What The Hell Is Going On With The Democratic Debates?

[KamaAina]

http://reverbpress.com/politics/hell-going-democratic-debates/

If you’ve been paying attention to the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, you might have noticed that this cycle is notable for its dearth of Democratic debates. Back in 2008, there were a total of 26 debates and, by this point in the cycle, 9 of them had already occurred. By contrast, in the current race, a mere six debates have been scheduled, two of them happening well into the primary season.

To say that people are a bit displeased with this outcome is an understatement. A truncated debate schedule benefits exactly one Democratic candidate: Hillary Clinton. With a commanding lead in national polls, and a dwindling one in the first two primary states, debates represent a definite risk to her campaign. For a candidate as relentlessly scripted as Clinton, unscripted debates are a potential minefield. An infamous flub, back in 2011, killed Rick Perry’s candidacy dead. A single televised debate probably lost Richard Nixon the presidency, and contributed to Jimmy Carter’s failure to win a second term. There are simply too many chances for things to go off message, for a gaffe or a zinger to capture the notice of the press, go viral, and lead to sinking polls.

But while limited debates are good for Hillary Clinton, they’re rather less good for the rest of the Democratic field. Certainly Bernie Sanders, who has been on a steady upward trajectory since declaring his candidacy, would benefit from a series of robust debates. This is especially so given that Clinton has began to co-opt much of Sanders’s economic themes. Seeing the two discuss and defend their respective approaches would be both great TV and good for the electorate.

Beyond Sanders, the third-tier Democratic candidates could certainly benefit from an expanded debate schedule. Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, and Jim Webb are all languishing in the polls and have abysmal name recognition. Their only hope, at this point, is to be reintroduced to the electorate on a national stage. And the Democratic debates are exactly the stage that they need. This is why Martin O’Malley has assailed Democratic leadership over the limited debate schedule:

[jeff47]

1. We little folk don't need debates. We've been told who to vote for.

And we just need to stop pretending our political concerns are reasonable.

[PatrickforO]

2. Debate is good, and the DNC is wrong here.

[Uncle Joe]

3. What's going on is, they simply don't have faith in their messages or arguments to

withstand an actual on the spot televised rebuttal.


Thanks for the thread, KamaAina.

[99th_Monkey]

4. This also hurts the Democratic Party as a whole. The DNC's shameless favoritism sucks.

I expect the usual nay-sayers will pile on here with their "debates don't matter"
nonsense, with esoteric charts and graphs to "prove" it.

The DNC/DWS too-few/too-late Dem Debate schedule is shooting the Party in
the foot, with both barrels, and could easily cost us the GE. It is a travesty
and a betrayal of everything the Party is SUPPOSED to stand for i.e. open
democratic processes that are fair to all participants and voters.

[nashville_brook]

10. [phone]

[closeupready]

5. Hillary can't take it. Thus, her DNC friends are eliminating them.

[840high]

32. yep

[AtomicKitten]

6. The DNC is greasing the skids for their preferred candidate.

What they are also doing is allowing the GOP to suck all the oxygen out of the room.

Democrats could be touting accomplishments and vision for the future. Bernie has made it clear he is not going to attack his opponents, but the MSM isn't interested in substantive debate. Apparently neither is the DNC.

Without serious discussion on important issues, we are left with the Clinton private server scandal, and she keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper and will ultimately take the entire Democratic Party down with her.

[AgingAmerican]

14. Sadly you hit the nail on the head

"Without serious discussion on important issues, we are left with the Clinton private server scandal, and she keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper and will ultimately take the entire Democratic Party down with her"

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. and in my opinion

possibly suicide as they appear to think Hillary is a slam dunk in the general.

[TDale313]

26. Yeah, sadly, you're right on here.

[elehhhhna]

7. the anointed ones numbers drop every time she speaks, that's what.

[MissDeeds]

11. +1000000 n/t

[left-of-center2012]

8. We don't need no stinkin' debates

Isn't that DWS's position?
But, she was co-chair for Hillary in 2008.

[rhett o rick]

9. The Party Elites are willing to risk losing the general to win the primary with their choice.

The people's choice doesn't matter to the Party Elites. I believe they threatened Warren to keep her out of the race.

If the Party Elite continues this non-Democratic and non-democratic behavior, I think they are going to be in for a shock. Those that are enthused to be supporting Sanders will not be happy to be support the choice of the Elite.

We need change and Clinton doesn't offer change.

[daleanime]

12. +1

[slipslidingaway]

20. Think the party elite is making a big mistake trying to sway the election to their favored ...

candidate. They might find some young and old voters not being excited and sitting out the election.

At least in our world there is no excitement for Clinton or Biden, the young people want a real change.

[rhett o rick]

21. Exactly. Many of the people that have eagerly jumped on the Sanders bandwagon

have done so because they were tired of the Clinton, Biden, politics of the status quo. They will not be happy if Clinton and Party Elites steal the election from Sanders. Clinton would find her hands full with out the Sanders supporters behind her.

[slipslidingaway]

25. It has been interesting to watch the reaction of our two children ...

they both identify with Sanders, one leans more conservative in some respects and the other more liberal. If push comes to shove their votes might be split.

But they both agree on Sanders, in that light, and if we assume that Sanders aligns more with Dem values then he would get both of their votes. If Clinton or Biden were the nominee they might get one vote or maybe none.

Young voters want a change from the standard party/corporate candidates and their allegiances to a party do not run deep ... interesting times we live in.

The Dem party can throw the vote to the Repubs if they want or they can engage the youth and support the next generation of voters, it is their election to win or lose.

[rhett o rick]

28. I think your last sentence is true. I hope it's not. I hope the power of the people

for Sanders can overcome the political power of the Democratic Elite. We live in a Plutocratic Oligarchy and we have to fight that.

[slipslidingaway]

31. Me too, but hard to fight the corporate money and media ...

the Dems message is non-existent in the corporate media and unfortunately not every generation is paying attention to social media.

[davidpdx]

39. I think it is important to reach out to younger voters and encourage their participation

Unfortunately I am overseas and not able to do much, but I have a friend who is out there day in and day out registering and talking to voters. We worked together on the 2008 election (which is how I met her) and have remained friends since. Her experience has been that the majority favor Sanders. I love her like the aunt I never had and am so proud.

[slipslidingaway]

42. Yes, although it seems many younger voters did not need much encouragement when it ...

comes to supporting a candidate that speaks to their issues.

[pablo_marmol]

23. This is *precisely* what I've been dreading.

Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 12:37 AM - Edit history (1)

In fact it's already making me sick and despondent........it's taking a LOT of effort to stay out of my head lately and in the moment.

[slipslidingaway]

27. If the Dems want to allow the Repubs control of the media attention ...

then we have to wonder why?

Our party wants a certain candidate ... but we do not have to go along. If they want another party to control the dialogue and we fail, we know who to blame and it is not the 'other' party.

Unfortunate, but we need to recognize how well, or how poorly, our party plays the game.

[pablo_marmol]

33. "If they want another party to control the dialog.......

.....and we fail, we know who to blame and it is not the 'other' party.

So true -- and refreshing to encounter a kindred spirit w/regard to self-assessment/awareness.

[slipslidingaway]

38. It is so easy to blame the 'other side' thanks :) n/t

[dgibby]

36. DWS is the main reason the Dems lost the House and Senate.

She will do anything she can to make sure Hillary wins the Primary. As a so-called Dem, she is a complete and total disaster.

[AgingAmerican]

13. The DNC is afraid of Bernie Sanders because he threatens their cash cow

AKA the Oligarchy and banksters. They know his poll numbers would skyrocket after a debate, so they are doing their best to silence him.

[MisterP]

15. the party's not about winning, it's about keeping the dinero circulating

they basically only use liberal policy as a carrot and then a stick to beat voters for not voting for candidates who oppose those liberal policies and even openly back Pubs; it's "dysfunctional" only from our perspective at the bottom

it's not even a spoils system or machine politics, it's basically a "rentier" party like AD and COPEI squabbling over who gets to play with Venezuela's oil money, or the PRI trying to absorb everything into it and making literally cosmic promises (and cracking down when it can't)

on edit: and O'Malley's not really "third-tier" since he's running around so much

[Dustlawyer]

16. We must do everything to fight corporate control of our politics.

The DNC doesn't want Bernie, he would shut off the money spigot for Publicly Funded Elections. For the same reasons the networks don't want him on either! We must keep spreading his message ourselves.

[Babel_17]

18. The public is going to feel deprived

This is part of the fallout of the Republican debates being seen as exciting. The public will feel entitled to the Democratic party providing them spirited debates. They'll wonder who's ripping them off. Pundits will rush to fill them in as to the who's, how's, and why's, regarding that.

The Clinton team should signal they're open to more debates. Let DWS explain why the schedule is written in stone.

[Liberty Belle]

19. What would happen if the candidates defied the DNC and staged their own debate?

Or as many as were willing to participate. Surely there is a news outlet somewhere that would stage one without the DNC's blessing.

The candidates should host a press conference together to denounce this repression of debates, and if the DNC threatens to withhold support then get the grass roots to blast the DNC and send money to every candidate willing to engage in a robust series of debates starting as soon as possible.

If someone refuses to participate, the public will not take kindly to that, as the people want to see and hear from all the potential candidates.

[rhett o rick]

22. The League of Women's Voters should have a debate and invite all the Democratic

candidates. Clinton wouldn't come and DWS would love to hold the DNC debates with Clinton only. I think the public would figure it out that they were being manipulated by the DNC.

[KamaAina]

24. For some reason, they got out of the debate business

a couple of cycles ago. One wonders whether (or rather, how much) pressure was put on them by both parties and the "news" channels to do so.

[rhett o rick]

30. I think they were edged out by the likes of the DNC. Just my guess. nm

[Scred loves Lily]

35. An agreement was made between B clinton and Dole.

Honest debate will never happen again.

[slipslidingaway]

29. 1988 "League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud"

http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud


NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 3, 1988

LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"

WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

WASHINGTON, DC —"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on
September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.

Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.

"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."

Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.

"On the threshold of a new millenium, this country remains the brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate," Neuman said. "Americans deserve to see and hear the men who would be president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues critical to our progress into the next century."

Neuman issued a final challenge to both Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of a League of Women Voters debate."

[AgingAmerican]

34. Hillary's former campaign co-manager is rigging the election for Hillary

And not even trying to hide it.

It's called "Cheating"

If Hillary gets the nomination through cheating, either by herself or her surrogates, she won't get my vote. I have never voted for a cheater and I never will.

[romanic]

37. It makes no sense.

Not even for Hillary I think, I mean she can't just suddenly convince "undecided" voters to vote her way without proving herself (which is what debates are ultimately for).

[davidpdx]

40. It is weird that five months before the first primary there has been no debates on our side

The party is botching the primary season with their effort to micromanage the debates. It will be interesting 14 months from now, the day after the election to look back and see what if any effect it had.

[Live and Learn]

41. You have to feel for the party bosses.

It would be so much easier if they didn't have to give the little people the perception that they mattered and had a real choice in who was selected.