"the pressure to expand the number of single-issue debates would be intense and continuous"

[highplainsdem]

Thanks to Demsrule86 for posting elsewhere about this July column from Jonathan Chait, concisely explaining why the DNC has not agreed to a single-issue debate on climate:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/climate-debate-democrats-2020-terrible-idea.html

The case for a climate debate is simple: Climate change poses a planetary emergency, and candidates have given the issue too little attention in their campaigns in general, and at the first debate in particular, in proportion to its significance. The problem with this case is that it fails to anticipate what happens next.

A singular climate debate only serves its purpose if every faction within the Democratic Party agrees that climate change uniquely merits a dedicated debate. But progressive activists are unlikely to accept this. The nature of the party is that it is divided into activist nodes organized around singular issues or groups. What happens when activists request a debate on racism? Inequality? Health care? Gun violence? Voting rights? Abortion rights? Immigration?

Once Democrats have broken the seal, the pressure to expand the number of single-issue debates would be intense and continuous. Saying no to any particular cause after having already agreed to elevating another cause would be untenable. Can you really imagine the party standing behind the position that racism is not important enough to merit its own debate, but climate change is? I cannot. The endpoint would be a proliferation of single-issue debates that negates the entire point of elevating climate change to begin with.

There are ways to elevate the profile of climate change as an issue within the campaign. Rather than treating the mere 15 minutes of climate discussion in the first round as a failure, proving the futility of the general-issue debate format, activists might consider it a starting point from which they could lobby for more. The demand for a singular climate debate is a demand that, if accepted, nearly everybody in the Democratic Party would come to regret.

Emphasis added.

[redstateblues]

1. Single issue debates might rack up the lowest ratings in TV history

Frankly I would wait for the synopsis.

[highplainsdem]

3. Good point.

[pnwmom]

15. Young people, our greatest weakness, have an INTENSE interest in climate change.

We are STUPID to miss the opportunity to demonstrate we prioritize this issue as they do.

[Demsrule86]

20. My young person has not watched a single debate and wouldn't watch a climate debate either.

Student debt is of far greater interest to her...and you are going to say no when activist for reducing college costs and student debt demand their one issue debate? This would pit our various activist organizations against one another and cause hurt feelings and havoc. We don't need that. The only other thing a climate debate would do is provide gotcha questions from the so called moderators which would be used in attack ads against Democrats during the general. Climate combined with green jobs for the Mid West would be a great campaign strategy...but no to single issue debates of any sort.

[pnwmom]

47. Gov. Inslee's plan -- which he offers to anyone or everyone -- connects education and jobs with

climate change measures.

And even though your young person doesn't care about climate change, multiple studies have shown that that is the top issue on the minds of young voters.

[Demsrule86]

52. I didn't say she doesn't care...I said she is not most interested in that issue...and would not

watch such a debate. I think young voters pay lip service to this issue but have shown no real willingness to vote on this issue or any issue. They are far more likely to pay attention to the issue of student debt. My daughters and son hate Trump. They live in the mid west like me and are supporting Biden as they think he can win. Trump must go. The kids and I ( and Dad)...will vote blue no matter who though.

[still_one]

34. ThThs was voted on by the DNC 17-7 against single issue debates. The best forum for single issue

discussions is the townhall forum, where questions are asked by real people, and candidates can take their time to present their views, instead of network panelists trying to spur gotcha ayes times no trying to get the candidates to fight among themselves with limited time

What you are presenting is a view from one segment of the Democratic Party, and as of right now that isn’t the majority view to have single issue debates

For example, one candidate has proposed a 13 trillion dollar new green deal. How could that be fully explained in a debate format with over 15 candidates want their time, and at the same time the opportunity why one plan is feasible or not?

[MustLoveBeagles]

2. K&R

[betsuni]

4. I only watched a little of the debates, only really watch the general election ones.

I much prefer town halls. Ridiculous how this is being spun as the DNC conspiring to stop climate change discussion because of Joe Biden.

[Cha]

54. Yes, "ridiculous" but it's

all they have.

[jcgoldie]

5. bullshit

The point of the single issue debate on climate is that it is a singularly important issue. Ignore climate change and no other issue matters. It is not one of a myriad of political issues. It is singular in its importance in the sense that it is more important than any other focus at this point in history. Saying "weeell if we let them talk only about climate change then everyone else will have their pet emphasis" misses the point entirely and is entirely the problem.

[highplainsdem]

6. Whether or not you think it's bullshit, other Dems are already saying we need to have other single-

issue debates if there's a climate debate.

See this thread, what the San Jose Mercury article says about today's DNC committee meeting:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287250472

Chait was exactly right about what would happen.

[jcgoldie]

7. Does that point have something to do with validity of having a climate debate?

[Demsrule86]

26. Yes, it does. It is a compelling argument against a climate debate. There are other arguments to be

made against such a debate...many are posted here.

[jcgoldie]

27. No it is not.

.

[Demsrule86]

28. well everyone has an opinion...we can agree to disagree.

[jcgoldie]

30. You disagree that the fate of the planet itself takes precedence over other issues?

That's an odd opinion.

[pnwmom]

16. They are wrong. The survival of human life on the planet is at stake, and we have only 10 years

to take major steps to begin to turn this around.

No other issue has this kind of urgency.

[Demsrule86]

25. Then we are fucked because it will take longer than 10 years...and if we don't get the senate even

if we win the presidency there is little to be done with a GOP Senate and a right wing SCOTUS during the next two years maybe four ( not many administrations win the Senate in a first or second mid- term)...assuming we keep the house.

[Demsrule86]

21. You can't speak for everyone...I would bet the farm that there are millions who prioritize

different isses...just look at all the activist organizations.

[jcgoldie]

29. Al Gore's balance scale

Whenever people bring up this misguided comparison between addressing climate change and other issues regardless of how serious they may be I am reminded of Al Gore's balance scale graphic... "On this side gold bars... mmm don't they look good... and on the other side THE ENTIRE PLANET!"

[Demsrule86]

31. Again,you can't speak for everyone...climate change debates are a landmine for us...first of all but

I oppose any single issue debate. And frankly I haven't had much use for Gore since he sold Current...Our only progressive channel devoted to our message. If he wanted to push climate change and he should of course among other issues... maybe he shouldn't have sold it. He is deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party. Well frankly, he is a great disappointment to me. What has he done exactly to help? I respect his service as Senator and VP...and will always be heartbroken that Bush stole the election but...I accept no criticism from him as to our party which it seems to me he has abandoned in many ways. I always thought he was honorable and all...that hasn't changed of course.

[jcgoldie]

32. I'm not speaking for everyone

I'm arguing your opinion is invalid. It has nothing to do with whether you like Al Gore or what he is "pushing" as you phrased it.

[Demsrule86]

35. An opinion is just that...what you think...I am against single issue debates and have

provided you valid reason...so we can agree to disagree.

[jcgoldie]

37. Cant agree on that if your opinion is based on unsound reasoning

Namely on the nonsensical premise that any other issue has similar ethical weight to the destruction of the planet in an ever shrinking window of time.

Thats the point of the argument. Oh well have a nice day.

[Demsrule86]

38. That is insulting...I have not made disparaging statements about you opinions or

how your reach said opinions...have a nice day.

[crazytown]

8. Single issue debates have to potential to educate

audiences about the issue, and in greater depth, than the ping pong of issues in gotcha debates. The point would be to leave viewers with a greater understanding of the issue as a whole, rather than a just pinch of moments and sound bytes. Yes, it would still bring out differences between the candidates, but also the commonality of approach and importance of that issue to the Democratic Party.

[Demsrule86]

22. They also have the potential to generate attack ads and divide the electorate...no to single issue

debates. The DNC is correct.

[crazytown]

9. "the pressure to expand"

is the slippery slope argument.

[Cha]

10. KR!

Thank you, !

[SaschaHM]

11. Single issue debates accomplish next to nothing when the intraparty disparity is small and the...

disparity between parties is large.

We don't need 2 hours to argue about whether a shirt is dark green or a slightly darker green when the other party is claiming that the shirt is yellow. Relegate is to 15 minutes in a debate covering other issues.

This is what Townhalls and forums are for.

That and does anyone really think a political debate is going to educate anyone on an issue? First of all, the people that need to be educated the most are going to skip the single issue debate. They didn't give the topic much attention beforehand. They're not going to now. Second of all, gotcha questions, canned slogans, the names of bills, prepared speeches, and political one-upmanship doesn't seem like it will be conducive to teaching at all. You're not going to get nuanced discussions.

[thesquanderer]

19. Bingo. Such a debate only preaches to the converted.

People who don't give climate change much thought are not going to tune in. Heck, even many of us who care about it don't particularly want to hear 2 hours of candidates talking about it. If you are SO focussed on this that you want to know the details of one candidate's plans versus another's, go to their web sites.

I think we know that any Dem who gets in is going to address climate change, and will probably get input from proponents of all plans. Single issue debates among candidates who are going to have a generally similar view on that issue are a waste of time and resources.

[wasupaloopa]

12. Nothing good can come from the top 4 trying to

out climate change each other. They all agree that there is man made climate change. Nothing they say will become reality, it would be a ridiculous food fight.

Only a Dem Congress can do anything about it. A president can only speak from the pulpit and no Dem president would speak against climate change legislation.

A single issue debate with Repubs running for Congress could be useful.

[pnwmom]

17. They DON'T all agree on the measures that need to be taken. They all pay lip service, yes.

We need specifics.

[Demsrule86]

23. The solutions will likely come from Congress if we take the Senate...and why do we need a

debate when you clearly have made up your mind who pays lip service and who doesn't...just another plan to trip up Biden thwarted?

[pnwmom]

40. We need a debate to see who really UNDERSTANDS and PRIOTIZES the issues. Why do you think Biden,

specifically, will get tripped up or thwarted?

So is that the reason we're not having a climate change debate, in your opinion? To protect Biden?

[wasupaloopa]

39. So what Presidents don't make law. It's no different

then you and disagreeing. It really doesn’t matter.

Congress is where we should look for ideas!

[pnwmom]

41. Presidential nominees debate issues with the other candidate. We need someone who will do

the best job being the standard bearer for our party.

Presidents also send proposals for legislation to Congress. Our best chance for passing strong climate change legislation is to have a President who does more than just sign it.

Obamacare wouldn't have become law without Obama's strong leadership.

[JI7]

13. my problem with the whole thing is the debates are mostly a joke

with the way they are conducting them.

i can just see the hosts asking questions like "are you ok putting x employees out of work if it means cutting down on .........................."

do you supporting banning meat ?

"do you want to ban cars?

and on and on

[peggysue2]

14. The DNC made the right call on this one

Chait makes a reasonable argument about the floodgate of single issues opening, demanding equal time. Personally, I hadn't even considered that angle. But I could easily imagine those demands being made. When Symone Sanders mentioned 'danger' in a single issue debate, she was likely referencing the cross-purposes of competitive issues. You'd end up with a chaotic mess.

Personally, I don't believe a debate stage is the right format for Climate Change, not if we really want a discussion about the science and various programs/policies to mitigate the effects. There's no debate within the Democratic Party about the existence of Climate Change or its devastating effects in the now or the near future.

Which makes winning in 2020 a life or death proposition.

As far as educating the public? That would be better done in a public forum or townhall approach where adequate time was given to provide information and discuss mapping the paths forward. In addition, our next Democratic President will have the power of the Bully Pulpit to bring the public up to speed and underscore the urgency.

But first we need to win.

[betsuni]

18. Also, debates cost money and that's less money for the general election.

[Demsrule86]

24. That is an important point...the general is where the bulk of the money needs to be spent to throw

out the stinking piece of excrement squatting in the People's House.

[pnwmom]

42. There are already 12 debates scheduled. With so many debates this time around

why couldn't one have been devoted to the measures that must be taken in the next ten years to assure the survival of human life on the planet?

[Demsrule86]

49. Why can't those issues be addressed during any debate...although, I think debates are the wrong

forum for such a discussion and won't sway anyone who is not already on board...and might create sound bytes that will be used against us in a general.

[pnwmom]

51. Because the issue is too complicated and important to get chopped up and spread out over 12 debates.

It's funny that some of the same people who advocate for that ALSO argue that it's too complicated, so it needs to be in a Town Hall (where it's not debated at all.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. I thought Joe Biden was in for a Climate Debate?

[Demsrule86]

36. His surrogate was acting as a DNC member...nothing to do with the campaign...it is in the articles.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. You are saying she was going against her boss's wishes in the middle of a primary?

Please.

[Demsrule86]

46. Yes...she was wearing a different hat...she is a member of the DNC. Biden said he would be willing

to participate in such a debate. He has a good plan too...so this is just another attempt to take down the most electable candidate and won't work. Also, I don't think single issue debates are a good idea. She is right.

[pnwmom]

44. Some of his supporters seem to be afraid he won't do well in one. n/t

[Demsrule86]

45. Some see this as just another attempt to attack Biden and won't fall for it. After the last debate..

I think there are other candidates who would be tripped up on this...Biden has a good plan.

[pnwmom]

48. If he has a good plan then he should be able to champion it, just as he will have to

in any debate against Trump.

[Demsrule86]

50. Thank you for your post...and the shout out... I thought the explanation for not having a

one issue debate was compelling.

[LonePirate]

53. How many of those other single issues threaten to destroy the planet and all of the human species?

Chait is offering false equivalence bullshit and it suggests (proves?) the DNC does not give a damn about climate change.