Presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders are not happy that the Democratic National Committee is limiting their opportunities to stand up next to to Hillary Clinton on the debate stage.
“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic,” O’Malley senior strategist Bill Hyers said. “The schedule they have proposed does not give voters — nationally, and especially in early states — ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for president. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process.”
The DNC announced its debate schedule on Thursday morning, with only six debates scheduled for the primary campaign. The first will occur in October in Nevada, then November in Iowa, December in New Hampshire, January in South Carolina and the last two are still to be determined but will occur in either February or March in either Florida or Wisconsin.
Clinton has remained the clear frontrunner since she kicked off her campaign in April. Clinton is currently averaging 55.4 percent of the vote to Sanders’ 19.7 percent and O’Malley’s 1.4 percent, according to the polls collected by RealClearPolitics.
Just after the debate schedule was announced, Sanders expressed his dissatisfaction with the DNC’s process, claiming he was “not surprised” with the limited debate opportunities.
“I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the debate schedule announced by the Democratic National Committee,” Sanders said. “At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible — certainly more than six. I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule.”
Sanders also expressed similar criticisms in a letter he wrote to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, saying more debates would help turnout.
“I believe a larger number of debates beginning in the weeks ahead would encourage such voter participation and I think we have ample evidence to demonstrate that fact,” he wrote in June. “I believe that we should not learn the wrong lessons from the past but instead should look at the fact that an engaged and vigorous nominating process was one of the keys to success in registering voters early on and convincing people they had a meaningful stake in the general election in November.”
