with regard to number of debates for Democratic candidates.. consider you've got 2 vs 10 (GOP)

[Bill USA]

6 debates, let's say two hours long, with 10 candidates (GOP), means you've got 72 minutes per candidate.


4 debates, 2 hours long each, with two candidates figures out to 240 minutes per candidate. With 3 candidates, that's 160 minutes per candidate.


... Now, what's the problem?

[morningfog]

1. The current events are framed by repubs currently.

They spend their debates framing current ever issues while Dema are left tweeting responses.

The media covers the repub positions and framing an we have nothing until mid-October.

Your question is silly. It's not per-candidate time that is the issue. It's the per-party time and the concession of framing on current events.

[Bill USA]

5. your comment is inane. There are those who say HRC's people are being unfair in

negotiating 4 instead of 6 or some other number of debates. this is about how much time HRC's and BErnie's people think is needed to get said what each candidate wants to get said. This is strictly looking at how much time is available per candidate. As to how the M$M wants to cover the election that's an entirely different issue and not under the control of HRC's people.

HRC has to answer the insinuating questions asked of her by the GOP toadies of M$M. She can't tell them what to ask her. However, in the Dickerson interview, she tried to bring the conversation back to policies even when he wanted to just ask her about opinion polls and people's impressions.

Try to keep up.

[RobertEarl]

12. You are wrong

Or maybe just making stuff up to protect HRC?

Bernie wants more debates and more time. Not, like you claim so wrongly:
"...how much time HRC's and BErnie's people think is needed...."

Admit you are way wrong and we can go from there. Otherwise you are just making false assumptions that should just be wiped from one's shoes.

[morningfog]

16. Another day, another shill. What's new?

[RobertEarl]

18. He's a hard worker?

I like a good debate, but debating manure? Just scrape it off the shoe and move on, is good advice.

[morningfog]

20. To be fair, I don't know enough about this poster.

There are, without a doubt, shills here. Most are pretty obvious. And any shill who doesn't disclose their relationship with the campaign for which they work or volunteer, is a troll. It's like a Venn diagram. Trolls, shills and some are both.

The rest of us are folks arguing at the pub.

[morningfog]

17. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word inane.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. It takes a lot more time to substantively debate the issues, rather than just calling each other

sleepy poopyheads.

[ion_theory]

4. This is the #1 thing that repugs have going for them...

Most, if not all, of their positions can be written on a bumper sticker and require no nuance at all. That is the opposite of how issues should be discussed and is making our country dumber.

[RobertEarl]

3. We should have 2 debates already. Duh!

I am flabbergasted that anyone on DU is posting in support of less debates. That's like eating your shoe before walking in sandspurs.

The reason we have fewer debates is so Hillary can have her coronation with no fuss. Screw that. Make Hillary stand before us and explain herself!

[Bill USA]

9. as it is (with 2 candidates) she'll have 4 hours.

[RobertEarl]

10. I want 50 hours

Why is she hiding? Is she afraid of being on national TV under the Democratic banner?

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Why do you keep repeating this two candidate bullshit? You KNOW there are more than two candidates.

[randome]

14. Few people are in 'favor' of fewer debates. Most of us simply don't care.

Face it, your mind is already made up, isn't it? Most people's are. That's not intended as a sleight, it's just the way things are.

I'd prefer Sanders to Clinton but math says it's going to be Clinton and I'm okay with that. My adherence to Democratic debates will be to read what people say on DU the day after.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[bunnies]

6. Doesnt really fucking matter if no one is going to watch them.

Does it? What genius puts NH's debate the weekend before Christmas?!

[leftofcool]

7. Ya think bernie can get his message across in 72 minutes, after all, it's the same message?

[Thinkingabout]

8. Good point, if the candidate wants to be noticed the DNC planned debates is a good deal.

If the candidates and moderators are wise in talking about policy rather than rift raft then lots of policy and the candidates stand on the issues will be much more productive.

[jfern]

11. Last Republican debate was 3 hours long

And the Democratic debate will have 5 or 6, depending on whether Biden attends.
Also there are about twice as many Republican debates scheduled, and their field narrows.

[Bucky]

13. There are several other candidates

O'Malley, Webb, whatshisname from Rhode Island...

[Koinos]

15. This thread begins with poor math and low information.

Debates will include Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee, and Webb. If Biden enters the race, that will be six, not two.

Another argument for having more debates: Let all the candidates be heard, not just Sanders and Clinton.

[Garrett78]

22. The problem is one of strategy.

I'm far less concerned with the number of debates than with the fact that Democrats didn't have a debate within a day or two of the Republican debates. Debates amount to massive free advertising for the party message, and the Democratic Party lost a golden opportunity to demonstrate the contrast between ideologies, seriousness (please no nonsense about Secret Service code names) and temperament.

Will Rogers was right to say that he didn't belong to an organized (or competent) political party--he was a Democrat.

Is the eventual Democratic nominee doomed? Of course not. But allowing the Republicans to dominate the airwaves and frame the discussion, the Democratic Party is making an easily avoidable mistake.

[ljm2002]

23. There are currently 5 Democratic candidates...

...and all of them deserve a chance to present their ideas to the voters / caucus-goers of the Democratic party -- preferably before the primaries in most of the states.

The scheduling of the debates is laughable, or maybe more accurately, cryable, as they allow the Republicans to frame the issues. And for those who say people aren't interested in debates, then why are the Republican debates scoring 20 million viewers or so? Not having our own debates is helping the GOP.

The real corker is the exclusivity clause that was put in place for the first time ever: none of our candidates can debate in any non-DNC-sanctioned event or they will be excluded from participation in the sanctioned debates.

It is really pretty outrageous. I wish Debbie Wasserman Schultz would change her mind on this, at the very least on the issue of the exclusivity rule. That way we could get our candidates' ideas out there earlier, and we could frame issues from our side rather than ceding all to the Republicans in these early stages.