The record low viewership of Saturday's Democratic debate has voters, particularly Bernie Sanders supporters, once again castigating the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for what many believe is a blatant attempt to shield establishment candidate Hillary Clinton and, in turn, relinquishing important political ground to the Republican candidates.
It's more than just protecting Clinton: it's also protecting the true patrons of the Democratic party--oligarchs. By burying the debates, the DNC is also burying the chance that Sanders' domestic politics will catch even bigger fire, forcing the party to actually address its own rank and file with substance instead of just rhetoric.
Take notice, those of you who remain wedded to this beast. This party is not who you think they are, and the leadership of this party does not even remotely want what you want.
We all know that Bernie has little or no chance, but this latest move by the DNC, it seems to me, is designed to take away even Bernie's slim chance.
In other words, Bernie's chances were always between slim and none...and now Slim has just left town!
An alternative explanation for the strange scheduling of this debate is that Debbie Wasserman Schutz wanted to give viewers the opportunity to switch over to watching the Oklahoma vs Baylor football game during commercials or boring moments. On the other hand, for political junkies who are also college football fans this scheduling was really lousy. In any event, if Debbie Wasserman Schultz is actually trying to protect Hillary then it probably backfired because for those who missed the debate most of the news stories about the debate were about Hillary's gaffes. I am not sure who won but I think Hillary was the loser. Will that matter in the primaries? Probably not.
Dear DNC. I will stay home if I perceive this primary is not handled fairly. Right now I don't see fairness, you better turn that around.
His chances are much better than you have been led to believe. That is part of the strategy, to make Hillary seem inevitable.
I do not see it that way, but I would love to see Bernie get the DNC nomination for Potus because from my perspective, Bernie would win in a landslide!
Sorry, my post offended you. Thanks for your reply.
Main urgency for the Establishment/Oligarchy is to block BERNIE from reaching the public via TV.
The National Dem Party is assisting in that effort.
Still, more than 8.7 viewers did see the corporate HRC and her "No's" . . .
No to National Health Care -- No to Expanding Medicare
No to using Glass-Steagall to re-regulate Wall Street and prevent another depression
No to Free College Educations
Yes to Wall Street -- including $600,000 for her personal use from Goldman Sacks in return
for speeches she made for them.
And a lot of other "No's" to things important to our citizens and democracy
What's wrong with Bernie, why doesn't he put Hillary on the spot and ask her at the next debate to join with him in more debates, authorized by the DNC or not. Come to Illinois and trace the path of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Er, ah, er it might be a tad cold,lol.
Definitely not in Massachusetts where the super delegates are behind Hillary no matter what the peon masses think.
Maybe its time to take back the democrat party from the Clinton's and all their corporate cronies.
As much as I hate the GOP--and I do--this is the kind of leverage that needs to be thrown in the DNCs face for those of you who still think the party can be transformed from within. As long as they believe you'll do the lesser evil gig--and 90% of the pro-Sanders posters on here probably will if HRC gets the nod--they have zero incentive to start serving the electorate.
It's not easy to tank your own party at the best of times. It's scary letting them lose to the likes of Trump, or Cruz, or Carson. Yet that might be what is required. To roll the bones for 4-8 years so those jokers get your message an take it seriously. The GOP rank and file show no such fear. They'll punish their party at the drop of a dime. And at least they get fanservice for their troubles.
Its also more than timing the debates in Clinton's favor, as state Democratic Party bosses in states where Bernie is likely to beat Clinton are pushing for scheduling the latest possible primary dates.
I am not surprised the DNC favors Hillary, since they are all part of the corrupt machine. I admire Bernie (and Martin) for having the courage to speak out against the corruption. I am so thankful to finally hear a politician say exactly what I believe. Go Bernie!
If that's what you want, then that's what you'll get: "Bernie has little or no chance"...??? If you want a democracy, you have to create one. If enough people vote for Bernie, he will win. He doesn't give up. Have you? I find politics truly revolting, and never participate beyond the absolute minimum. Period. It does seem to me that Bernie is different from any politician I've seen run for (this) office, in this country, ever. And at every exposure he gets, he is drawing more thousands of people who support him. I have no idea if he will win. However, if enough people believe that he won't, and thus support Hillary, well, Gawd help us all. I'll aim for the positive, and see what happens. Oh, and, if the republicans win the presidency, same thing: Gawd help us all.
Sanders makes some good points and a good first impression. He really seems to enjoy "fighting the good fight." However, we need more than that. We need more than just another "Hope and Change" candidate like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Been there. Done that. Twice.
Unfortunately, even before this race got off the ground, Sanders gave up his bargaining power, his leverage. He said he would support whomever wins the Democratic Party primary. That means he will support Hilary Clinton if he loses.
That's when Bruce Dixon at Black Agenda Report (BAR) noted that "Bernie" is just another Democratic Party sheep dog, herding the naive and hopeful party progressives into another "lesser of two evils" presidential election.
If Bernie had committed to supporting third party ballot access, and taking his supporters with him in the event that Warmonger Hilary Clinton won the primary, he would have been able to wield real political power. He would have been a a real threat to the bipartisan machine. But, Bernie didn't do that.
I would almost rather see a big mouth blowhard billionaire win in 2016 than another unprincipled, deceitful "Hope and Change" candidate. Then at least we would have the ingredients for the formation of a REAL OPPOSITION PARTY, to replace this Wall Street financed machine.
As a researcher I have to ask if anyone knows if the Nielson ratings are politically balanced? I'm assuming that mostly Democrats watch the Dems debates and Republicans watch the Reps debates. If the Nielson families are not selected intentionally to balance Dems and Reps, you should not expect equal viewership reported by the rating system. If 70% of Nielson families are Reps, you can see why they would have a higher rating, although viewership might have actually been higher for the Dems. Does anyone know if Nielson uses political affiliation as a criteria of selection? My gut feeling is that Reps watch more TV (I have no research, just a hunch based on TV content) so any random system of selection will favor Reps.
While attacks even worse than those in Paris occur almost daily or even more often in other countries, Americans do not react the same to those, even though all are equally tragic and barbaric, no matter who is behind them and even while Obama has amassed impressive numbers of dead civilians as assassin in chief, maybe eclipsing the Bush/Cheney cabal of barbarians, western media propaganda being what it is, Americans are now more likely to vote republican after the atrocities in Paris, since for reasons making no sense whatsoever, the perception is republicans are tougher than democrats, especially on military affairs. It doesn't appear to matter that democratic administrations have killed far more innocents than republican ones.
Meanwhile, it appears the DNC will do anything needed to ensure Hillary becomes their candidate, but wasn't that expected? Even while Sanders is also a member of the same system, is it possible the elites could be a little worried he might help out regular people a little more than the rulers would like at their expense instead of ours for a change?
Well, no matter. Without an actual popular party representing we the people, we lose every selection cycle anyway. Changing that should be people's number one priority,but not anytime soon, or so it appears. And yes I do realize it ticks democrats and republicans off to hear that neither party represents them, but hey, all I can do is point out the truth of the matter. I can't exactly convince the true believer their misguided, although I admit, it does bring some very interesting name calling and insults from that particular group.
Even so, good luck to us all as current events unfold. From the TPP, TTIP, TISA, and increasing violence, along with many other issues, we're sure going to need some.