Lack of Democratic debates intentional.
BY FRANK BRUNI
New York Times
The Republican presidential candidates have demonstrated such an appetite for debates that if I set up nine lecterns in my living room on a weeknight around 8 p.m. and chanted carpet bomb and anchor baby, theyd probably materialize en masse, even before I had time to vacuum and put out the artichoke dip.
But I could send save-the-date cards, promise canapés by Mario Batali and recruit Adele to belt out Hello whenever the doorbell rang: Still the Democrats wouldnt show up.
For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trumps hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet.
Tuesday nights meeting of Republicans was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third.
And whos going to watch it? Its on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind.
The previous meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than 9 million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each.
In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate averaged 18 million viewers.
The Republican events certainly have seductions that the Democratic ones dont. But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didnt upset their plans or complicate things.
Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O'Malley cried foul. So did a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over.
But we shouldnt be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy. Shouldnt it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldnt it connect them with the largest audience that it can?
Im surprised that I havent heard more griping about this. What Ive heard instead is the concern that if Clinton indeed gets the nomination, she'll enter the general election less battle-tested than shed be if she were facing stiffer primary competition and enduring a greater number of higher-stakes debates.
A politician whos been through Whitewater, Travelgate, impeachment, an emotional 2008 campaign against Barack Obama and several Benghazi inquisitions doesnt strike me as someone who needs more battle experience.
The real danger for her is that shes become all armor.
And a real vulnerability is that shes seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus too distant from everyday Americans.
Thats one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton cant afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules dont apply to her.
And the Democratic Party cant pretend that its done the right thing here. While these debates arent as high-minded as wed wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, theyre an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates. They deserve priority and prominence. Artichoke dip optional.'
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article50116120.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)party. In theory, attendance is optional, but I don't recommend missing it.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)at a large Christmas display with my wife and friends.
merrily
(45,251 posts)debates.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Jarqui
(10,125 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Hillary won the first two let's do it more often.
We could maybe put this thing to bed sooner rather than later
I can't wait until Bernie tries to mimic the Benghazi hearing inquisitors.
merrily
(45,251 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)And since when is discussing issues during Presidential primary debates an "attack?" What are you going to do next, call him a hater?
Your claim that he is going to mimic Republican on Benghazi is ludicrous, given how classy he was about her emails. Calling a plan to raise policy issues is also ludicrous.
Good grief. This is a primary race for the Presidency and she was Secretary of State. What do you think he should raise with her? Their respective hair dos?
Poster, please: Drop the false equivalency and the victim language.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)I'm with you. Bring 'em on!
sonofspy777
(360 posts)I've found, continue to be delusional about who they think won the debates.