For Immediate Release:


Background on Granite Staters Calling for More Debates
 
NH Political Leaders & Activists:
 
State Sen. Adam Hosmer: “I think we should have more debates here in New Hampshire. I think if we have more debates it strengthens our democracy, particularly now when the politics seems to be so polarizing. I think Democrats have a message of not only civility but real public policy that they can be proud of and we should be talking about it as often as we can and it gives us an opportunity to vet the candidates more and more.”
 
State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark: “I believe the DNC is wrong. I’m disappointed that the chair of the DNC is not willing to reconsider. She made that decision herself with her staff. I want it to be clear to everybody that this is not a schedule that was run by members of the DNC, run by the executive committee of the DNC.”
 
State Sen. Lou D’Allesandro:  "This is America. We thrive on the debate. We have debating societies across the country. Our Senate and House, take for example our Senate here in New Hampshire. It’s a debating society. And debates are a good thing. They bring out the best in people, and in some instances bring out the worst in people, and that’s something that people ought to see.”
 
DNC Member Peter Burling: “As Democratic Leader of the New Hampshire House and a state senator after that, I learned that debates serve the local party in critical ways. Citizens get fired up, and people pay attention. Voters get to press the flesh with candidates who show up to debate, and the decades of experience that Granite Staters bring to the primary process come into play as they weigh the merits and demerits of each campaign.
…
“During the 2008 cycle, in New Hampshire alone, there were three debates before the first-in-the-nation primary. This time around, there are three debates total, nationally, before the New Hampshire primary. The majority of us believe in fair and open debates as a way of spreading Democratic ideas and solutions.
 
“When we don't limit debate and impose unprecedented exclusivity rules on candidates, we are able to strengthen our candidates. This helps them practice their skills in preparation for the difficult political struggle to come, against the GOP. Debates also allow us to see how candidates perform in person, with competition, laying out their visions for the future. What possible reason could there be to give up on a debate schedule that has given us Presidents like Clinton and Obama? This is another question the DNC has yet to answer.”
 
NH Democrats Letter to the DNC: “WE — NEW Hampshire Democrats supportive of an open and democratic debate process that transcends our loyalty to any one presidential primary candidate — respectfully urge the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to remove the penalty for candidates who would participate in more than the six DNC-sanctioned debates. This unjust rule, and the harsh punishment it embodies, is putting a chill on fundamental freedoms of political speech and a free press. Many of us have heard directly from media outlets here in New Hampshire and beyond that the DNC’s rule casts a long shadow and has stifled would-be conveners of debate amongst press and educational organizations in the Granite State. Why do we need debate? Presently the airwaves have been monopolized by some Republican candidates who promote mass deportations and stripping the constitutional birthrights of children — ideas history warns are a slippery slope to devastation. Candidates espousing scapegoating and mass violations of human rights have startlingly dominated polls and press coverage for the entire election season to date. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party fiddles while the nation’s political discourse burns.”
[Signees: “Sen. Martha Fuller Clark is a Democrat from Portsmouth. Sen. Lou D’Allesandro is a Democrat from Manchester. This letter is also signed by: Sen. Andrew Hosmer, D-Laconia; Dan Calegari; Peter Burling; Dudley Dudley; John Rauh; Mary Rauh; Dr. Bill Siroty; Dean Barker; Rachel Hampe; Elizabeth Campbell; and Jay Surdukowski]
 
New Hampshire Democratic Activists Op-Ed: “RESPECTFULLY, the Democratic National Committee should not only reconsider the timing and number of Democratic presidential debates, but more importantly, the harsh penalty that will be levied on candidates — and voters of New Hampshire — if presidential contenders choose to participate in more…If nothing else, we are ceding several months of the great quadrennial national contest of ideas to the Republicans. Do not forget that 43 percent of the voters in the New Hampshire primary are independents who will be looking at both parties before deciding which ballot to pull in our open primary system. The Republicans are being given all the air time. This harms our chance to present the Democratic vision for the future. But more importantly, we should not condemn those candidates and news outlets that would seek to do the public service of bringing these unscripted tests of the candidate's mettle to us all. To penalize the free speech and association of those who would lead us and the respected reporters who would moderate additional contests of ideas would be a sad day for the New Hampshire primary tradition.”
[Signees: “Mary Rauh of New Castle and Jay Surdukowski of Concord are Democratic Party activists. This column was also signed by David Allen of Manchester, Peter Burling of Cornish, Dan Calegari of Manchester, Rachel Hampe of Hopkinton, Don Jorgenson of Manchester, Ben Kelley of Concord, Paul Martineau of Manchester, Dan O'Neil of Manchester, and John Rauh of New Castle.]
 
New Hampshire Editorial Boards:
 
Concord Monitor Editorial: “By sharply limiting the debate schedule and attempting to unify around Clinton, Democrats may have harmed themselves more than they realize. As pointed out by former state senator Peter Burling and former executive councilor Dudley Dudley in a Monitor op-ed on Tuesday, that schedule means that important conversations on the left – about income inequality, affordable education, systemic racism – are being drowned out by arguments over the use of the term “anchor baby.” Put simply, the Democrats could use a little more drama and discussion. And having a single debate in New Hampshire, a mere six days before Christmas, isn’t the way to do that.”
 
Union Leader Editorial: “The Democrats are poking a finger in New Hampshire's eye by OK'ing just one debate here, and that one in the midst of the Christmas season; and giving the back of their hand to any candidate not named Hillary Clinton by limiting the number of debates to a mere half-dozen ... The Democrats, meanwhile, will stick with paying lip service to New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation role while protecting Hillary Clinton at all costs. If that means denigrating the primary here, they will do so.”
 
Other Presidential Candidates:
 
Secretary Clinton: “Hillary Clinton told reporters on Saturday that she would participate in additional presidential debates if the party's national committee sanctioned them, opening the door to more public contests between the Democratic presidential hopefuls. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has repeatedly called for more than the six debates than the Democratic National Committee has sanctioned and used a speech before the committee in August to blast the decision as biased towards Clinton. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has joined O'Malley in those calls. ‘I debated a lot in 2008 and I would certainly be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if (the DNC) decide to add more debates,’ Clinton said during a press conference in Portsmouth. ‘And I think that's the message a lot of people are sending their way.’”
 
Senator Sanders: “Sen. Bernie Sanders blasted the Democratic National Committee as “dead wrong” on limiting the number of candidate debates — a format that has been criticized as a coronation for front-runner Hillary Clinton. ‘I have let the leadership of the Democrats know that,’ the Vermont senator said on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ ‘I think this country benefits, all people benefit, democracy benefits when we have debates and I want to see more them.’ The DNC has restricted debates to six and will ban any candidate participating in an unsanctioned forum.”
 

Memorandum RE: Additional Debates
From: Dave Hamrick, Campaign Manager for O’Malley for President
To: Robby Mook, Hillary for President; Jeff Weaver, Bernie 2016; Craig Crawford, Jim Webb 2016; Jonathan Stevens, Chafee 2016,.
Date: September 13, 2015
 
To my fellow campaign managers:
 
I’m writing you today on the topic of the Democratic Presidential primary debates, and urging that you join our campaign’s call for the Democratic National Committee to drop its unprecedented and undemocratic exclusivity clause and take themselves out of the debate process. The reasons for this are simple: by limiting the number of debates Democrats hold this year, the DNC is allowing the Republican presidential candidates—namely, Donald Trump—to dominate the national debate, and whoever our nominee is will emerge stronger as the result of a vigorous debate process.
 
As I’m sure you saw this week, the debate over Democratic debates reached a fever pitch. DNC Vice Chairs Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and Mayor R.T. Rybak joined dozens of leaders in early states, like New Hampshire and Iowa, to call for additional Democratic Presidential primary debates. In their statement, the Vice Chairs called the current schedule—and the unprecedented and punitive exclusivity clause—“a mistake” that will lead people to “feel excluded from our political process.” They called for “several more debates than the six currently scheduled, and withdrawing the proposed sanctions against candidates who choose to participate in non-DNC sanctioned debates.”
 
Despite the growing consensus that the Democratic Party will benefit from additional debates, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has refused to budge from the current schedule, which allows just four debates before the Iowa Caucus and only one debate in Iowa and one debate in New Hampshire before the voters weigh in. This is a huge divergence from the last Democratic Presidential Primary, when Democrats held eight debates before the Iowa Caucus, including 5 in Iowa. In total, Democrats held 25 debates that year and out of the process managed to produce President Barack Obama and “the best election result for the Democratic Party in 44 years.”
 
Because the DNC Chair seems unfazed by the deluge of negative attention the committee has received from DNC members and vice chairs, editorial boards, elected leaders in early states, labor leaders, and even her predecessor, Howard Dean, it is critical that we send a strong and unified message that Democrats will not cede the national debate to Donald Trump. So, today I’m asking you sign on to a letter to the DNC with our campaign calling for additional debates before February 1.
 
Specifically, we are asking for 2 additional weeknight, non-holiday peak season debates in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively, and 1 additional weeknight, non-holiday peak season debate in South Carolina and Nevada, respectively.
 
We can all agree on moderators, locations, dates and times, and hosts. We can discuss format and rules. But let's commit to this: let's commit to more debates. 
 
I eagerly await your response and look forward to bringing a more open and transparent debate process to the American people.