That sounds like a much more reasonable position than what your original posts sounded like to me. Not one that I think is as obvious a foregone conclusion as you, but I get it.
Hillary and the DNC agreed to more debates. It doesn’t appear that the decision-makers agree with you.
I don’t know if 2016 is the year of the underdog, the year of what’s-shiny-and-new, or it’s the year of the I’m-mad-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-any-more voter?
We certainly live in interesting times.
Debate terms finalized. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268079-clinton-sanders-agree-to-four-more-debates
Thursday in New Hampshire, March in Flint, Michigan, April in Pennsylvania, and May in California.
Bernie didn’t get the New York debate and I highly doubt he’ll have a viable campaign by the time those April and May debates roll around.
A lot of people didn’t think Bernie would tie Hillary in Iowa, either. Bernie demanded multiple debates and Bernie got multiple debates.
Oooooh! What they’ll both do with that!
I can’t believe there isn’t a pit thread about what’s going on in Flint.
Is there any argument that Rick Snyder and his appointees are not to blame?
There’s a GD thread with much such argument.