First, we heard that four state Democratic parties signed fund-raising pacts with Hillary Clinton. These are the crucial primary state of New Hampshire; also, Mississippi, Virginia and Wisconsin.
“The four are a small fraction of the dozens of state parties that the Hillary for America campaign has asked to join such agreements. Many are still considering the request,” writes the New York Times.
“Some officials at state parties suggested the practice is similar to a fund-raising agreement with the campaign of a sitting senator or an insurgent in a statewide race.” In other words, we’re told, it’s accepted practice for the party organization to support the incumbent.
Then, we’re hearing that the DNC announces a fundraising agreement with Clinton campaign. “The DNC says it’s pursuing similar agreements with the other Democratic primary campaigns,”, writes Politico – “but so far, those haven’t materialized.”
Business as usual, you’ll say. Expected! Par for the course! Back eight years ago, the Howard Dean-run DNC also announced fundraising agreements with the Democrat candidates. However, that was a joint agreement with then-candidates Obama and Clinton.
All the while the Republicans have a long list of debates scheduled (the first of which, on Fox, already took place, in front of a record 24 million viewers). But the DNC will sponsor the first debate to start as late as Oct 13, with only four debates before the early state primaries.
The debate schedule makes Bernie Sanders unhappy.
“In my view”, says Sanders, “Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of governor races across the country, unless we generate excitement and momentum and produce a huge voter turnout. With all due respect — and I do not mean to insult anyone here — that turnout, that enthusiasm, will not happen with politics as usual.”
Martin O’Malley is more blunt: he says the debate calendar is rigged to aid Hillary Clinton.
“We are the Democratic Party, not the Undemocratic Party,” O’Malley says. “If we are to debate debates, the topic should be how many, not how few.”
Which brings up the question. Why are Shultz and others putting their thumb on the scale, in regards to debate schedules and fundraising?