Why more debates are good for Clinton

[Koinos]

According to this opinion piece, Clinton and the Democratic party as a whole are being hurt by too few debates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-more-debates-are-good-for-clinton/2015/09/07/78d8e5c4-55

Excerpts:

At this stage, most Americans outside of Washington, and perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire, are not paying very close attention to the election. Based on the mainstream coverage, the typical voter’s perception of the presidential campaign is likely to reflect two things: Donald Trump’s insults and Clinton’s e-mails. And that means, in the absence of a more visible debate among Democrats, the competition between Trump and his Republican opponents — a bitter clash of the far right and further right — is defining the narrative.

As O’Malley said in an interview with liberal radio host Bill Press, “We have good candidates, and we offer the ideas that will serve our country and get wages to go up rather than down.” But without more opportunities for Democratic candidates to address a national audience, “the airwaves are being dominated entirely by talk of the Republican side.”

To put it bluntly, Democrats should want more debates not only because of fairness or democratic ideals but also because they will be good for the party — and Clinton should want more debates because they will be good for her campaign. The party should embrace the opportunity to change the conversation before the 2016 narrative is set in stone.

[upaloopa]

1. I never bought the idea that fewer debates help

Hillary.
There isn't that much difference in the issues the Dem candidates support.
I think if there are more debates more people will see that Hillary is the more presidential of the candidates. The more they debate the more clear that becomes to more people.
The more debates the less of a chance that the MSM has to define her.

[Koinos]

2. I agree.

If you do not define yourself, your opponent will seize the opportunity to define you.

At this point, I think there will be more debates, partly because Hillary will insist on them.

Democrats need to counter the MSM 24/7 three-ring circus of republican nonsense.

[jwirr]

3. You may be correct in that but it is not about the issues.

It is about the name recognition. Hillary has been known for decades. Bernie has also been know to some of us for quite a while but not to the all of the country. The other candidates have less name recognition also.

Since the DNC collects donations from Democrats regardless of who they support they are to remain neutral in the primary. The goal of the debates should be to introduce all of the candidates to the country.

That does not mean that the DNC has to host more than 6 debates if that is what they want but it does mean that they should not stand in the way of any other debates. They need to get rid of the republican exclusivity rule they adopted this year.

And as a Bernie supporter I think he could use more name recognition as well.

[upaloopa]

5. We don't agree

[jwirr]

6. What part of it do you not agree with. The neutrality

of the DNC in the primary? Getting rid of the exclusivity rule?

My first vote was for JFK and I have voted in every election since then. I have never seen such a useless DNC.

[upaloopa]

7. The DNC is not pulling strings for Hillary.

It is my opinion too much blame game goes on in your camp.

[jwirr]

8. Why then did they want the exclusivity rule that we

have NEVER used before? If they do not want to host more than 6 debates fine but why limit others from hosting a debate?

If you ask yourself who gains by this your answer will be Hillary. No one else gains a darn thing.

[upaloopa]

9. Who knows why the rule?

Why does it have to be designed to benefit someone?
Step back and look at all the times it is said
someone is fucking over your side.
I see victim complex
Every speech is about who is fucking over you!
That doesn't inspire people. What inspires people is leadership not complaining.
Maybe that is why you are behind.

[jwirr]

10. Complaining about our fighting the rule does not answer

the question. Why do we have that rule?

[upaloopa]

12. I don't know why we have the rule!

I read about the people in the dust bowl back in the 30's. Everyone was literally dirt poor. But no one would put up with anyone complaining about it because they all were equally miserable. What helped were outside people learning about the people and putting things in place to get them help.
Stop complaining and get to work helping fix the problems. There is no savior. There is only us!

[jwirr]

14. Get to work helping to fix the problems. Exactly what

we are doing. We want the DNC to change its rules. They are undemocratic and they are also not the values of the Democratic Party. Oh at least not until this year. No complaint there just fact.

[Sivart]

11. If there is no reason....

If no one knows why we have the rule, and the clear majority would prefer more debates, why cling to the rule?

And there is no victim complex. Bernie is being practically ignored by the press. This is not debatable.

[upaloopa]

13. And Hillary is being trashed by the press

It would be better to ignore her I think.
I turn on MSNBC and it is all repub candidates or bashing Hillary 24/7.
The MSM is not on any of our sides.

[Sivart]

15. Pretty funny...

Hillary can go on any TV news show, or Ellen, or the View, or where ever she wants, whenever she wants.

She can get plenty of airtime to get her message out, if that is what she wants to do. She could even agree to more debates

And of course, you know this. We all do.

[upaloopa]

16. She has agreed to more debates

[SouthernProgressive]

18. Thanks for bringing it to my attention that this is the first year of the exclusivity rule.

I was not aware of that. Exclusivity makes perfect sense to me but I had no clue this was the first year for it. That is somewhat shady. Thanks.

[jwirr]

19. And we adopted it from the GOP. Not a good idea.

[oasis]

4. Now that the "Deal" is in play Hillary should dominate the debates.

So sure, more debates.

[SouthernProgressive]

17. I originally thought fewer debates would help Hillary.

Not so sure anymore but I think history shows the fewer the debates the better for a solid frontrunner. Where I differ from many is thinking that simply having more debates will be to the benefit of Sanders. There is simply nothing Presidential about him. He isn't going to look very impressive up there with Clinton and O'Malley. I think O'Malley is the one who will benefit the most from the debates. I think Sanders is done after the first debate, if he isn't already. Sanders is good at pounding a podium by himself and yelling to crowds. Please go look at his past debates and any video where he is debating another individual. It just looks bad for him. O'Malley on the other hand thrives.

[Sivart]

20. Looking presidential.....

What does looking presidential mean exactly? Does that mean looking a certain way or speaking a certain way? Is it bernie's hair? His NE accent? Please be as specific as you possibly can.

The fact that you suggest that Bernie may be done already.....while he is gaining ground in the polls....would indicate maybe your opinion is biased.

[SouthernProgressive]

21. Sure. Fair questions.

And my opinion is biased.

Having command of the issues with the ability to disseminate them to a larger audience.
Having personal control over ones emotions and thoughts during uncertainty.
Being able to go past just red meat.
Actually having outlined policy proposals and being able to speak to those proposals.
Not getting flustered the second one is challenged.
Composure.

Being able to do these things on a consistent basis. As far as I see he only pulls one of these off. His hair has nothing to do with anything. Please go look at past Sanders debates or when he is one on one with someone opposing him. It often isn't very pretty. These debates are going to be great for O'Malley. That is my position. Go look at Sanders debating people in the past. He is at a different level now and he won't get away with his poor debating skills as he was able to do at smaller levels.

As a Hillary supporter in 08, I never said this to friends about Obama. I watched his past debates as well and it was clear he was in command. It is not the same with Sanders.

[Sivart]

22. Interesting....

We all see what we want to see.

I think Bernie spanks that list easily.

Hillary, not so much.

Bernie definitely has his own style. I think it is refreshing.

Cant wait for that first debate to see if you're right.

[SouthernProgressive]

23. One thing I do know about the first debate.

I think all of us will have something to be proud of. I think our party has made some good moves with Obama in office and his rhetoric has often been excellent on topics the party hasn't been as good with in past decades. When I say I don't think Sanders will have command, that does not mean I don't respect him. I love his voice in the party and love the fact he is in the debates. I'm a hell of a lot closer to Sanders than I am Chafee. I really am excited Sanders is taking a bigger role in the party. It will make a difference win or lose. I will also say good luck to you and your choice on debate night. Truth is, if I am wrong about Sanders, we all win.