MSNBC Poll: Do you think the Democratic National Committee should organize more than six debates?

[Cheese Sandwich]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-more-debates

[artislife]

1. Thank you nt

[jwirr]

2. 86% yes.

[Vincardog]

3. Still 86% yes

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Still at 86%

[wyldwolf]

5. Once Sanders gets a noticeable post-debate bounce, THEN there will have been enough debates.

[senz]

17. Oh relax, open discussion isn't going to hurt you or H-arrow.

Seriously. No need to adopt the secrecy habits of a certain candidate. IMHO, there's something undemocratic and therefore unAmerican about it. We can do better.

[wyldwolf]

23. Oh, relax, open discussion isn't going to hurt you, either.

Seriously. No need to adopt the conspiratorial habits of a certain candidate's supporters. IMHO, there's something undemocratic and therefore unAmerican about it. We can do better.

[senz]

25. Glad to hear you're for more than six debates, wyldwolf.

But do bear in mind that strategizing, which is part and parcel of political campaigns, can also be termed "conspiracy." Same elements in both. Mainly a difference in tone.

Sorry to piss you off. I was trying to communicate, not "call names."

[wyldwolf]

27. I'm glad you think there should be less than 6.

But for some people to whine about just six when there has never been any set DNC policy on the number is silly - especially when they think the more debates there are, the more people will like Bernie. What? Six isn't enough to convince the American electorate they should vote for him? Seven is the magic number? 12? 18? 50???

Sorry to piss you off.

You're confusing 'pissed off' with amusement.

I was trying to communicate, not "call names."

H-arrow? secrecy habits of a certain candidate? undemocratic and therefore unAmerican? SUUUURE - you weren't trying to 'call names.'

[senz]

32. This is getting interesting...

First off, you don't sound amused to me; you sound offended.

Secondly, since I am trying to become less spontaneous and more controlled for the purpose of raising my sensitivity to others, your reaction concerns me.

Thirdly, your examples, taken from my comments, prove both our points. To wit:

* "H-arrow" could pass as "name calling" to very sensitive souls. Okay, I'll take that as a lesson and try not to do it in the future.

* "Secrecy habits" and "undemocratic" are SERIOUS concerns/criticisms for which I do not apologize. If you can't bear to have your candidate criticized for what some of us (voters) consider important negatives (secrecy, undemocratic tendencies), then you, wyldwolf, have let yourself become overly protective and will probably find any non-adoring discussion of your candidate a source of anger. afaic, that's your problem. And by the way, it doesn't help her either.

For my part, I will try to do better.

Have a good day.

[wyldwolf]

33. Yes it is.

First off, you don't sound amused to me; you sound offended.

I'm not responsible for how your perceive my mood.

Secondly, since I am trying to become less spontaneous and more controlled for the purpose of raising my sensitivity to others, your reaction concerns me.

Calling the Democratic front-runner undemocratic and unamerican. Yeah, you have loads of sensitivity going on there.

"H-arrow" could pass as "name calling" to very sensitive souls. Okay, I'll take that as a lesson and try not to do it in the future. "Secrecy habits" and "undemocratic" are SERIOUS concerns/criticisms for which I do not apologize.

1. If you're intention was not to name-call, why use any other reference to Hillary Clinton than her name or former titles?
2. It's quite amusing you would accuse someone of name-calling after throwing those doozies out.
3. I don't care whether you apologize or not.

[senz]

34. Nah, it's gettin' ugly.

IMHO, you might quite possibly be dealing with anger management issues which are, of course, perfectly understandable in this imperfect world that infuriates us all from time to time; however, I do not wish to ruin a perfectly good Saturday trying to deal with whatever it is that makes you react this way.

So take it easy, and I'll try to like you anyway. (I know, I know, you "don't care," etc. etc.)

[wyldwolf]

35. And you started the ugliness.

Seriously, why hit people and not think they'll hit you back?

you might quite possibly be dealing with anger management issues

You might quite possibly be dealing with delusions you're a psychiatrist.

[sabrina 1]

39. Are you for or against real debate? The current exclusivity rule of the DNC

is without a doubt, anti-democratic regardless of who you support.

The poll shows an overwhelming majority against the DNC's current position on debates. That has to include some Hillary supporters who I am sure feel confident that their candidate can handle some open discussion on the Issues.

[wyldwolf]

43. It's an online poll with people like you telling others to vote in it

Skewed and meaningless. The rest of your reply is as well

[tritsofme]

6. Six is more than plenty.

But I do agree there should be more before the early voting states. Hillary may very well have the nomination wrapped up by the time the last two debates come around.

[Vincardog]

9. That is what the machine hopes for

[sabrina 1]

40. Or the exact opposite could occur. Due to the obvious attempt to protect their

preferred candidate even some of her supporters, who value democracy more than any politician, may decide to support the candidate who is not afraid of debate on the issues.

[tritsofme]

42. Uh-huh....

[haikugal]

7. Done!

Kick!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Why should we want to know more about the public servants we're about to hire?

The emphasis being on "servants". Not masters, bosses, leaders, or heroes. Servants.

Call it democracy.

[senz]

18. + 1000

[workinclasszero]

10. Online polls are useless

One person can vote hundreds of times if they want to.

In my daily life I have never heard an actual person begging for more political debates LOL

[99th_Monkey]

12. I'm an actual person, and I'm demanding more Democratic debates

or do I have to "beg" to count in your book?

[frylock]

20. I'm actual person "begging" for more political debates..

LOL.

[sabrina 1]

41. In that case, it appears that no one is voting FOR the DNC's 'rules'. 87%

want MORE debate. So why are Hillary supporters not voting over and over again in favor of the DNC's rules? If ANYONE can do that, then the poll should be the opposite of what it is.

I voted once, not sure if I could do it again, but wouldn't anyhow.

[99th_Monkey]

11. Done! Thanks for the OP nt

[66 dmhlt]

13. YES @ 87% for this timestamp

[John Poet]

14. Not the party, necessarily

but there should be no "exclusivity rule".

Networks, local stations, newspapers, etc should be allowed to host their own debates.

[msongs]

15. I think people who want to be in more debates should make their own on principle and to heck

with the dnc's attempts to stifle free speech and association

[senz]

22. As long as we could get sufficient media coverage.

Otherwise, it might not be worth it.

[Kenjie]

16. Voted and Rec

Bring on the debates!

[senz]

19. 87% (my vote did it)

[senz]

24. Or maybe not.

[senz]

21. I think if we (Democrats) want to win this election,

we should use a "play it by ear" strategy, scheduling debates for strategic times, such as the very near future, with an aim of holding at least six debates. I.e., we should be flexible and strategic in our approach, not rigid and dogmatic. (Hm, this would also be very good advice for a certain female candidate, and I don't mean Carly Fiorina.)

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. 87% ..........Yes 3,627 votes

it grew 500 votes in just a couple of minutes.

No
547 votes

[bobclark86]

28. Yay for FReeping polls! n/t

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

31. Wrong website. We DU polls.

[bobclark86]

36. Nope. Still FReeping.

That's the term for it: Flooding a poll to skew results in your favor. Check Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary on that one...

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

38. It's a reference to the nutjobs at Freerepublic.com. They Freep, we DU.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

29. .

[Voice for Peace]

30. No. The BLM should organize a couple of debates. Native Americans are discussing holding their own

debate as well. Latinos can organize a few debates

There is no reason this should be left up to the DNC, nor the MSM
and who gives a fuck about their already-decided-debates that
don't even begin for months and months. Meanwhile,
MEANWHILE:
Bernie is doing three huge events 8th,9th,10th, this weekend.
Seattle, LA,


Let's have DU moderated debate!!
YEAH A DU MODERATED DEBATE!!!

Or DU + DAILYKOS + THOM HARTMANN +
SOME REASONABLE FARE, AND BALANCE,
LET'S GET BILL MAHER, JON STEWART,
ALL THE ONES.. THEY HAVE A TON OF MONEY,
THEY COULD STAGE AND MODERATE SOME
AMAZING DEBATES.

apologies for loud caps.. too much excitement, too little sleep.

[LWolf]

45. This is a good idea, except for the reality:

BLM and Native Americans and anyone else who wants to organize debates? If a candidate attends, then that candidate will be excluded from the DNC debates.

[Voice for Peace]

46. well that would be exceedingly dumb of the DNC

[LWolf]

47. Yet they've already done it.

The DNC has limited the number of debates to six and threatened to exclude presidential candidates who debate outside that framework.

[Voice for Peace]

48. they are exceedingly dumb. Bernie ought to say so.

[LWolf]

49. He has been.

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Letter-to-DNC.pdf

[RobertEarl]

37. We need a DU poll

It should be placed in GD.

And if locked we should all pm the locker.

This is a general party matter and it belongs in GD.

[wyldwolf]

44. Yes that should settle it!