If you want to spread your message as far as you can, do you make it easy for people ...

[slipslidingaway]

or not?

That is not a difficult question to answer.

The Dems scheduling debates on known low viewer nights runs counterproductive to what they should be doing. This is not only about introducing other candidates, most know Clinton and some think she is the only candidate running.

But this goes much further on spreading the message with regards to Dem issues and we are doing a terrible job!

This is like the movie Groundhog Day, we just keep on doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome.

If that fails we can always blame the other party. We are practically holding the door open for them to walk through, but will protest vigorously if that happens.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Debates is not the only way to get the candidates message to the public. For many years there was

not televised debates, candidates was still elected. There are news sources and broadcast, in fact ad time can be purchased for prime time and any time of the day. Using available sources of getting one's message out is the responsibility of the campaign crew, make sure they are using all sources.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Times have changed, we all know that, if you do not accept money from large corporations ...

for speaking fees and just tell the bankers to cut it out, the money to buy ads is limited.

Sorry but your response sounds a bit privileged and not allowing an open discussion of issues.

Ad time is not cheap, it should be the responsibility of our party to put forth issues that represent the majority of people. If not, then we might as well just join the other side.

I want my elected representatives advancing my issues, not giving 200,000 speeches to bankers.

[LuvLoogie]

12. I think Hillary collects speaking fees as a private citizen.

Regardless, you don't have to be Hillary to run a great campaign.

[Thinkingabout]

38. Yes, ad time is expensive, ergo fund raising is very important if a candidate wants to be successful

By some of the actions of Sanders he wants to prove a president can be elected without taking money from all sources. As you state times have changed. In fact the DNC raises funds and some of those funds comes from corporate interest, then accepting the benefits of these funds is indirectly accepting the benefits of corporate funds which is against Sanders acceptance of corporate funds. In fact the ability of a candidate to raise funds is important to the DNC, is Sanders willing to raise the funds for DNC in order to do the task of which you are thinking is the responsibility?

You said I sounded a bit privileged, you are so very wrong, just aware of facts. What is the Green Party doing to help Sanders?

Yes, Hillary has given speeches and was paid. This is not a negative in her ability to be president, in fact it is a positive. Saying a candidate responds to money, we see it does and has by Sanders votes, he responded to NRA donation to assist in defeating his opponent. The chatter about Hillary giving speeches and getting paid does not raise interest in your candidate, does not change my mind about Hillary. I see makes her abilities are great, she has experience in areas needed by a president. I did not get from the last debate Sanders has much knowledge of foreign affairs. More debates will continue to flag the issue of foreign affairs abilities. Less debates at this time is in Sanders favor.

[daybranch]

39. People readily believe what they expect to hear

Hillary just continues to tell you details and lets get them bad guys dialogue. This simplistic view has been sold with disastrous consequences for generations. Bernie talks about reasons and makes connections between facts. I realize it may be more complicated but remember for every complicated situation there is a solution that is simple, direct, and wrong.
Like most of Hillary supporters you continue to provide right wing talking points, Bernie does not understand foreign policy etc. But you are on democratic underground and we like facts here not just impressions. Please enlighten us as to what he said that was incorrect? I heard nothing new from Hillary that would inform me or anyone else who is aware of the situation. But then this is my impression.
Maybe we Bernie people should sink to your standards of my impression is and then say whatever we want without support- there are many, many, derogatory impressions I have of Hillary but I try to use facts to make valid statements.
We value substance over style.

[Thinkingabout]

40. One of the reasons for the finanical crisis was the passing of the Commodities Futures

Modernization Act of 2000 of which Sanders was a yes voter. This is not a RW talking point, it is a fact. I hear a lot of "breaking up the big banks", restore Glass Stegall, in fact Dodd Frank will break up the banks if they fail, this is not a RW talking point. Hillary wants to enhance Dodd Frank to cover other needed issues, this is not a RW talking point.

Currently foreign affairs is very important, we need an experienced person in this field, it is not substance over style, it is necessary. In fact there are derogatory impressions of Sanders, the fact it is not posted day after day by Hillary supporters should be a plus for us, it is not needed. I am for electing Democrats, this is how we can get changes, help the middle class to live a good life, electing Republicans has brought union busting from Reagan and the story goes on from that point. We can stand together or we can divide and Republicans will continue to get elected.

[Autumn]

2. The democrats have a great message and all 3 candiadtes can get it across but

the party leadership must think everyone has heard what that message is. Meanwhile the republicans are dominating the conversation.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Yes, we can make it easy or difficult, the Repubs are making it easy, Dems are hiding ...

behind a curtain as if they are wizard.

[MADem]

3. Because, here in the 21st Century, if you aren't sitting in front of your TV while the

debates are broadcast live, there's no way to retrieve that information, ever again...!

Wouldn't it be great if there was some device where you could click a few buttons and find a library of videos, where these debates might be stored...!!

And watch them AT your convenience!!!!!

Wouldn't it be great if there existed a machine that could record the live event off your tv, so you could push a button and see it when you had time to focus on it!!!



Ah, 'tis only a far-fetched dream, I suppose...

[slipslidingaway]

10. Again and again, the Dems can make it easy to get their message across or they can make it more ...

challenging.

Which do you think is more beneficial and might attract the most viewers?

You need only to look at the viewership totals for a clue.

[MADem]

16. How hard is it to head to YOUTUBE?

You can see every debate there, and the forum, too.

The Republicans aren't going to watch the Democratic debates--they are confident that they know who the winner is going to be. If they need to review her performance for the general, they'll do it in the post-primary season. There's no suspense there.

The Democrats, OTOH, like to watch the GOP debates. First off, Trump is a YUUUUUUUUGE draw--people tune in to watch him act like a crazed 'carnival barker' or whatever O'Malley called him. They tune in to watch Ben "Alien" Carson too--just for the comedic fodder. And they like the fact that it's a horse race, unlike our own debates.

For the Republican viewers' part, too, they don't really know who their nominee will be--it's still a puzzlement to them. For this reason, they're more interested in the process.

It's not about difficulty of access, it's about who's running a "more fun" show. But again, if you want to watch any debate, Dem or GOP, they ARE available with two clicks or so. No one who is really interested is prevented from looking at this material.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Sorry, you are still not getting it, sure people can SEEK out the news if they choose to do so ...

it is about making it EASY!!! That is what the Dems should be doing!

Marketing 101.

Having the mainstream news give free air time to the Repubs for days before the debates and several days later plays into those who do not seek the information.

Not hard to understand.

There are many undecided voters who will watch both debates, do we not want to capture every vote?

I never said there was no access, this is about getting the message out to the largest amount of people, maybe that is strange idea to some.

[MADem]

20. I think you have it wrong.

We have a small field, three candidates, and it's not that hard to learn about them. It's EASY to learn about them. Anyone who is having trouble doesn't really care.

And we don't need to get the message out to a large amount of people--they know our message already.

What you don't want to do is give the GOP too much material that they can use to hang us with.

Here's the bottom line. Democrats go to their corner and pick their player. Republicans go to their corner, and -- out of a massive field -- pick theirs. We happen to watch, but only because it's a fricken train wreck.

And once the choices have been made, THAT is when the game is afoot--not in this primary period.

We'll have plenty of time in the general election to get our POV across.

We need to earn money first, that general is going to be expensive. This is why Sanders and Clinton will be hosting high-end DNC dinners, to earn money that will be used for convention expenses and the general election.

[slipslidingaway]

23. "Anyone who is having trouble doesn't really care..."

again you are not understanding. For years we have had a lower voter turnout, it should be our job to engage those 'who are not necessarily' interested.

What you are saying is that the Dems have already 'gone to their corner' with the candidate of their choice, primaries are a sham, people should stay home until they are called upon to vote for the candidate of choice.

Thanks for affirming that democratic process is not so democratic, that is what people have been saying and glad you agree.

[MADem]

24. You don't pump up your product a year away from launch.

You end up wearing out your welcome.

And we haven't had a lower voting turnout "for years." When Obama ran, he pulled them down from the rafters.

We have a problem with off year elections, but that's not this year. I think we'll have no problem getting a high turnout this time around. Particularly if the candidate is Clinton, and she runs with Castro.

When the 'sales game' begins in earnest is the Democratic National Convention.

And the Democratic process is about as Democratic as you are going to get, seeing as this nation is actually a republic, and you do not vote FOR a candidate in the general election, you vote for electors to vote for a candidate.

And I'm not saying the Dems have already gone to their corner, but if you want my opinion, it'll take a miracle for anyone but Clinton to win the nomination. She's simply the only varsity player, and the rest are barely JV.

[ibegurpard]

28. Dear God!

You're serious aren't you? You actually think Hillary can replicate Obama...

[MADem]

33. Not sure where or how you came to that conclusion. Not what I said, not what I meant. nt

[Lordquinton]

30. "You don't pump up your product a year away from launch."

Tell us, what exactly is the product that is a year away from launch here?

[MADem]

32. If you can't follow the conversation, I'm not spoon feeding you. nt

[Lordquinton]

34. If you can't answer a question then you clearly don't understand the subject.

I'm following the conversation, I just want to know exactly what you mean in this metaphor.

[MADem]

35. See post 3.

This tiresome meme that if only the debates had a better "time" that magically people would tune in is bogus.

We have no Donald Trump on our stage. That's why we don't have bigger numbers.

[Lordquinton]

36. That doesn't answer my question

what is the product that is a year away from launch here?

[MADem]

41. A Democratic President. DUH.

Why do you think it's 'cool' to be obtuse?

[Lordquinton]

42. Why are we selling a president when we're still in the primaries?

You are skipping a step. Why is the party actively suppressing the process of choosing a candidate?

[MADem]

45. FINALLY!! You got my point!! Took a while, but you got there.

That's what I've been trying to tell you--you DON'T roll out new product a year in advance. Is that not what I said upthread?

We pick our candidate, amongst ourselves, without worrying about input from wingnuts, trolls, disruptors, and third party advocates who like to stir the pot for sport, and THEN, and only then, after we have selected our candidate, and (s)he has picked a VP, do we roll out the product.

See? Simple.

I wasn't "skipping a step."

You were trying to jerk my chain a bit, there, though, and you tripped yourself up.

[Lordquinton]

46. No, you're skipping a step

You want to keep everything hush hush and prevent people from seeing all the choices.

You have to get the word out about our candidates, and let people learn about them.

But if we're continuing with this silly marketing comparison, it could be argued that you don't run a product that has been rejected before, and that we know a lot of people actively dislike.

[MADem]

47. No, I'm not. If you're in the Democratic club, you know where and when you are voting,

and if you don't know, you're clearly not that interested and will do your homework close to primary voting day. Do you really think clubbing the electorate over the head and demanding that they eat their peas will increase turnout? Please.

I don't "want to keep everything hush hush," I don't want to spend money stupidly. This is a state by state process. There are a lot of downticket races that need funding.

We don't HAVE a Donald Trump or a clown car. We have three adults who are quite similar running. That's why we don't have all the drama and amusement. It has nothing to do with "hush hush."

[Admiral Loinpresser]

22. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[ThePhilosopher04]

31. You're talking to people who want it to be hard ...

because they support a flawed candidate who gets consistently exposed by Bernie. There's no convincing them.

[Lordquinton]

43. Arthur Dent could have sought out the notice that his house was being demolished

If he knew to look in the basement, under the stairs, in a locked cabinet behind a door marked "beware of the leopard"

[ms liberty]

37. It is a far fetched dream for many Americans..

Who cannot afford one of those "devices" or an Internet connection and/or cable/satellite television.

[MADem]

48. Psst--they make "TV" that goes over the air. No cable required.

Psst--you can buy a cheap android phone (or get a used one) and put a tracfone card on it--poof, you've got internet.

Or, they have these buildings called LIBRARIES where you can access the internet for free. It's a place full of books, they let you borrow them for free, too. They also have DVDs, and CDs too. Oh--and NEWSPAPERS. And MAGAZINES...with all the news of the day in them.

If you are REAL poor, many cable companies have dirt cheap income-dependent programs for internet access. The speeds are DSL-ish, but enough to get the news and read the paper.

[ms liberty]

49. Oh gee, thanks so much for explaining that to me. Except...

TV: Here's something shocking for you; over the air TV is determined by what your TV will pick up and where you live. I live in a rural area. On a good day, over the air we may pick up only two or three channels. In imperfect weather, oftentimes not even one.
Cheap phone: Surprisingly, people who are really poor and have an inexpensive phone on a prepaid card don't use their precious minutes surfing the internet - they save their minutes for necessary phone calls.
Cheap cable for poor people: Well, first cable has to come to you. We don't have cable available out here. And neither dish or direct have admitted to having a package for poor people, nor has the cable company admitted to such to people I know who are living in poverty in areas where cable does run.
The library: The library is one of the few ways for poor people to have access to books and computers. But if you go to the library to get on the net here, you'll have to wait in line. The number of PC'S is exceeded by the number of users every day, for most of the day. And you know what? Most poor people don't have time to wait for a PC to become free. They have things to do too. Our library is not open past 6 pm on most nights, either. Libraries run different hours in other cities and might be easier to access in other areas, but that also assumes that a poor person has plenty of free time go to the library. Being poor is pretty exhausting work, between working your ass off for almost nothing, household chores and repairs, and spending every waking minute trying to figure out how to make it through the day, the week, the month.
And finally, your condescending attitude tells me all I need to know about you. You don't give a shit about whether anyone sees the debates, you don't really give a shit about our citizenry being informed and engaged as part of the electorate. You care about your candidate winning, and you care about having a snarky ass response to someone supporting a different candidate. And you don't know much about people living in poverty, but you've read about all these neat solutions! And you're happy to impart your wisdom from the comfort of your ivory tower. I'm not poor, but I have relatives and friends who are, and if I spoke to them as you have spoken to me I would not be welcome in their homes.

[MADem]

50. If you don't get TV every day, that doesn't mean you don't get it at all.

As for 'cheap phone' you obviously don't know how they work. If you buy, say, a card with 100 units on it, you get 100 units of telephone talk time, 100 texts, and 100 units of 'data' (internet time) -- all for the same price. If you buy a phone that doesn't have internet, you'll pay the same money just for the telephone capability. But if you have an android (and they're very cheap now--not the newest or fanciest, but they work just fine) you get a one for one data benefit. So, surfing the net does NOT impact your ability to make a call or send a text--no need to "save" minutes. Further, if you use up all your data, you can go to a place -- library, cafe, diner, doctor's office, where ever--with free internet and use their wifi and your own phone to access the net that way. I've never been to a truck stop that doesn't have blazing fast internet.

All the debates are right there on YOUTUBE. Two clicks and you're there.

You don't need to "wait in line" if you bring your own computer or phone at the library--you just need an access code which they will give you at the desk. The lines have to do with available machines owned by the library--but you can bring a pair of earbuds and use your android to access videos and net in mobile mode.

How do I know all this? I've done it. I do it, often, when I am traveling.

I'm sure you'll come up with a few more reasons why a rare, worst case scenario has to apply to everyone and is a reason for changing our debate schedule (and I fail to see how changing our schedule is going to magically give that person with a tracfone more data minutes, or create cable for the person with OTA TV--so that argument was bogus on your part, anyway).

Here's the bottom line--people who are interested WILL find a way. Those debates aren't going anywhere, they're right there, slapped up on YOUTUBE....furthermore, this IS the 21st century, and "cutting the cord" is all the rage.

Your last sentence is just pique--I don't agree with you, so you get personal and rude--fine, that says more about you than me. You know nothing about me, and frankly, I've no interest in sharing my life story with you--it's obvious that you have an agenda that includes casting me as "The Bad Guy" because I don't agree with you. Just don't try to pretend that the information provided at those debates has "disappeared" or is not available to the average, interested person. It is. And it's not that hard to access, either.

Last, but not least--just in case you weren't aware...tell all your friends, now....the debates are broadcast on Over The Air Radio on the Westwood Radio Network, so check those local listings...!

[JoePhilly]

51. That's Satan talk right there!!!

You watch tv live damn it, like God and Jesus intended!!

[MADem]

52. Hahahaha! DARKSIDED!!!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

4. This is voter suppression.

DWS would rather have fewer people vote. The more people vote the more populist the overall turnout.

[murielm99]

6. That is just plain silly.

Voter suppression.

[MADem]

17. I had the same reaction...! nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

21. Do you have a rationale for minimizing the broadcast audience (i.e. potential voters)

by scheduling on a Saturday night? GOP debates: weeknight, prime time, as would do if trying to maximize the audience.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Yes and it also does nothing to support the Dem view ...

we are leaving the door wide open for the Repubs.

[99th_Monkey]

8. "If that fails we can always blame the other party" .. much more likely

is that they would blame Bernie and his supporters for "using RW talking points,
to spoil it" for the presumptuous wannabe nominee who believed it was "her
turn".

[slipslidingaway]

13. You could be right ...

but the Dem party really needs to glance in the mirror once in awhile.

[99th_Monkey]

18. I could not agree more. -nt-

[elleng]

9. Keep the public from seeing candidate(s) you don't like,

for whatever reason (not 'Dem' enough, not hrc) and cross your fingers that your Dem wins. PERFECTLY undemocratic and foolish.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Clinton is the only candidate when you speak to some people ....

they may have heard of Sanders and O'Malley but they do not know where they stand on the issues.

What a mess we are making of this democratic process.

[elleng]

15. Yes, it is MESS.

[Eric J in MN]

25. In 2008, there were 26 debates.

Hillary Clinton didn't win the nomination.

From Debbie Wasserman Schultz's point-of-view, limited debates is avoiding the mistake of letting another candidate get enough exposure to defeat Hillary Clinton.

[murielm99]

27. People get sick of debates

when there are that many.

They tune out.

[Eric J in MN]

29. I agree. A dozen debates

...all on weeknights, each with two-weeks space, would be a good amount.

Enough debates to inform citizens.

A small enough amount for each one to be an event.

[ibegurpard]

26. the excuses in this thread

Are sickening. I have never seen such willful blindness.

[Prism]

44. The Party doesn't matter - only Hillary

The DNC is definitely sacrificing down ticket Democrats on the altar of Hillary Clinton. With the widespread exposure of Republicans, one would think the DNC would want to get out our comparative sanity far and wide.

Is there any disagreement that our debates have been substantive, full of common sense, and appealing to the Americans who are most hurting these days? Shouldn't we want that image projected at least as much as the Republican appeals to fear, paranoia, and disdain for the Other?

And yet the DNC doesn't. It actively tries to hide our message from the American people.

For what?

For Hillary.

All this for one person. And then we're told not to be overly suspicious when every level of power, money, and influence is being brought to bear on one person.

At least they're allowing us the pretense of having a say. That's kind of them.