There can be no other reason.

The more people hear Bernie's positions the more will support him and the DNC/Third Way crowd won't stand for that.

They want to keep the public see her as The Only Viable. And deliver her the nomination on a silver plate.

Is this something the DNC has published or said out loud? If not, it should be verified with them before claiming it as anything other than a hypothesis.

The treasurer of the DNC is a friend of mine, and I'll ask him flat out unless this is from a public position they have put out already.

WASHINGTON -- Democrats announced Tuesday that they plan to hold six official debates between Democratic candidates seeking the presidential nomination in 2016.

Beginning later this fall, each of the debates will be held in one of four early primary and caucus states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Any candidate who decides to participate in the debate process must agree to do so exclusively, making them ineligible to participate in any debates organized by third-party groups. If candidates deviate from this rule, they lose the ability to take part in any remaining debates hosted by the Democratic Party.

A senior adviser to one 2016 campaign told The Huffington Post that the exclusivity clause came as a "complete shock." Officials from the DNC, the adviser said, had assured all likely Democratic presidential campaigns when negotiations over the debate schedule began months ago that no such clause would be used. The adviser further argued that holding only six debates would be disadvantageous to candidates who have relatively low name-recognition across the country.

DNC Communications Director Mo Elleithee acknowledged that the clause wasn't a part of the early negotiation process, but maintained that all options were left on the table. He further argued that voters would ultimately be best served by a controlled debate schedule.

"We wanted to have a manageable number that would still allow for real debates but that was a little more manageable than in past years, and we were going to explore different options and we left everything on the table," Elleithee said. "And so when you’re doing something like this, when you’re trying to coordinate something like this, yeah, not everyone’s going to love the outcome."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/democrats-presidential-debates_n_7214218.html

Impartiality already went out in the window..

Are you are positive Andy Tobias organized that? If he had nothing to do with it, then for obvious reasons I will ask him no such thing.

And about the finance chair holding fundraisers for Hillary, violating DNC impartiality rules...
Henry R. Muñoz III, a former fundraiser for President Barack Obama who became DNC finance chairman in 2013, is helping organize a Wednesday fundraising event for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, according to longtime Democratic operative Gilberto Ocañas and Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina.

Not the same thing, not the same person. I can't ask him why he held a fundraiser for Hillary if he didn't. He worked with Howard very closely in the time from 2004-2008, and they both strove to observe all impartiality rules. They both stayed as far away from the Obama-Hillary squabbling as they possibly could.

I don't know who Boyd Brown is, although if he publicly called Senator Sanders crazy, he will be no friend of Andy's. Again, this is not something that falls within the treasurer's portfolio. Andy has been doing this job for over a decade. He does not deliberately get into partisan squabbles (took one look at DU at my request many years ago, and said no thanks), and he doesn't do it for the money.

If Muñoz is holding a fundraiser for Hillary while actively holding a prominent DNC position, THAT is something I can ask Andy about, but I sure as hell can't yell at him for it if he had nothing to do with it. That is one for DWS.

Before he declared his support for Hillary, I begged and pleaded with Howard to retake the DNC chairmanship, but he's been there, and done that, and his own success was a hard act to follow.

He and Jim are on opposite sides of the fence in the primary race. They will be united in trying to get the Democratic Party candidate elected, whoever it is. We could take the hint.

Anything you find out will be great, thanks much.

If anyone violated the impartiality rules, you can believe words were had. Whether or not someone not on the DNC (or even the treasurer) will be, or can be let in on what was said is a different matter. But I will at least ask.

Carry on, I guess...

I believe you will feel an onslaught of the "Bern" over your truthful analysis of what's going on.

But we do know the DNC has never before, instituted an exclusionary clause

Having mini debates all over the place would open up the eventual candidate to all sorts of mischief in the GE.

that obfuscation and over-intellectualization is, essentially, all your crowd has left.

To even begin to pretend there is analysis, the OP would have to bother providing a reason why it is best.

right.

Perfect example of my point. Please blow it out of proportion some more!

The more a candidate talks, the bigger the odds that he will say something stupid that will get blown out of proportion ("Get to the end of the line.&quot and ruin his chances.

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2015, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie Sanders has never deviated from his positions in the last 15 or 20 years, so there isn't much he could be "got" with, and I'm sure Hillary will come to any debate prepared for any and all "gotcha" questions, of which there will be plenty, considering who owns most of the electronic media.

I just hope that the four declared Democrats consult to veto any debate moderator with a rightist agenda. Let Chuck Todd or Wolf Blitzer moderate the Republican debates. They're among friends there. Let someone with a brain moderate the Democratic debates, Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes, maybe even a complete media stranger like Jim Dean of DFA, or even Rush Holt of New Jersey.

Hear hear!

In the G.E.

Have enough debates, and the moderators will run out of relevant questions to ask, and then start asking stupid trivial ones. Bernie will say something about not donning a yarmulke for passover, or Hillary will say something about not have a nativity scene under her Christmas tree, and Fox Noise will have both of them as supporters of ISIS before the 1 o'clock news the next day.

... and so true!

Conversely, debates, between Democrats and against Republicans, give Democrats the chance to prove to the public how serious and thoughtful they are about policy problems. They are invaluable tools for reaching voters.

LImiting the debates to a handful controlled by the DNC is like holding up a neon sign saying that our candidates are cardboard cutouts who can't withstand scrutiny. Not a smart message to send.

If we want to look like a good choice (as opposed to a slightly less bad one), we should match our hopefuls up against the GOP clown car. Even if the GOP refuses such a debate, that's a talking point for our side.

This is a very important race

so voters give up and don't bother. Voter suppression is on their side.

Seriously..."that's just how it goes." No!

No question about it. This will result in an uninspiring face against a vibrant GOP one.

If we lose, that will be ALL on the DNC, in part due to the debate exclusion format. Period.

What does that even mean?

Let's not overdo it. I haven't seen where they are limiting debates, just not agreeing to an extra amount of them.

All of the democratic candidates will be in these debates while almost half of the GOP candidates will be excluded from the first debated being hosted by Fox News

WhoEVER wins the Democratic nomination, that candidate, if elected, will appoint justices like Breyer, RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan.

WhoEVER wins the Republican nomination, that candidate, if elected, will appoint justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
If anyone on this board thinks THAT is an acceptable outcome if THEIR candidate is not the Democratic nominee, have fun when it's your turn to get tossed in jail for a month with rancid food, dirty water, no contact with the outside world (except a Bible to read), and the right to get beaten or raped or both by your "can't-touch-me" jailers, who are following the new guidelines about there being no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment beyond being burned at the stake.

It's going to be 4 more yrs worst than these last 2yr of this term.

But it can be done.

And it just provides cover for Democrats who drift ever-more rightward in every other meaningful way.

I have had enough of corporatist "Democrats" and this being used as the boogeyman.

In addition to the Citizens United decision, the Voting Rights Act was gutted due to Bush being given the 2000 election by Nader. If the GOP win in 2016, we can say goodbye to Roe v. Wade and the right of privacy. Citizens United will become firmly entrenched if the GOP wins in 2016.

This is not a made up issue. Elections have consequences and we have Citizens United and a gutted Voting Rights Act due to the 2000 election

But if the corporatists sell the 99% into what amounts to slavery, whatever the Supremes do won't make any noticeable difference to any of us. And the corporatists are firmly in charge of all the institutional machinery of the Democratic party now.

Instead, they cede way to the Republicans.

The Voting Rights Act was gutted by John Roberts in the Shelby County vs. Holder case (a decision based on the same legal principle used to justify the Dredd Scott case). Texas was not only state affected by the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

Yep I have heard it all my adult life as well. its to scare people into blind support of which ever shitty corporate DEM we are stuck with.

There are three to five retirements coming up

If President Obama had not won in 2008, McCain or Palin would have filled two vacancies and the court would be 7 to 2 conservative. I prefer having Sotomayor and Kagan on the bench over two idiots selecte by McCain or Palin.

This cycle, there are three to five vacancies that will come up which will be affect the makeup and nature of the court for a generation. This is a very important issue this cycle also

he never appoints Sunstein.

But, what has any of that to do with my comment? Truth is, same thing is said every four years.

Read Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything.

Climate change is the biggest issue the human race has ever had to face.

Obama has not bee ignoring the climate and any Democratic candidate will be dealing with the climate. If the GOP wins in 2016, then you can be assured that nothing will be done with respect to the climate. Remember each and every GOP candidate claims that they do not believe in evolution and climate science

SCOTUS nominations by Republicans as opposed to those by either someone like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton are a big issue. That is true. And I would like to think Bernie would do better and be more apt to name someone perhaps like Erwin Chemerinsky or Marjorie Cohn that doesn't want corporate influence over our courts.

But my note here is to say that whoever we have as next president HAS to be more aggressive than even Obama (who has certainly been better than someone like McCain or Romney would have been) at reducing climate change. We may hit the tipping point we can't step back from and then NOTHING ELSE WILL MATTER, if the human race is made extinct. SCOTUS, etc. will be small potatoes compared to something like that.

As Bill McKibben noted, even Obama hasn't helped things the way he needed to...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-climate-change-the-real-story-20131217?page=3

And I'd rather have someone like Bernie Sanders leading this charge who's not beholden to the fossil fuel industry like the Republicans and arguably so many corporate Democrats are. I think it will take someone like him where we may need to move forward without as much compromise that corporate lobbyists want.

I agree that the environment is an important issue but if the GOP candidate wins in 2016, then nothing will be done with respect to the environment. Sanders and HRC both will take more steps to protect the evironment than Jeb or Walker.

Bernie may do better only if he is elected and is viable in the general election. I have yet to see one Sanders supporter explain to me how Sanders is going to counter $887 million from the Koch brothers and another billion dollars that Waler or Jeb will raise. Money is important in elections. I am not convinced that Sanders will be competitive in a general election contest. Heck, the latest PPP poll had Sanders at well under 20% compared to over 60% for HRC. Those numbers do not inspire confidence.

The environment as well as the SCOTUS are two reasons why we can not let the GOP win 2016. By your own analysis and the material in your post, we are approaching a point of no return and letting the GOP control all three branches of government will not help this issue

... as a reason to fear Republicans winning. I was putting yet another reason to be concerned with Republicans winning, and what I felt to be an even bigger reason than this one, since the survival of the human race is far more important than just what the state of the Supreme Court is at some point in terms of who's on it (albeit it will be a very bad thing if we get more right wingers on it too).

I just thought not just looking at one issue as a blinder to everything else in the world that is relevant to this election was a good thing to do, especially on issues that are arguably more important to everyone and every element of life on this earth.

It depends on what poll you look at. The one just done in Wisconsin finds a lot closer race.

My concern is that we need to find ways to mobilize the masses to make sure we don't lose this election. The debt that is growing the most now is student debt. Young people are feeling very alienated to politics now, as they see the corporate money driven agendas of both polticians and their funders drowning out everything else and making them feel "Why Bother?!".

If Sanders mobilizes people to the extent he has already without big money donors and this continues, that is an inspiration to many to become a part of the process that they felt might be hopeless before.

Many at this point were saying Hillary had it locked up with the numbers she had at this point in 2007 too. But there's a long road ahead, and Bernie's running a very unique campaign, and we're in unique times too.

Many other countries like Greece and Spain, when pushed hard enough throw out their main traditional parties to try a new approach when they've felt screwed enough by them. I think we're reaching that tipping point here in America too. Bernie represents the hope many want out there, and I think his message and campaign style will be hard even for big money to fight, but we've still got to see what happens yet.

If someone like Bernie doesn't run, I think democracy as a system in this country is doomed, and we might as well hold up our hands vertically and say "Heil Kochs!", or perhaps what Fred Koch's business parter Joseph Stalin would rather us do rather than what the Germans would want us to do.

I'm concerned that if we don't have someone representing the masses, and just have "corporate friendly" candidates in the general election to choose from, that we'll have what happened in 2014, where people that are liberal enough in their wants for society to vote in things like higher minimum wages by propositions in at least four red states that they don't have to worry about having a personality to screw them through lies, but who voted in Republicans (or just didn't bother voting in other races) when they feel that they were damned if they do and damned if they didn't, by politicians from either party that would lie to them about what they would do for them.

I have yet to see a good explanation from a Sanders support as to how Sanders will compete against the $887 million that the Kochs are going to be spending and the additional billion dollars that Jeb or Walker could raise. You can not pretend that fundraising ability is not a meaningful criteria

If Billy Bob's Shack-O-Crabs and Politics wants to hold a debate, why does the DNC care? It's not their debate.

If a candidate wastes their time going to this debate, why does the DNC care? Candidates make good and bad choices.

You could just get around to claiming we shouldn't be allowed to vote in the primary and just take the candidate handed to us from on high instead of pretending it's about Republicans.

As for the unstoppable Koch brothers, they and Romney spent WAY more than Obama and his PACs. That means Romney won, right?

when PEOPLES lives are at stake...

You know, income inequality?

and will outlive Republican Presidents...

I have every confidence that President Sanders will wisely choose the replacements.

and Roberts will resign because he can't be a Chief Justice of a minority of Republican-leaning justices...

Go with a weaker general election candidate just to feel better and hope that that an 80+ year old lady who has survived two rounds of cancer can hold on until we can elect another democratic president.

I really think that the goal should be to not plan that RBG is immortal and instead plan to win the2016 election.

regardless of the candidates...I feel like they (DNC) are afraid to face us and Our questions...not so much "afraid of the GOP".
Like other's have pointed out...there are More clowns than ever on the GOP side...it's Already a disaster and If I were making the call....I'd put Every Dem candidate out there, out there Often and Everywhere to make their case Because they Aren't Clowns!

Given the GOP field......The Worst Dem could win against the Best GOP, right now.

People from All sides of the political aisle are Attracted to Sanity!

I don't believe staying quasi-invisible for the duration of the campaign then "sneaking up on the electorate" right before the Nov election, with great hope they don't Startle us, is a winning strategy.

Free publicity.

So of course they don't want to give them too much exposure.

...expanded voting rights...increased minimum wage...support for small businesses...

...and there's 8 months to go before voting starts.

And by the way...you just accused Hillary Clinton of a crime (influence peddling). Have you called the FBI to report her? Or is anonymous bloviating as far as you go?

the lower her poll numbers go. That has been a fact of her life since she became a part of the public consciousness.

Therefore, limit the number of debates, and you thus limit the unavoidable damage to her popularity rating.

In 2008 she got as many votes as the "likeable" Barack Obama. And in the past year, the number of people ready to vote for her, likeable or not, has remained steady at 60%. Which beats 11% the last time I checked.

voters who don't like either candidate are going to bother to subsequently vote?

Whether or not you agree with her tactical approach (as to which states to contest), turning out voters has not been a problem for her. By comparison, I've seen no explanation of how Sanders will turn out votes in the states that aren't as liberal as Vermont.

who want her LAST as our candidate among a widening field, in a competition against even WORSE candidates like Paul or Walker or Bush, let's hope and pray she does motivate 'enough'.

I can most assure you that most people do NOT want to vote for her. They'd rather have a real option, and one is currently present in the name of one Bernard Sanders.

Please supply a link to most people. The last time I checked she had 86% of the Democratic vote already wrapped up. So, how about your give some proof?

And the "relatively small segment" is actually growing exponentially.

Carry on.

However, your candidate of choice (Clinton), has failed accuracy and honesty since 1992.

She was a rejected candidate in 2008. What makes you think she'll succeed again after the same inevitability crock appears again for 2016.

Bernie brings fresh perspective from the status quo. Clinton represents the status quo - meaning you'd still have the same shit since 1992, and haven't bothered to think about moving to the left.

the Democratic nominee.

But I can see how that might be confusing for intra-"party" partisans, where NOT opposing "A" means supporting "B".

Hillary has more likeability and more electability than Bernie, plain and simple.

and candidates can't live in a vaccume while expecting to win.

Either. To be honest I don't think the attention of voters will even hold through six debates. Yes, Bernie will get more air time but he is on the talk shows frequently and this is plenty of air time if air time will help. As time goes on there will be other candidates sharing the talk shows, maybe he could get more time there.

I wasn't going to post it though!

you DARE call me Johnson. (Or however that goes...)

And welcome to DU!

Platitudes are not explanations.

DNC do or don't do, the amount of negative criticism will come forth. That's is a fact.

Let's say the DNC allows for debates suggested by BS and for some reason, HRC shines, then the negative criticism will ensue. Well heck regardless of one debate or a 100, the negative criticism will ensue.

It really does not matter.

March forward HRC!

It's because the MSM actively sabotages viable Democratic alternatives.

But hey, that's what the MSM does. They ensure that only candidates supported by the 1% get elected.

As Hillary's profile rises, her numbers fall. When she keeps a low profile, her numbers get better. Her opponents draw the camera, especially the occupants of the Republican clown car, who make her look much better by comparison. When Hillary is the subject, people are reminded of her negatives. Hence, her strategy is to hide. Limiting the number of debates furthers that strategy.

like those of us who, more or less, live here on DU.

Are the candidates bound by the DNC's rules? If so, why?

...just as DNC isn't bound to invite in someone who doesn't follow their rules.

He shouldn't have the right though to compel others to debate him.

He can't dictate terms to a party he's never raised a dime for, though, nor has he ever held a position in the party, or herded cats or done any of the heavy lifting.

He's running for the Dem nom because we're inclusive.

I can't see, say, the GOP letting a Libertarian run for their nom at all, never mind dictate terms. He can make suggestions, but he's not the Decider. I think it's kind of amusing that his supporters think he should be boss man when it comes to these decisions, over and above people who have been involved in building the party for decades.

we could see "round table" debates where Bernie is one of six candidates and limited to ten minutes of total air time. Meanwhile, the also-rans will be hogging the spotlight with their views on the metric system.

That would be an effective way to shut down Bernie's very appealing message to a national audience.

is so that when Sanders loses, his supporters will have an excuse other than people simply didn't vote for him. He won't have lost because more people wanted Hillary; he'll have lost because of some nefarious Hillary-DNC conspiracy. They'll never have to admit that their candidate simply didn't have enough support.

That position is, intellectually, ridiculous.

As a side note, your post is well calculated to alienate people whom Clinton, if she is the nominee, will want feeling positively about her. Where I am now: Clinton is very far from my first choice for the nomination, and my heart wants to not vote for her in November, but my head knows that she's way better than any of the Republicans. Therefore, I currently expect that I will vote for the Democratic nominee, even if it's Clinton. Some of the attitudes displayed by Clinton people, however, have at least the potential to tip the balance the other way.