DNC deliberately excluding Lessig?

[LightPattern]

https://twitter.com/allinwithchris/status/650116740760760320

Chris Hayes makes the case that CNN should let presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig into the first Democratic debate on October 13th.


In Larry Lessig's own words:
I’m Trying to Run for President, but the Democrats Won’t Let Me


I admire Lessig from his work on the Creative Commons and net neutrality.
He also makes a fantastic presenter - TED.

I want to see him go face-to-face with the entrenched democratic establishment in prime time.

 

[Strk]

Of course they are. The DNC only wants to support Clinton.

 

[LightPattern]

On CNN

CNN Reliable Sources

Don't shut out an outsider, merely because he's not a politician, merely because he's not a billionaire. I have earned the right to address this issue. I have talked about this issue more than anybody else. Everyone knows this principle of democracy. The idea that we have a representative democracy should be the core idea that the democrats are fighting for!

 

[LightPattern]

Of course they are. The DNC only wants to support Clinton.

I've had conversations with Sanders supporters that are extremely harsh on Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Highlights:

She's tried to tamp down everyone but Hillary from the start

She's not a Democrat

She's Likud

Yes, and she needs to resign immediately

I have no confidence in DWS
in any capacity

If I protest vote in the general election, it will be to protest DWS, not to protest Hillary

 

[Thump553]

Oh come on, get real and off your conspiracy theories. I like his message but he is a one issue "candidate" with a trivial showing of popular support. This is nothing like the GOP exclusions.

 

[ivwshane]

He's literally a one issue candidate, other than that one issue what exactly would he be debating?

 

[Blackjack200]

He's literally a one issue candidate, other than that one issue what exactly would he be debating?

Would be awesome if he just stood up there and answered every question with "[issue] would be handled by the Vice President, who I haven't chosen yet, when I step down after acheiving campaign finance reform."

 

[sportage]

I foresee a very boring debate.
Sanders supporters will watch, and Hillary supporters won't need to, and the rest will tune out because Donald is not involved.
We know Hillary's line, stump speech. And Sanders just hates the banks, like him getting elected is going to have any effect on the US banking system.
So.... whats showing on the Sci-Fi channel?

 

[trenchfoot]

I foresee a very boring debate.
Sanders supporters will watch, and Hillary supporters won't need to, and the rest will tune out because Donald is not involved.
We know Hillary's line, stump speech. And Sanders just hates the banks, like him getting elected is going to have any effect on the US banking system.
So.... whats showing on the Sci-Fi channel?

Pretty much.

I'd much rather watch the wrap-up segment. You get the whole picture in much less time.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Oh come on, get real and off your conspiracy theories. I like his message but he is a one issue "candidate" with a trivial showing of popular support. This is nothing like the GOP exclusions.

GOP Exclusions? It's a fucking clown car of 15 or so candidates, please remind me who the GOP is "excluding" ?

Doing something like... limiting your debate to 12 people (leaving 3 outcasts) based on current poling isn't in anyway unfair. It's saying that the party bus is full for a ~3 hour debate, we don't have 48 hours of tv time to get everyone on at once. So if you want to be on the main debate stage you need to work on your poll numbers. Plus they even had a separate debate just for the outcasts.

Democrats on the other hand have plenty of space.

 

[trenchfoot]

GOP Exclusions? It's a fucking clown car of 15 or so candidates, please remind me who the GOP is "excluding" ?

Doing something like... limiting your debate to 12 people (leaving 3 outcasts) based on current poling isn't in anyway unfair. It's saying that the party bus is full for a ~3 hour debate, we don't have 48 hours of tv time to get everyone on at once. So if you want to be on the main debate stage you need to work on your poll numbers. Plus they even had a separate debate just for the outcasts.

Democrats on the other hand have plenty of space.

Agreed. too much space actually. The producers of the debate should take their cue from FOX and gin up the pre-show drama aspect of it to drive up their ratings.

The Dem debate needs a lot more advertising and lead-ups to even generate half of what the Repub debates got.

 

[MovingTarget]

He will be excluded just like Chafee's newfangled "metric" system.

 

[LightPattern]

GOP Exclusions?
.....
Plus they even had a separate debate just for the outcasts.

Democrats on the other hand have plenty of space.

I did think of this regarding Lessig... except that he's the only one polling nationally who was excluded from this debate!


New York Times: "Who is Running for President?"

Wikipedia: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016

 

[LightPattern]

Insurrection against DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz's autocratic ways
Several of her vice chairs speaking out against her!

Primarily over the limited # of debates.

Many argued that the debate plan enacted by the chairwoman is badly flawed—an assessment shared by many party activists, left-bent supporters of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and those candidates themselves, all of whom see it as a naked effort to aid and comfort Hillary Clinton.

Of course we Lessig supporters are also lining up against her.

 

[pcgeek11]

LOL at Debbie Wasserman Schitz. That is one scary woman or something...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Insurrection against DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz's autocratic ways
Several of her vice chairs speaking out against her!

Primarily over the limited # of debates.

Of course we Lessig supporters are also lining up against her.

Was going to post that but thought it might already be here. O'Malley actually called her out during the debate but no one seemed to catch it or cared to at the time. And this is about more than the debates:

Rybak and other Democratic critics of Wasserman Schultz have been holding their tongues about what they see as her deficiencies for years. But the dispute over debates has proven sufficiently contentious that it is suddenly causing those tongues to loosen.

“For someone who’s the head of a national party, you would think she’d be better at, you know, politics,” says a senior Democrat with close ties to the DNC. “How do you not line up your own folks? How do you not touch base and say, ‘This is what I need from you guys’? At best, you consult; at least, you notify. But her default is to see her vice chairs as nuisances, not partners—not even close. The word partner would never cross her lips.”

That last bit would I'm sure be a lot more forgivable if she was at all competent at the job.

 

[Blackjack200]

O'Malley actually called her out during the debate but no one seemed to catch it or cared to at the time.

Like pretty much everything else O'Malley said during the debate.

 

[chowderhead]

Lessig is polling at * and is a single issue candidate. He also threatened a third party run because he isn't getting any traction at all. Bernie Sanders is already talking about the campaign finance reform so Lessig being in the race is moot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-larry-lessig-considers-running-against-them/

The DNC initially sanctioned 6 debates in 2004 and 2008 and 6 debates for 2016.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/is-six-democratic-debates-too-few/
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/primdeb08/dnc040507pr.html

People polling behind always want more debates so this is standard politics.

 

[Bitek]

I'm not sure it's even fair to say he's running for office. He's a single issue candidate who promises to resign after his issue is passed into law.

It's mostly a waste of everyone's time no matter how strongly you feel about the issue.

It's somewhat trollish

 

[nickqt]

If Lessig gets time on the big stage, then I think Deez Nutz should be up there too, since Deez Nutz has a better shot at winning the Presidency than Lessig, nevermind the Democratic nomination.

 

[LightPattern]

I'm not sure it's even fair to say he's running for office. He's a single issue candidate who promises to resign after his issue is passed into law.

It's mostly a waste of everyone's time no matter how strongly you feel about the issue.

It's somewhat trollish

You're behind on the news actually.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/referendum-presidency-larry-lessig/411013/

Larry Lessig:

People understood the corruption bit; they were willing to assume the reform would fix it. But they didn’t get the resigning bit. It caught people’s attention, and the attention of hundreds of media outlets. But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point?

If the Democrats won’t take seriously a candidate with a viable, credible, and professionally managed campaign just because it includes a promise to step aside once the work is done, then fine. I drop that promise.

I am running for president. I am running with the purpose of restoring this democracy. I will make that objective primary. I will do everything possible to make it happen first, by working with Congress to pass fundamental reform first.
After we pass that reform, I will remain as president to make sure the reforms stick. I will work with Congress to assure they are implemented. I will defend them against legislative or legal attack.
But beyond that priority, I would do everything else a president must do, too. Which means I bear the burden in this campaign of convincing America I could do that well. Like every other candidate, I will outline my position on the policies that I would press, once reform is achieved. My campaign will be like every other campaign—except mine will place democracy first.

This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why isn’t it your first priority?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

He blew his shot to be a serious candidate by making the pledge in the first place. Now he looks like every other politician willing to go back on his word when it suits him.

He's really terrible at this.

 

[sportage]

Lessig is the democrats Donald Trump.
At least the democrats were not dumb enough to give Lessig a soap box to rant from.
Lessig was on Bill Maher this week and Bill couldn't get a word in.
Lessig just went on and on and on.
To me, Lessig appeared to be "on something".
He's just nuts. And when someone acts nuts especially on TV, no matter what they are pushing or believe, one has to question what and why they are saying.
Not because of what they are saying, but because they just seem a little off.
If Lessig had been on the debate stage, he would have broken all the time limit rules and just ranted on and on and on talking over everyone else non stop.
The republicans should have done the same with Donald. But its to late for that.

 

[Bitek]

You're behind on the news actually.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/referendum-presidency-larry-lessig/411013/

Larry Lessig:

Great, so he flip flopped. So his idea is now to push reform, watch it die in Congress, then spend the next four years doing what exactly?

His plan on Syria and Russia is what then?


I do stand corrected tho, it def is trolling

 

[timhuge]

His plan on Syria and Russia is what then?

It seems he was expecting this question:

I recognize the frustration that many feel about Syria. After a decade, things are no better than they were. And given Russia’s involvement, that will not change anytime soon. But we cannot ignore the incredible instability Syria is bringing to the region. Eleven million Syrians are displaced and effectively refugees. That fact will put enormous pressure on the region and Europe. And we cannot simply ignore that fact and hope it goes away.

I do not now support sending ground troops to Syria. But I do believe we must act with allies to secure at least humanitarian ends. I would support a policy like that which protected the Kurds. The topography of Syria will make that policy more difficult than it was in Kurdistan, but it could be effective nonetheless. There need to be safe zones in Syria. We need to work with allies to secure them now.​

https://medium.com/lessig-on-the-issues/national-security-foreign-policy-48fa819afb4f