CNN's climate town halls were better than the debates. What was the DNC afraid of?

[applegrove]

CNN's climate town halls were better than the debates. What was the DNC afraid of? 

Several hours of substantive conversation; only one dopey question about light bulbs. More like this, please! 

SOPHIA TESFAYE at Salon 

https://www.salon.com/2019/09/05/cnns-climate-town-halls-were-better-than-the-debates-what-was-the-dnc-afraid-of/ 

"SNIP...... 

As CNN interspersed updates on the damage of Hurricane Dorian throughout the night, all 10 candidates echoed a similar sense of urgency. “We have to act. Now. Now!” former Vice President Joe Biden declared. Otherwise, however, Biden’s appearance at the town hall was less than impressive and often confused. His best moment was perhaps his argument that his experience in building a foreign policy consensus is more important than the specifics of any candidate’s plan.  

“The fact of the matter is that we make up 15 percent of the problem. The rest of the world makes up 80, 85 percent of the problem,” Biden said. If we did everything perfectly — and we must and should in order to get other countries to move — we still have to get the rest of the world to come along and the fact of the matter is we have to up the ante considerably.”

.... 

Yang received pushback from Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate at the town hall calling for complete abstinence from nuclear energy. Sanders called it a “false solution.”  

“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to add more dangerous waste to this country and to the world when we don’t know how to get rid of it right now,” Sanders explained. “I think it is safer and more cost-effective to move to sustainable energies like wind, solar and geothermal.” 



......SNIP"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I don't think they were afraid of anything, except for having to schedule a debate

on every single issue in order to satisfy some group or constituency's demand. I do think the climate change debate was very good, though it wasn't so much a debate as a chance for each candidate to explain their position.

[highplainsdem]

9. Exactly. The DNC knew if they changed the rules for even one single-issue debate, there would be

demands for lots of other single-issue debates, and then they'd be accused of favoritism unless they agreed to all of them.

[Hortensis]

38. This. They have to be candidate debates, can't do an Inslee debate.

Applegrove, Inslee's "ownership" of climate as a campaign issue would have made a climate debate highly unethical, and counterproductive of their purpose.

Definition of Unethical at Dictionary.com: adjective. lacking moral principles; unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct. not in accord with the standards of a profession.

Definition of Counterproductive: thwarting the achievement of an intended goal; tending to defeat one's purpose.

Democratic National Committee: he Democratic National Committee, or DNC, was created during the Democratic National Convention of 1848, and is governed by its Charter and Bylaws. For 171 years, it’s been responsible for governing the Democratic Party and is the oldest continuing party committee in the United States.

The DNC is charged with facilitating the Democratic presidential nominating process, and is more committed than ever to ensuring a fair, even-handed, and inclusive primary. We’ve passed historic reforms to give the grassroots a bigger voice than ever before and to showcase our candidates on an array of media platforms, including 12 Democratic presidential primary debates. This will put our eventual nominee in the strongest position possible to take back the White House in 2020.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

2. Not really a debate if every candidate broadly agrees with each other

Our party takes this subject seriously. Disagreements on some margins of particular plans, but overall none of our candidates are going to put this on the back burner. I thought yesterday was actually a well executed event where everyone got enough time to elaborate. This is not a subject you can limit to 30 second soundbites. Moreover climate change discussions ought to be discussed in an educational manner candidate to audience and audience to candidate, rather than the sporting contest of a debate where it's about knocking someone out.

[W_HAMILTON]

3. It looks like the DNC made the right choice.

A two-hour debate among ten people would have resulted in little substantive dialogue and more cheap shots from low-polling candidates trying to get their moment to shoot up a couple of percentage points in the polls.

This town hall format allowed for candidates to speak at length about climate change and their ideas on how to combat it. It ended up being a MUCH more substantial discussion than a climate change debate would have been.

[NurseJackie]

4. Why assume the DNC is "afraid" of anything?

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. Because not doing (X) because of potential consequences is the textbook definition of "fear".

[NurseJackie]

14. LOL!

Because not doing (X) because of potential consequences is the textbook definition of "fear".

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Thanks!

If you find semantics amusing, you'll love this new book I found:

[NurseJackie]

17. You know perfectly well that the OP is denigrating the DNC with a backhanded insult...

If you find semantics amusing, you'll love this new book I found:

Oh, good grief!

You know perfectly well that the OP is denigrating the DNC with a backhanded insult that implies cowardice. Choosing one format over another is not an indicator of fear or cowardice. Honestly, I must let you know that things like that (smearing our party like that) truly serve no good purpose.

It's entirely possible to applaud the "town hall" format WITHOUT seeing it as an opportunity to take a shit on the DNC or the party as a whole. People may think they're being clever with their attacks (or in defending the attacks with word-play) but they're really causing harm.

Negativity generates apathy.
Apathy discourages voter turnout.
Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. I'm sorry...

...but you seem to have confused our political party for a religious cult.

[LanternWaste]

20. What you may lack in accuracy, your inferences certainly make up for in imagination.

[ehrnst]

23. +1000. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

24. No I haven't. But many people mistakenly and foolishly believe...

you seem to have confused our political party for a religious cult.

No I haven't.

But apparently there are some who "mistakenly" and foolishly believe that the Democratic party is "corrupt" and "feeble" and "no different from the GOP" and that our leaders are "ideologically bankrupt". Of course the Democratic party is NONE of those things. Still, those short-sighted individuals choose to "Blame Democrats First" and shit on the party every chance they get.

They seek to divide and weaken the party. Some openly advocate their desire to "destroy" or take-down the party in the wrongheaded belief that it can be remade in the image of... well... I'll just have to chuckle and LOL when I point out the irony of your "religious cult" comment.

I can only point out again that these types of smears and denigration of the party serve no good purpose. It does nothing to motivate people to join, support or donate or volunteer. It does nothing to encourage people to vote for Democrats. It's just negativity for vanity's sake.

Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[LanternWaste]

19. Much as I "fear" drinking a glass of aged two-penny nails?

I thought that was simply prudence and common sense.

Can then you provide us with the critical and relevant difference between prudence and fear, and which 'textbook' you're citing?

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. I'm curious to understand how one drinks a solid.

You know, as long as we're being pedantic.

Prudence is the quality of being cautious. Cautiousness is care to avoid danger or potential problems. Fear is the anticipation of danger or potential problems. You are cautious not to drink nails because you anticipate drinking nails will produce adverse consequences.

I am citing Act_of_Reparation's Big Book of Common Figures of Speech. Kindle Edition is $9.99 if you're interested.

A kindle is like a book. But there are fewer pages, so you don't get nearly as many papercuts.

[ehrnst]

25. Or "thoughtfulness." Or the opposite of "recklessness." (nt)

[betsuni]

5. What a bad article.

That the DNC voted to not have a climate change debate because it didn't want climate change discussed for some shady diabolical reason. They voted not to change the rules. Not because of the particular topic. And more money spent on primary debates is less available for the general election. But keep on pushing the DNC CTs, Sophia. Because Republicans are the party of environmentalism and industry regulation.

[applegrove]

7. More money spent on debates leaves less for the election? What is the DNC

in your estimation the home and school association? If they wanted a climate debate they could have had one. They may yet it is such an important issue.

[betsuni]

11. "What is the DNC in your estimation the home and school association?"

Don't know what that means. The DNC is some people occasionally meeting to vote on and plan things like the convention. What diabolical rigging power people like Michael Moore think they have I don't know.

More money spent on the primary, less for the general election -- the vital one. Why Democratic primary debates have become such a terrifically important thing from 2016, I don't know. Not that many people watch them.

[ehrnst]

28. A debate isn't a good forum for a complex subject that deserves more than

a minute or two before being interrupted.

A forum or town hall is a much better way to approach this - Oh LOOK!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/05/politics/climate-town-hall-highlights/index.html

[msongs]

6. media wanted a 2 hr freak show run like a circus w/10+ speakers. DNC wisely said no nt

[GeorgeGist]

8. I suspect they're afraid of highlighting climate change as an issue.

[ehrnst]

37. Why? (nt)

[RandiFan1290]

10. Their corporate donors.

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2019, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)

and 1% afraid to pay their fair share

[brooklynite]

12. I'm a donor ($50,000), I', not "corporate" and I agreed with the DNC

IN the last debate, Sanders got 17::45 of speaking time. Explain how that's better than an exclusive hour.

[ehrnst]

29. I don't suppose you have any actual evidence to back up this claim?

Other than you heard tell from Goody Proctor that she spied them eating canapes...

[George II]

34. um.....

?itemid=13441444

[NurseJackie]

31. More smearing, denigrating and shitting on Democrats...

More smearing, denigrating and shitting on Democrats and the Democratic party... what good purpose does that serve? It only divides and weakens us. It creates distrust and resentment. A weakened Democratic party only benefits Trump and the GOP and Russia.

Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[George II]

35. It also drived undecided voters away from the candidate supported by those...

...who make such negative comments.

[LiberalLovinLug]

36. Yup, sure seems like it.

The old DLC has evolved into the DNC.

And if its not that, why even open yourself up to that kind of speculation? To not only not allow it, but threaten to punish any candidate that does participate one? That is whack

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/25/20832300/dnc-climate-change-debate-virtual-caucus-iowa-nevada-hack-democratic-national-committee

Members of the DNC voted 222-137 against allowing Democratic presidential candidates to participate in a third-party debate focused solely on climate change without facing sanctions from party brass. Currently, the DNC closely regulates how and when candidates can debate, and the vote gave it a mandate to continue doing so.

Had the vote gone the other way, candidates would have been allowed “to participate in multi-candidate issue-specific forums with the candidates appearing on the same stage, engaging one another in discussion.” This would have set the debate stage for the #ClimateDebate that environmental groups, notably the youth-led Sunrise Movement, had been advocating for — and that 15 candidates said they would be willing to participate in.

Top DNC officials, including Chair Tom Perez, were opposed to the resolution.


"DNC chief Tom Perez opposed the climate debate and doesn’t think it benefits the Democrats to hold any single-issue debates."

Yes, lets have more of the 45 second answers to important issues.

Even though all top candidates WANTED it all along. Even "establishment" Biden. O'Rourke tweeted:

This decision is as baffling as it is alarming. Our planet is burning— the least we can do as a party is debate what to do about it.

Democrats worst enemies are themselves sometimes.

[dsc]

16. Single issue debates are a manifestly bad idea

Yes, Climate change is important to many of our voters and for good reason. But so is voting rights, so is reproductive freedom, so are LGBT issues, so is economic inequality and on and on. We can't have 200 debates.

[still_one]

26. They weren't afraid of anything The debate format is NOT the best forum for a SINGLE ISSUE TOPIC.

Not adequate time given for the candidates to respond in a debate format, and fully address things. Also, the candidates get more time to respond to individuals then self-appointed moderators perhaps looking for "gotchas", instead of trying to understand where the candidates are coming from

The town-hall is the ideal format for single issue discussions

[pangaia]

27. I wish CNN would have such an event on fascism and the republican party

[floppyboo]

30. Here's an interview with a DNC representative explaining why.

question asked at 5:20

&list=PLLri3HDD8DQvfyJMda80BbLjSeg8TnrXS&index=22

[dlk]

32. This Was a Way to Have Another Broadcast of Democratic Candidates Devoted to Climate Change

The DNC also avoided pressure to have other single issue debates, a win-win, if you think about it. Climate change was spotlighted and dissension avoided, dissension over who was onstage and dissension over other single issue debates. Onward with the campaign.

[MarcA]

33. These Presentations/Symposiums on varied topics are a good idea.

Certainly better than the farcical sound bite shows called "debates".