellent staff who can implement the vision.
It’s why I reference them as political statements—that’s what they are. Sanders is trying to be the most leftist with his, whatever its actual merits and workability, while O’Rourke seems to be putting out a plan to say he put out a plan. I’ve got no illusions about this. I only referenced that portion of the Sanders “plan” to underscore the ludicrousness of it and why I’m skeptical a debate is going to do much. I stand by my feeling, the outrage over a debate is dumb, let alone accusing the DNC of subterfuge etc., which is what I see in comments here.
The only campaign-effecting moments of the debates have been the confrontations. I don’t see why gotcha momenta are a bad thing. If they gotcha, it’s probably for a good reason, you know, like the track record you’re trying to hide.
This just came out and I wanted to add it to this thread for future reference
Thanks but Perez is a dancing marionette. He was told by his bosses they didn’t want to have a climate debate because it would hurt their numbers.
granted, I just wanted to have it here for reference