The Nation: The lack of debates is already inflicting needless damage on Clinton and the Democrats.

[eridani]

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-more-debates-are-good-for-clinton/

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton signaled that she’s willing to participate in more Democratic primary debates. “I am open to whatever the DNC decides to set up,” she said. “That’s their decision…. I debated a lot in 2008, and I certainly would be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if they decide to add more debates, and I think that’s the message a lot of people are sending their way.”

 Clinton was responding to mounting frustration with a debate process that rival candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders have described as “undemocratic” and “rigged.” Eight years ago, Clinton and Barack Obama, along with other Democratic candidates, faced off in nine debates before Labor Day. In the 2016 election cycle, however, the Democratic National Committee planned to limit the number of debates to just six overall and four before the early primaries in February. With the green light from Clinton, a DNC source now tells me that the party will move to put more debates on the calendar.

According to the conventional wisdom, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz designed the light debate schedule for Clinton’s protection. With fewer debates, the thinking went, other Democratic candidates would have a harder time gaining momentum in the polls, allowing Clinton to wrap up the nomination more quickly. And a shorter primary would mean fewer opportunities for Clinton to make unscripted blunders that Republicans could use against her in the general election.

[restorefreedom]

1. hillary can be "willing"

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

because she knows hillary wasserman schultz won't make a move without permission.

the fix is in. i have said and will continue to say, dws does not care about the general election. She is a Republican leaning corporatist who only cares about getting her candidate, Hillary, the nomination. She's willing to sell this entire country up the river by throwing the election to the Republicans just to get her candidate the nomination because there's obviously some reward in it for her later.

she's a pathetic excuse for a leader and needed to go along time ago.

[daleanime]

17. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

35. DWS: "There are lots of ways for voters to figure out that they need to support Hillary Clinton"

Debates, Shmebates.

[GoneFishin]

56. +1000. You nailed it.

[restorefreedom]

60. thx guys! nt

[BeyondGeography]

2. The country prefers our policies but we're dark until mid-October

Political dumbfuckery of the highest order.

[Armstead]

5. Nailed it

[HereSince1628]

3. There is a point of view that says a salesman can sell anything and

a teacher can teach anything.

Considering the history of the New Dems and 'triangulation' there is some reason to believe that group believes a campaigning politician can campaign on anything as long as it's a popular view of the target of the population being worked by the campaign.

Such a point of view subverts the importance of any particular issue and makes freedom to shift to 'winning' positions everything.

Speaking of commitment to issues is something that gets a politician's feet nailed to the floor. You can't very nimbly do the campaign two-step of first dancing to the left and then later dancing to the right if your feet are stuck.

[blackspade]

4. So more debates needed a 'green light' from Clinton?

[roguevalley]

21. yeah because the queen is finding we are not

Amused

[frylock]

29. If all it takes is a nod from Clinton, then it kinda confirms what people have been saying.

[blackspade]

31. Unfortunately, that is true.

This just looks awful.
It makes it obvious that DWS is not the DNC chair, but the HRC chair.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Refreshing to see an intelligent op about the issues this morning.

After reading what passes for political discourse from HC supporters lately we need more ops like this.

Thrilled to kick and rec.

[Crowman1979]

7. But why the hell are we bothering to have debates when it isn't even 2016 for f***s sake!?!?!

What's next? Debates for the 2020 election in 2017?

[morningfog]

9. Sarcasm? The first primary votes are in January.

[Crowman1979]

11. The primary dates are getting ridiculous as well.

Just have the primaries of all 50 states in one day. Preferably in May when the weather is the most tolerable.

[morningfog]

12. That would gaurantee that only the monied insider DNC choice would win.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. No way! I love retail politics!

I don't want our future president isolated from the public like some drone operator.
And I don't want the issues that are only important in "major markets" to completely overwhelm the pressing concerns of people in other parts of the country.
Candidates need to have as many face-to-face interactions with the American people as is practical.
Don't forget: The American President isn't supposed to be some aloof, unreachable monarch. S/he is a public servant, who works for all of us!

[Fairgo]

38. Democracy is hard work

you can't buy it off the shelf, you have to grow it from the seed.

[TBF]

57. Hell why even have them -

just give her the tiara already.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. All it's doing is reenforcing Obama's status as a lame duck.

[99th_Monkey]

13. ..." 2007 .. nine debates before Labor Day"

Eight years ago, Clinton and Barack Obama, along with other Democratic candidates, faced off in nine debates before Labor Day

[NewJeffCT]

19. The Republicans got a lot of free publicity

from their first debate, and likely will get more from their second debate, which is before the Dems have their first debate.

[jeff47]

36. And it also means the public will be less interested by the time Democrats start.

Republican debate 1: "These people are crazy!"
Republican debate 2: "...I guess this is normal now. God I hate politics and politicians."
Democratic debate 1: "Ugh. Why would I want to watch that?"

Imagine if DWS had a clue, and scheduled a Democratic debate for a week or two after each Republican debate. Give the voters insane -> sane -> insane -> sane over and over again.

[NewJeffCT]

50. that would have been a great idea

Republicans: "Everybody should work for free in indentured servitude, except the job creators, who need more tax cuts!!!"

Democrats: "We should substantially raise the minimum wage, ensure college is affordable for all and get rid of tax breaks for billionaires and for big corporations."

[Demeter]

8. Well, NOT having debates was killing Hillary's chances

so now she's willing to try the opposite tack.....

It's not going to make any positive difference for her candidacy, but that's okay. It's all good for democracy and the Party.

[WillyT]

15. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[DonCoquixote]

16. Debbie will kill Hillary

and what is worse, as she is already joking about using her vacation home in new Hampshire as a Presidential election HQ, she will go on and on, like a Virus, keeping liberal democrats un-electable and making others into flaming wrecks.

[bigdarryl]

18. You Bernie supporters underestimate Hillary's ability to debate

At your own pearl.She did fairly well against Obama and don't forget Rick Lazio for the NY Senate seat

[roguevalley]

22. Rick lazio lost the seat on his own because he was an ass

If hill is such a champ she would have agreed earlier and said so plainly, not like this okay peasants oblique signal which if not followed makes dws the bad guy. They both are in my book.

[kenfrequed]

26. It isn't just about Hillary vs Bernie

This is bad overall.

Rather than having a big national platform where Democratic ideas are on display and easy to access we are creating a situation where the Republicans get to frame the issues. Granted, they are crazy, but theirs are the issues that are being carried and reported and repeated by a fairly uncritical media.

This is a bad formula.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. at your own pearl?

[jeff47]

37. Yes, her fantastic debating skills is why her '08 co-chair is blocking debates.

Makes perfect sense.

[newblewtoo]

54. This might be a better example

[99Forever]

20. 2 key points.

1}DWS IS protecting Clinton. Unfairly and undemocraticly.

2) We see through it and will not forget.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Why chance a debate when you can buy well scripted flashy commercials with corporate money?

Full of flags, cute babies, noble looks, with no risk of inconvenient questions.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. So true. These days most people get their "facts" from advertisements

And I fear that many of them don't even know what they're missing.

[mmonk]

24. Agreed.

Questions unanswered end up being worse over time.

[kenfrequed]

25. Precisely

This tactical reluctance to have debates in order to preserve the front runner has broader strategic problems that actually have negative effects on the frame of debate in this country that creates a bias towards conservatives. It also causes intense problems for down ticket races by making this election about Republican issues.

[Uncle Joe]

28. More than anything, more and sooner Democratic Debates would be good for the American People.

It's that plain and simple.

Thanks for the thread, eridani.

[DanTex]

30. Meh, the GE is over a year a way. I don't think this early stuff makes much difference to the GE.

The biggest influence primary debates have on the GE is gaffes that can then be used in attack ads.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. over a year away, heavens, what are we going to do with all that time?

Particularly since "primaries are nice, but..." the conclusion is fairly foregone, no?

Mayhaps we should take up shuffleboard.

Whittlin'?

[DanTex]

44. Hillary's doing a pretty good job fundraising, so there's that.

[jeff47]

39. Yeah, it's not like there's any sort of election between now and the GE

Oh wait! There is!

And it's even one where polling shows people pay attention to debates!

[DanTex]

40. The OP seems to imply that the lack of debates is hurting Dems vs the GOP.

Hence my response.

[jeff47]

42. It is. But it is less harmful than what it is doing within the party. (nt)

[DanTex]

43. I don't think so. As I said, primary debates don't have much effect on the GE except for gaffes

that then become campaign ads.

What it's doing within the party? Meh. People are going to complain. Then Hillary's gonna win. More debates or less.

[jeff47]

45. You're assuming the people pissed off by these transparent manuvers

will work just as hard for Clinton after those maneuvers.

That's not a smart move. You really don't want them to call the "Who else you gonna vote for?" bluff.

[DanTex]

46. I think most Hillary haters will end up voting for what they consider the "lesser of evils".

It's not worth wasting much effort on a few fringe crazies who are going to sacrifice the white house to the GOP in order to take revenge for the primary debate schedule.

[jeff47]

47. Keep using insulting terms. It's a fantastic strategy.

So...how did calling people "fringe crazies" work out in 2000?

[GoneFishin]

58. Yeah. So a certain group keeps telling themselves. Good luck with that. I don't endorse cheaters.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. WHO NEEDS DEBATES?!?!?

Debates only confuse the voters.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Debates? Why? We already have a nominee. It's just a matter of, yakno, getting it notarized an shit.

SHE CAN DANCE THE NAE NAE! WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE NEED?!?!

[MisterP]

48. they honestly don't think they NEED votes: they can go as low in the polls as long as they scrape

together enough unsworn superdelegates and state-by-state votes on personal issues ("I'm the Black/gay/Jewish/Southern/Midwestern candidate" without further qualification, keeping it nice and rhetorical) rather than her record, which is dangerous to look into even if she's not a gay-baiter (heck, she's to the left of Biden on some stuff)

they can openly flaunt democratic processes and face things backfiring because they have their hands on every lever: the Scoop Jackson Dems weren't just to keep us in 'Nam and Nicaragua, but to prevent the rabble from knocking in the walls of the proverbial smoke-filled room in the back

they think they can lose horse-race NH and IA since those states are no longer primary bellwethers, fight a few Northeastern states, and then get TX and CA like in '08--and there's no Black Chicagoan running so IL and the South will be way easier (this is actually very salient): they see primaries the way they see politics overall, as a bunch of gotchas, favors to be called in, backs scratched, aisles crossed, loyal service rewarded even if the party suffered, dollars that are bundled, banded, and stacked--and of course votes that are "appealed to" with speeches created by expert writers and ingenuous pollsters, bused in, tallied, and piled up like money in a vault

and that's why Sanders is pulling ahead--because his candidacy relies on winning rather than preventing primary votes; all the stuff they think will put them ahead is damaging them by making them seem antidemocratic--but they figure if they're antidemocratic ENOUGH it won't matter

they think that like any other candidate he'll "inevitably slip up" because all the other candidates from the bubble have, or barring that they can find some "issue" to hit him with, or sow a fear he's not pro-gun enough, or win the arms race for who's most telegenic; politics as usual might not appeal to voters any more, but the party's set up walls around its core officials, made veal pens to keep the rabble thinking they're being fought for, and has long experience torpedoing primaries of those who won't play the game; if they can find ANYTHING to put him on the defensive, to keep control over the terms of the debate, they can eke out victory or broker something acceptable to keeping the money flowing into the party win or lose

they think it's just another primary

[AgingAmerican]

49. In 08 Hillary accused Obama of avoiding debates

Back in 2008, after 18 debates, Clinton stated that having no more debates would be 'Unamerican'. She then listed the reasons why more were necessary:

* for party-building in the states
* for national media exposure
* for policy and platform refinement
* to energize base voters
* to bring in new voters into the process
* to prepare for gotchas and strengthen debating chops

"For all these reasons, maximizing the number of Democratic primary debates is the best and most cost-efficient way to give voice to Democratic ideas, and to attempt to bring the media political discussion in balance. "

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/29/1416509/-Hillary-Clinton-Calls-for-More-Debates-Is-the-DNC-Listening#

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. She's evolved...again.

[bvar22]

53. Oh No.

This is getting scary.

How many times can someone evolve?
Is that like a snake shedding its skin?


I don't think I have "evolved" since I joined the Democratic Party in 1966.
I STILL believe:
FDR Economic Bill of Rights

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

I haven't shed my skin...or "evolved" on basic Human Values like those listed above.
Truth and Integrity don't "evolve".

---bvar22, mainstream/center FDR Democrat.
I haven't changed

[libdem4life]

59. She's been "listening" and now knows what to say. Not that I

see anything wrong with hanging out DWS to dry...what? only 6 Debates...Now how could that happen! Good Heavens, it's almost non-democratic.

[Babel_17]

55. Excellent point, and thanks for the link! (nt)

[arcane1]

51. Taking another non-position and pretending it's a position.

It won't work. Again.