O'Malley blasts Democratic leaders for rigged 2016 debates

[think]

[Thinkingabout]

1. The debates are over, the primaries are over, the election is over.

[Jim Lane]

19. Does that mean we must not try to improve the process?

The Republicans had many more debates than we did. Furthermore, they really ripped into each other -- the eventual nominee dished out insults freely and was the target for attacks, as well. Maybe, according to Wasserman-Schultz's "limit the debates" theory, that was bad for the GOP, because all that airing of disagreement in public doomed their chances in November.

Let the record show that we had no restrictions on debates in 2007-08, and won. In 2015-16, the DNC imposed a limitation on debates. Our candidate got more votes but it is not immaterial to note that Trump, after mixing it up on-air in many more debates, will become President.

The points O'Malley raises in that clip are perfectly valid.

[Thinkingabout]

21. I see how the extra debates worked out for the GOP, if our debates included more

conversation on more issues than was discussed, you might have a point.

[Jim Lane]

22. I favor more debates but I agree with you that the quality could be improved.

One problem is that the current setup includes several debates, each of which tries to cover the entire gamut of issues. That means that each one is covered very glancingly so the candidates can, to a great extent, get by with prepared short answers.

One possible improvement would be more specialization. With more than 20 debates, as we had in 2007-08, we could have, for example, one just on fiscal policy, one just on energy and environment, etc. (or perhaps even break it down more finely). Candidates would have to present more substance than they do now.

Another problem is that the current debates have accurately been described as joint press conferences rather than real debates. They rely too heavily on questions from journalists. Instead, we might try, for at least some debates, giving the candidates more control. For example, there might be a starting question, each candidate answers it, each candidate then has an opportunity to respond to the others' answers, and perhaps each candidate can then pose questions to his or her opponents.

Despite all my objections, though, I think there was a general consensus that, in this cycle, the Democratic debates were more substantive and more thoughtful than those on the Republican side.

[still_one]

2. I guess that is why Russ Feingold, and every Democrat running for Senate in the

swing state lost against the Establishment Incumbent republican.

Let's re fight the primaries again

[maddiemom]

3. ENOUGH ALREADY!

[think]

4. Indeed!

[Sherman A1]

5. K&R

+1000!

[LenaBaby61]

6. O'Malley blasts Democratic leaders for rigged 2016 debates.

[elleng]

12. So sorry you're bored.

[Plucketeer]

7. Truthache nt

[Fast Walker 52]

8. this is a bullshit post, since we ended up having a LOT of debates in the primary

[think]

9. The debates in 2007 started EARLY. We had 10 debates THEN before the date we had 1st one in 2015

The DNC changed the rule so candidates were forbidden from attending non sanctioned primary debates.

I would hope it's obvious to everyone that it hurts the lesser known candidates and favors the better known candidates if the access to reaching the people is limited.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

Martin O’Malley raises legal questions with Democratic debate plan

~Snip~

“Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate.”

Sandler — O’Malley’s lawyer who served as general counsel to the DNC from 1993 through 2008, first in-house and then through his law firm — also says the party has never used an exclusivity clause in the past.

“Although the DNC announced a schedule of sanctioned debates both in 2004 and 2008, it has never before attempted to require debate sponsors to exclude any recognized candidate as punishment for participating in non-sanctioned debates,” wrote Sandler. All major candidates in 2008, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, participated in unsanctioned debates, he said...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-legal-questions-democratic-debate-plan

[elleng]

11. THANKS, think.

Nothing like FACTS!

[Fast Walker 52]

16. fair enough, but in 2007-2008, the primary was wide open. 2015-2016 was a bit different as Hillary

was the clear choice for the party, and the only opposition early on was O'Malley, who was a light-weight. I understand O'Malley being upset about the debate schedule, but it was not unreasonable for the party to minimize the primary debates to limit damage to the perceived nominee.

[JudyM]

23. "Limiting damage" is exactly the problem when you have a nominee whose vulnerabilities

are front and center. We shouldn't be focused as much on limiting damage as on testing IDEAS. If damage comes from exposing facts, shame on us for trying to hide that, because it was going to come out in the media before the GE anyway!

[Jim Lane]

18. That's false unless you're counting each "forum" as a debate....

which it isn't.

Even if you count a forum, I don't think we had as many as in 2007-08. The important -- and undeniable -- point is that the Republicans got a lot more free air time from debates than we did.

[jalan48]

10. Nothing to see here, no changes necessary for 2020.

[liskddksil]

13. Yep -

Let's just stick our head in the sand and sing kumbaya and wondering why we keep losing.

[Lifelong Protester]

14. I think he's right-Our message did NOT get out.

I know it's all 'over' but the next election is coming.

[rgbecker]

15. Many, right here on the DU, think the "party" should choose the candidate

a few years ahead of the election and then make sure he/she isn't challenged in any way as the election draws near.
They seem to think debates and primaries would be unnecessary and in fact would simply hurt the "Chosen" candidate.

Those with special powers, super delegates, should decide early, and stick with the "chosen one" to the very end regardless of what the Republicans throw up as a candidate and regardless of how the chosen one is received by the public.

I say bullshit.

Just to remind people, our party has done very well running candidates with little prior wide public exposure as Americans continue to seek a Jesus figure that will overturn the money changers' tables and "Drain the swamp" of DC insiders. Note our recent Democratic Presidents: Carter, Clinton and Obama.

[YOHABLO]

17. O'Malley has a right to complain. I think he is a very honorable man; his points are valid.

The DNC needs to find direction and fast. We learn by our mistakes.

[oberliner]

20. He was not good in the debates

I wanted to like him, but he was quite off-putting. Great on paper, though.

[ismnotwasm]

24. Hmmm

Don't exactly agree about the debates--but I'm liking the fire--I would LOVE to see O'Malley come into his own. He had the earliest, and most comprehensive-not to mention achievable platform of ALL the candidates and I say this as an extreme Hillary partisan. I loved her platform--but O'Malley's was all kinds of awesome.